7. The Court notes that the parties were notified of the judgment on January 31, 2023, and that the State submitted its request for interpretation on February 20 of the same year, within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention. Therefore, the request for interpretation is admissible as regards its timeliness. With respect to the other requirements, this Court will consider the merits of the request in the following chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 8. The Court will examine the State’s request for interpretation to determine whether, based on the rules and 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 a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used as a means to challenge a decision whose interpretation is required. The purpose of such a request is exclusively to determine the meaning of a ruling when one of the parties maintains that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations is unclear or imprecise, provided that such considerations affect said operative paragraphs. Hence, a request for interpretation may not be used to seek the amendment or annulment of the judgment in question. 3 10. The Court has also held that it is inadmissible to use 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, 4 or to seek that the Court again assess matters already decided in the judgment. 5 Furthermore, this proceeding cannot be used to attempt to broaden the scope of a reparation measure ordered in a timely manner. 6 1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 11. The State requested the “rectification of an error in the calculation of the amount of money awarded as compensation for pecuniary damage.” In this regard, it indicated that in determining the amount established in the judgment, the Court “considered all the salaries received by Mr. Nissen Pessolani from the public sector during the period indicated, based on the information contained in a report […] issued by the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Civil Service Secretariat,” dated September 20, 2021. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of judgment on merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 480, para. 10. 4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of judgment on reparations and costs, supra, para. 15, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations, supra, para. 11. 5 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30 and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations, supra, para. 11. 6 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of judgment on preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations, supra, para. 11. 3