4 12. The Court has corroborated that both the State and the representatives, respectively, filed the requests for interpretation of the judgment within the time limit set forth in Article 67 of the Convention, as the parties were notified of the Judgment on February 27, 2006 (supra paras. 4 and 6). 13. On the other hand, as this Court has previously established, 2, a request for interpretation of a judgment cannot be used as a means to challenge it, but rather must have as its only purpose to clarify the meaning of a ruling when one of the parties argues that the text of its operative paragraphs or of one of its considerations lacks clarity or precision, insofar as these considerations have an impact on said operative part. Therefore, it is not possible to request modification or annulment of the respective Judgment by means of a request for interpretation. 14. The Court has also established that the request for interpretation of judgment cannot consist of submitting factual and legal matters that were already raised at the appropriate procedural moment and on which the Court already reached a decision.3 15. To analyze whether the requests for interpretation submitted respectively by the State and by the representatives are in order, and if appropriate to clarify the meaning and scope of the January 31, 2006 Judgment, the Court will now separately address the main points raised in them, that is, the establishment of the persons considered beneficiaries of the compensation ordered in the Judgment, the criteria for distribution of the compensation, and the housing program as a form of reparation. V ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PERSONS CONSIDERED BENEFICIARIES OF THE COMPENSATION ORDERED IN THE JUDGMENT Pleadings of the representatives 16. The representatives alleged that in the criteria and scope of the considerations in paragraphs 233 to 241 of the Judgment, which were the basis for the Court’s decision on the beneficiaries of the compensation ordered, the Court did not take into account 62 persons whose kinship with the victims was proven “in a timely manner and with suitable documents, [as well as] the requirements of the Court for them to be beneficiaries of the compensation.” In this regard, they appended to the request for interpretation a list with their names. Also, “to exemplify certain situations found regarding persons whom they consider beneficiaries of the compensation” even though they were not included in the Judgment, they listed eight situations with their respective examples, as follows: See Case of the Moiwana Community. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 8, 2005. Series C No. 145, para. 14; Case of Raxcacó Reyes. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 6, 2006. Series C No. 143, para. 15, and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa . Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 6, 2006. Series C No. 142, para. 15. 2 See Case of the Moiwana Community. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra nota 2, para. 15; Case of Raxcacó Reyes. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra nota 2, para. 16, and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa . Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra nota 2, para. 16. 3