and must be promptly complied with by the State in good faith and in full form.3 Likewise, article 31(3) of the Rules of procedure establishes that "[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way." Consequently, any appeal against the judgment is inadmissible. 13. Moreover, the Court considers it appropriate to note that the State exercised its right to defense and adversarial proceedings throughout the process, and its arguments were analyzed in a timely manner. The State now asks this Court to re-examine questions of fact and law that were already addressed and resolved in the judgment. In doing so, the State is asking for a review of evidence and arguments on which this Court has already decided, which is contrary to the final and unappealable nature of the Court's judgments. 14. Based on the foregoing, this Court considers that the State's request is inadmissible under Articles 67 of the Convention and 31(3) of the Rules of procedure. B. Request for interpretation of operative paragraphs seven and nine of the judgment 15. The Court notes that the State submitted its subsidiary request for interpretation within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention, since the parties and the Commission received notification of the judgment on December 14, 2020. The request on these points is therefore admissible in terms of the timetable for submission. The Court will discuss the other requirements in its examination of the content of the motion in the following chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE MOTION FOR INTERPRETATION 16. This Court will analyze the State's request for interpretation to determine whether, in accordance with the regulations and standards developed in its case law, it is appropriate to clarify the meaning or scope of the points of the judgment requested. 17. The Court has indicated that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used as a means of challenging the decision on which interpretation has been requested. It 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 of the judgment in question.4 18. The Court has also indicated that it is inadmissible to use a request for interpretation to submit considerations on factual and legal matters that have already been submitted at the proper procedural moment and on which the Court has already taken a decision,5 or to expect the Court Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated March 20, 2013, whereas clauses 61 and 68, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights dated April 30, 2021, whereas clause eight. 3 4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment of merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, y Case of the Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment dated November 24, 2020. Series C No. 420, para. 9. 5 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment dated June 03, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15, y Case of Indigenous Communities of Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 10. 4