of the Convention as cited above, and Article 68 of the Rules of procedure. 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.” 7. In its brief dated March 15, 2021, the State presented two requests: annulment of the decision for an alleged violation of due process and procedural fairness during the processing of the matter and, in a subsidiary manner, a request for an interpretation of the seventh and ninth operative paragraphs of the judgment. Accordingly, this Court will analyze the admissibility of each of these two requests. A. Request to vacate the judgement for alleged violation of due process and procedural fairness during the case processing A.1. Pleadings by the parties and the Commission 8. The State argued that, during the processing of this case, violations of due process and procedural fairness had been committed to the detriment of the State. It indicated that Ms. Martínez Esquivia's defense had submitted their brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence outside of the permitted time, in response to which the Court did not impose any legal consequences, but instead corrected the error made by the victim's defense. It contrasted this with the Court's decision to dismiss the State’s preliminary objections on what, in its opinion, was a technicality. It went on to conclude that “issues of a procedural nature are applied quite rigorously for the State, but more loosely when it comes to the victim's representation. The State considers that this extreme defense of the interests of the victims constitutes a lack of due process guarantees and judicial impartiality […].” 9. Specifically, the State expressed its disagreement with the Court's assessment of the domestic remedies available for Mrs. Martínez Esquivia to challenge her dismissal. The State held that throughout the admissibility stage, it had consistently opposed the claims of Mrs. Martínez Esquivia, and as a result, it could not be found to have waived its objection concerning failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Likewise, it considered that the Court had not adequately assessed the scope of its actions for annulment and reinstatement of the right and the amparo. It also considered that the Court had ignored the State's arguments regarding the action lodged in the labor union jurisdiction. For all these reasons, the State “question[ed] the content of the judgment and the determinations made therein” and requested its annulment. 10. The Commission considered that the State's request to vacate the judgment should be dismissed as unfounded. Likewise, it considered that the State’s arguments lacked justification. It argued that the Court had the power to incorporate evidence to facilitate adjudication and that “it cannot blame the […] Court for a lack of impartiality merely for not having obtained a decision favorable to its claims.” It added that the State “did not provide any elements to prove that violations of judicial impartiality were committed in the context of the process […].” 11. The representatives asked that the request for annulment of the judgment be rejected outright, as it was not protected by any provision of the American Convention. A.2. Considerations of the Court 12. As to the request for annulment requested by the State based on arguments about an alleged violation of due process and procedural fairness, as well as the arguments regarding domestic proceedings, the Court considers it pertinent to recall that, in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention, "The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal,” such that once this Court issues a judgment, it produces the effects and authority of res judicata 3