3 parties to the case and shall invite them to submit any written comments they deem relevant, within a time limit established by the President. 3. When considering a request for interpretation, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which the interpretation is being sought. However, in the event of death, resignation or disqualification, the judge in question shall be replaced pursuant to Article 16 of these Rules. 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. 7. Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 8. The Court has verified that the representatives presented the request for interpretation within the term established by Article 67 of the Convention, since the Judgment was notified to the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives on December 20, 2006. 9. On the other hand, as had been previously stated by this Tribunal,3 the request for interpretation of a judgment may not be used as a means of appeal, instead 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 lack 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. 10. 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, the Court will analyze separately the three situations presented in the same, as well as the relevant observations made by the Commission and the State. Likewise, in each of the matters any matter of admissibility will be analyzed, if necessary. IV SITUATION OF MRS. MARCIA CLAUDINA MARIÑOS FIGUEROA 11. The representatives argued that Mrs. Marcia Claudina Mariños Figueroa was identified in the Judgment as the sister of Mr. Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa, who was also declared a victim of the violation of his rights to humane treatment and to a fair trial and judicial protection and that in operative paragraph number 17 she is appointed as beneficiary of a compensation for non-pecuniary damage. However, the representatives argued that said person is not mentioned in the Judgment in the chapter on Reparations, in the section on Beneficiaries, when they mention the next of kin of Mr. Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa entitled to reparations, nor is she mentioned in the section on non-pecuniary 3 Cfr. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 159, para. 13, and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 27.