[…] 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. 8. Additionally, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that "[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way." 9. The Court notes that the representatives submitted their request for interpretation of the judgment of March 14, 2019 within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention, since the judgement was notified on December 20, 2018 by email. Therefore, the request for interpretation is admissible as regards its timeliness. Regarding the other requirements, the Court will analyze them when examining the merits of the interpretation request in the following chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 10. This Court will analyze the State's request to determine whether, in accordance with the rules and standards developed in its case law, it is appropriate to clarify the meaning or scope of any point of the judgment. 11. In order to examine the representatives’ request for interpretation, the Court considers its jurisprudence, based in the relevant regulations, whereby it has been has indicated that a request for interpretation of a judgment cannot be used as a means of challenging the decision for which an interpretation has been requested. A request for interpretation must have the sole purpose of determining the meaning of the decision when one of the parties asserts that the text of its operative paragraphs or of its reasonings are unclear or imprecise, provided those reasonings affect the operative part of the judgment. 2 Hence, according to Artcile 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure, a request for interpretation may not be used to seek an amendment or nullification of the judgment in question.3 12. In this manner, the Court will consider the request regarding the scope of the measures of reparation granted related to the operative paragraphs 10 and 16 of the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs issued in this case. A. Regarding the scope and obligations related to the determination of the whereabouts of Nitza Paola, José Ángel y Rocío Irene Alvarado A.1. 13. Arguments of the parties and the Commission The representatives indicated that operative paragraph 104 of the judgment Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment of merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 389., para. 10. 2 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment of merits, supra para. 16, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 10. 3 Operative paragraph 10: The State shall conduct, as soon as possible, a rigorous and systematic search using the appropriate human, technical and financial resources, during which it makes every effort to 4 3