30. Against all expectations, the Court dismissed the Applicants' reliefs sought based on a never disclosed document. 31. Hence the need for a revision of the Judgment rendered. b. The right to compensation for destroyed property 32. The Applicants consider that the Court did not examine their rights to personal property and housing. 33. The Court could not simply ignore the Applicants’ rights to be compensated for the damages suffered because of the destruction of the property built on the Gountou Yena site, even if the Court dismissed their claim of property right over such lands. 34. The Court did not consider the "illegal act" or "irregularity" committed by the State at the time of the destruction of the plantations and the works carried out, at a high cost, by the Applicants. 35. It is not disputed that the State forcibly evicted the Applicants from the lands they occupied, destroying all their property without following the relevant procedures, without compensating the Applicants for the damage suffered. 36. In fact, the Respondent admits this in its response. 37. But, the Judgment assumes that failure to recognize the Applicants' property rights nullifies all of their other rights, such as the right to be compensated. 38. Even if the Applicants could not be recognized as owners of the land, they still had property rights such as legal and peaceful occupation and ownership of personal property such as crops and houses and should have been compensated. 7