-83. 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, impediment, excuse 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. 12. Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure provides: Judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way. 13. The Court notes that the State submitted the request for interpretation on October 4, 2005, within the period established in Article 67 of the Convention (supra para. 4). 14. As the Tribunal has pointed out on previous occasions,2 a request for interpretation should not be used as a means of appealing the judgment. Rather, the sole purpose of such a request should be to clarify the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties maintains that the judgment lacks precision or clarity in any of its relevant parts. Consequently, a request that solicits the modification or the reversal of the judgment is impermissible. 15. In addition, the Court has established that the request for interpretation of a judgment may not resubmit issues of fact and law that were already raised during an earlier stage of the proceedings, and with regard to which the Tribunal has already adopted a decision.3 16. Having analyzed the State’s request that the Court provide an interpretation of its judgment, and the relevant observations submitted by the Commission and the representatives, the Tribunal considers that most of the arguments advanced by the State constitute an attempt to resubmit issues of fact and law that were already decided by this Court in the chapters on admissibility, merits, or reparations of said judgment. Rather than expressing a lack of precision or clarity in the meaning or scope of the judgment, the State’s arguments merely express its disagreement with certain aspects of that judgment, or with certain Rules or procedures of this Court. 2 Cfr. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Request for Interpretation of the Sentence on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 9, 2005. Series C No. 131, para. 14; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 128, para. 12, and Case of Juan Humberto Sanchez. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 14. 3 Cfr. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Request for Interpretation of the Sentence on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, para. 15; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 2, para. 11, and Case of Juan Humberto Sanchez. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations, supra note 2, para. 40.