corresponding analysis in the next chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 8. This Court will now examine the representatives’ request to determine whether, in accordance with the law and the standards developed in its case law, it is admissible to clarify the meaning or scope of any point of the judgment. 9. The Court has found that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used to challenge a decision whose interpretation is being requested. The exclusive purpose of such a request is to determine the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties finds that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations are unclear or imprecise, as long as these considerations have an impact on the operative paragraphs. Therefore, the modification or annulment of the judgment cannot be sought through a request for interpretation. 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 that were already raised at the proper procedural moment and regarding which the Court has already issued a decision, 4 or to ask the Court to reassess matters that it has already ruled on in its judgment. 5 This proceeding can also not be used to broaden the scope of a measure of reparation ordered at the proper procedural moment. 6 11. Hereinafter, the Inter-American Court will examine (A) the request for interpretation of the meaning and scope of the obligation to investigate. A. Request for interpretation of the obligation to investigate A.1. Arguments of the parties 12. The representatives requested clarification of paragraphs 97 and 98 of the judgment whereby "the creation of a Working Group to establish the circumstances of the murder of Mr. Leguizamón Zaván is ordered" and that "specify certain formal and substantive conditions for the operation of the Working Group whose creation was ordered: its composition, the selection and formation methods, the term for creating it, the obligation of public financing by the Paraguayan State, the establishment of powers of consultation and access to information, and the deadline for submitting the final report of 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. 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 the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations, supra, para. 11. 5 Cf. Case 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 the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations, supra, para. 11. Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of Judgment of 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 the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations, supra, para. 11. 6 3