1- That they were not aware of Title Deed No. 18, which substantiates the ownership of the State of Niger over the disputed land; 2- That the Court's Decision did not take into account the destruction of personal property and the deprivation of their occupation right; 3- That the contested decision with regard to discrimination ignores the content of the citizen Mainassara parcel title, which demonstrates, without ambiguity, according to them, that his plot is within the limits of the same title deed; 79. In the instant case, all parties agree that the litigation was initiated before the national courts. They exchanged documents following the sacrosanct principle of an adversarial process, and the Applicants cannot now usefully claim that they were unaware of the Niger State Title Deed. 80. However, for the legal text relied on above to be applied, the Applicants would have to demonstrate that they were aware of new elements that they did not have the opportunity to discuss before the courts. 81. The doctrine and jurisprudence unanimously admit that the application for Revision tends to portray the final decision so that it can be re-judged in matters of fact and law; 82. It is common knowledge that the application for Revision is, inter alia, open if, for example: 16