III ADMISSIBILITY 7. The Court must verify whether the request submitted by the representatives meets the requirements established in the norms applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely Article 67 of the Convention, cited above, and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure, the pertinent parts of which establishes that: 1. The request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in connection with judgments on preliminary objections, on the merits, or on reparations and costs, and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision questions relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which interpretation is requested. […] 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment. 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment. 8. In addition, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that the “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 9. In the first place, the Court notes that the representatives did not indicate expressly that the said request for “clarification constituted a request for interpretation in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention. In this regard, in its observations on this request, the Commission indicated that it understood that “[o]wing to the said brief’s reference to the time frame, it would appear that the representatives were referring to a request for interpretation of judgment in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention.” 10. Bearing in mind the procedural moment at which the representatives’ request was filed and the regulatory references to which it alludes,4 this Court understands that the said communication from the representatives constitutes a request for interpretation of judgment. Consequently, the Court will proceed to examine the representatives’ communication under Articles 67 of the Convention and 68 of the Rules of Procedure. 11. The Court has noted that the representatives sent this request on February 13, 2012, within the time frame established in Article 67 of the Convention for the presentation of a request for interpretation of judgment (supra para. 5), because the latter was notified on November 18, 2011. IV REQUEST TO EXCLUDE FROM THE VICTIMS, THREE PERSONS DECLARED AS SUCH IN THE JUDGMENT 12. The Court will proceed to examine the representatives’ request to determine whether it is appropriate to clarify the meaning or scope of any aspect of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. The Court will take into account the observations of the Inter4 In their brief, the representatives indicated that: “[a]ccording to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, [they] were approaching the Court opportunely and in the appropriate way in order to inform the Court that [certain] persons should not be included” on the list of 539 victims in the judgment, and that [they] submitted this matter as a “Clarification [of the] judgment [in the] case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay.” 3