3 7. The Court must now verify whether the terms of the request for interpretation comply with the applicable norms. As a condition for the admissibility of the request for interpretation of judgment, Article 67 of the Convention requires that this request should be made “within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” The Court has confirmed that the judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations in this case was notified to the State on July 9, 2003. Therefore, the request for interpretation, dated October 6, 2003, was presented within the appropriate time limit (supra 2). 8. Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court stipulates that: 1. The judgments and orders for discontinuance of a case shall be rendered exclusively by the Court. [...] 3. Judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way. 9. While the relevant paragraph of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: The request for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested. 10. Article 25 of the Statute indicates that: l. The Court shall draw up its Rules of Procedure. 2. The Rules of Procedure may delegate to the President or to Committees of the Court authority to carry out certain parts of the legal proceedings, with the exception of issuing final rulings or advisory opinions. Rulings or decisions issued by the President or the Committees of the Court that are not purely procedural in nature may be appealed before the full Court. 3. The Court shall also draw up its own Regulations. 11. Regarding objections to the decisions adopted in the proceeding before the Inter-American Court, the Court has stated that: Only the decisions of the President or of the committees of the Court [constituted in accordance with Article 25 of the Statute of the Court] may be contested before the full Court, but any other decision, including those issued when deciding on preliminary objections may not be contested.2 12. In relation to the review of a judgment of the Court, both Article 25 of the Statute, and Articles 6 and 29 of the Rules of Procedure, establish that decisions issued by the President or the committees of the Court, which are not merely 2 Castillo Páez case. Order of the Court of September 10, 1996, Sistematización de las Resoluciones Procesales de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos-Compendio: agosto 1986-Junio 2001 [Systematization of the Procedural Decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human RightsCompendium: August 1986-June 2001]. Series F, No. 1, Tome III, seventh considering paragraph, pp. 892-896; and Loayza Tamayo case. Order of the Court of June 27, 1996, Seventh considering paragraph.