4 procedural in nature, shall be appealed before the full Court. In practice, even though no express reference is made to these principles, they have been used for the Court to modify orders that had been adopted by the President, such as those relating to public hearings and the respective summons, because the parties have appealed against the order of the President,3 because one of the parties has objected to some of the points in the summons,4 because of objections when one of the parties has supervening information about impediments concerning the judge ad hoc,5 because of simple observations by the parties,6 such as when a witness is unable to appear to give testimony; or, even de officio,7 owing inter alia to the programming of the Court’s activities. 13. In the instant case, the State’s requests refer to interpretation and review of the judgment based on Article 67 of the American Convention and Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, “because the State is in total disagreement with the meaning and scope of the judgment” and because “the judgments that this [...] Court should deliver, must be reasoned” (supra 3). 14. As indicated by several international courts, the task of interpretation that corresponds to an international court entails the clarification of a text, not only as regards the decisions in the operative paragraphs, but also as regards determining the scope, meaning and purpose of its considerations. As this Court has indicated, the request for interpretation of a judgment: should not be used as a means to appeal but rather it should have as its only purpose to clarify the meaning of a ruling when one of the parties maintains that the text in its operative parts or in its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that such considerations have a bearing on the operative parts and, therefore, modification or annulment of the respective judgment cannot be petitioned through a request for interpretation.8 3 Cf., Paniagua Morales et al. case. Order of the Court of November 14, 1997; Paniagua Morales et al. case. Order of the Court of September 23, 1997; Blake case. Order of the Court of January 28, 1996; and Cayara case. Order of the Court of January 30, 1993. 4 Cf., Baena Ricardo et al. case. Order of the Court of January 24, 2000; Bámaca Velásquez case. Order of the Court of August 29, 1998; and Genie Lacayo case. Order of the Court of November 28, 1995. 5 Cf., The case of the 19 Tradesmen. Order of the Court of September 8, 2003. 6 Cf., Las Palmeras case. Order of the Court of May 28, 2001; the “La Nación” newspaper case. Provisional measures. Order of the Court of May 21, 2001; Case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic. Provisional measures. Order of the Court of August 7, 2000; Baena Ricardo et al. case. Order of the Court of January 25, 2000; Olmedo Bustos et al. case. Order of the Court of November 9, 1999; Bámaca Velásquez case. Orders of the Court of September 1, 1998 and June 16, 1998; and Fairén Garbí and Solís Corrales case. Order of the Court of September 28, 1987. 7 Cf., Case of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó. Provisional measures. Order of the Court of November 13, 2000. 8 Cesti Hurtado case. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 2001. Series C No. 86, para. 31; similarly, Ivcher Bronstein case. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 4, 2001. Series C No. 84, para. 19; Suárez Rosero case. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 29, 1999. Series C No. 51, para. 20; Loayza Tamayo case. Request for interpretation of the judgment of September 17, 1997. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, paras. 16 and 18; Eur. Court H.R., Hentrich v. France, (interpretation), Judgment of 3 July 1997), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV, para. 16; Eur. Court H.R., Allenet de Ribemont v. France, (interpretation), judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, paras. 17 and 23; and Eur. Court H. R., Ringeisen v. Austria, (interpretation), Judgment of 23 June 1973, Series A, Vol. 16, para 13.