7. The Court notes that the State submitted its request for interpretation of the judgment within the period of ninety days established in Article 67 of the Convention. Since the State was notified of the judgment on December 10, 2021, and the request for interpretation was submitted on March 8, 2022, the request is admissible so far as the time frame for submission is concerned. The Inter-American Court will consider the merits of the request with regard to the other requirements in the next chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 8. The Court will examine the State’s request to determine whether, based on the regulations and the standards developed in its case law, it is admissible to clarify the meaning or scope of any provision of the judgment. 9. The Court has indicated that the request or petition for interpretation of a judgment may not be used as a means of challenging it, but must be made for the sole purpose of working out the meaning of the decision when one of the parties maintains that the text of its operative paragraphs or its consideranda is unclear or imprecise, provided those consideranda affect that operative paragraph. Hence, a request for interpretation may not be used to seek amendment or nullification or the judgment in question.2 10. The Court has also has upheld the inadmissibility of using a request for interpretation to submit considerations on matters of fact and law already raised at the proper procedural time and on which the Court has already adopted a decision,3 nor to seek that the Court again assess matters already decided in the judgment.4 Furthermore, this avenue cannot be used to attempt to broaden the scope of a reparation measure ordered in a timely manner.5 A. The State’s request for interpretation with regard to the reinstatement of judges and the possibility of appealing decisions, and the adaptation of the legal system ordered by the Court to guarantee non-repetition A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 11. The State asked the Court to interpret paragraphs 204 and 206, and operative paragraph 10, of the judgment issued in the present case. Specifically, it asked the Court to clarify and further explain the ruling contained in paragraph 206 of the judgment. The State also raised the two points described below. 12. The first concerns the adaptation of the State’s domestic legal system to the provisions of the Convention with regard to: (i) the reinstatement of the non-ratified judges Cf. 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, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 433, para. 10. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 4 Cf. Caso Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 5 Cf. Caso Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 2 3