regardless of its legal consequences. Consequently, a new fact must precede the delivery of the judgment on the merits. 38. In the present case, the Court notes that this first "new fact" matches its own analysis according to which, on the one hand, the above-mentioned violations took place between July 1995 and June 1996 (as stated in paragraph 33 of the Judgment), that is, before the entry into force of the Protocol in relation to the Respondent State, and, on the other hand, that these violations are not of a continuous nature, but are rather instantaneous. 39. The Court also notes that the Applicant describes the Court's analysis as an "error" because, in his view, the violations alleged are of a continuing nature and, consequently, the Court should have assumed its temporal jurisdiction and examined the alleged violation of his right to the presumption of innocence and to be tried by an impartial court. 40. It emerges from the present Application for review that the Applicant seeks exclusively to call into question the findings and analysis of the Court in the Judgment. In this connection, the Court observes that the Applicant's own assessment of the Court's findings on the grounds raised in the initial Application does not constitute a new fact within the meaning of Article 28 of the Protocol. 41. Accordingly, the Court finds that Applicant’s submission herein does not contain any new facts. 12