the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested. […] 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment. 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment. 23. Finally, Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 24. The Court has verified that both the State and the representatives presented their request for interpretation of the judgment within the term established in Article 67 of the Convention, since they were presented on the 16 th and 20th days of March 2007, respectively, and the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs was notified to the parties on December 20, 2006. 25. As had been previously stated by this Tribunal in its constant and invariable jurisprudence clearly based on the applicable jurisdiction, the request for interpretation of a judgment may not be used as a means of appeal of the ruling whose interpretation is being requested. Its exclusive objective is to clarify the sense of a judgment when any of the parties holds that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, as long as these considerations affect said operative paragraphs. Therefore, the modification or annulment of the corresponding judgment may not be asked for through a request for interpretation.5 26. Consequently, the Court has established that the request for interpretation of the judgment cannot refer to and decide on matters of fact and law that were already presented at the correct procedural moment and with regard to which the Tribunal adopted a final decision.6 27. To analyze the validity of the requests for interpretation presented by the State and the representatives and, in its case, clarify the sense or scope of the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of November 25, 2006, the Court will analyze, first the Cfr. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits. Judgment of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2008. Series C No. 176, para. 10, and Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 5, 2008 Series C No. 178, para. 10. 5 Cfr. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations. Judgment June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Interpretation the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 5, para. 11; and Case La Cantuta v. Perú. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment November 30, 2007. Series C No. 173, para. 32. 6 7 of of of of