5 15. This Court has also indicated that an appeal for review is admissible in exceptional cases, when a fact that has come to light after the judgment has been delivered affects the contents of the decision, or reveals a substantial defect in it.9 In the case sub judice, there is no reference to a relevant subsequent fact that substantially modifies the ruling of the Court; to the contrary, the request for review is based on invoking various pieces of evidence that, as stated in the judgment,10 the State did not submit to the consideration of the Court until the public hearing of March 6 and 7, 2003, even though the State had known about these facts since July 1992. The State had the procedural opportunity to refer to this issue during the written stage, on January 11, 2002, in its answer to the application,11 but did not do so. 16. The Court also observes that the State requests information on the requirements that must be met when submitting a petition to the Commission under Article 46(1)d) of the Convention. In this regard, it is worth noting that the State did not invoke that point before the Court for its consideration at the proper moment, which would have been at the preliminary objections stage; consequently, it cannot expect, the Court to examine a matter that was not invoked at the proper time, using a request for interpretation. In view of the above, and as indicated in the previous paragraph, the Court rejects, as inadmissible, the request for interpretation submitted by the State concerning the admissibility of the petition submitted to the Commission. 17. Even though the terms of the request for interpretation are not adjusted to the provisions of Article 67 of the Convention and Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decides to examine the following elements indicated by the State in order to clarify their meaning and scope: composition of the Court, assessment of the evidence and proven facts, and reparations. * * * 18. Before examining the arguments of the parties, the Court rejects the terms used by the State’s agent, Sergio Zavala Leiva, in his request for interpretation, which were inappropriate, unnecessary and contrary to the language that should be used in an international litigation and, consequently, before an organ of the interAmerican system for the protection of human rights, whether it be the Commission or the Court. Accordingly, as it has on previous occasions in other cases,12 the Court 9 Cf., Genie Lacayo case. Request for review of the judgment of January 29, 1997. Order of the Court of September 13, 1997. Series C No. 45, paras. 10-12. 10 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez case. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, paras. 37, 39, 45, 46, 50 and 56. 11 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 16. Cf., inter alia, Blake case. Order of the President of the Court of January 30, 1996, Sistematización de las Resoluciones Procesales de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos HumanosCompendio: agosto 1986-Junio 2001. Series F, No. 1, Tome II, pp. 607 and 608; and Loayza Tamayo case. Letter of the President, Ref.: CDH-11(1)54/352 of April 16, 1997, Sistematización de las Resoluciones Procesales de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos-Compendio: agosto 1986-Junio 2001. Series F, No. 1, Tome II, p. 609. 12