35. The Court recalls that in its initial Judgment of 28 June 2019, it found that the Respondent State had not violated the Applicant’s rights under Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Charter as regards the decision of the Review Bench of the Supreme Court of the Respondent State. The Court also notes that the Applicant bases his Application for Review on paragraphs 138 and 139 of the initial Judgment. In the aforementioned paragraphs, the Court held: In the instant case, the Court holds that the Applicant has not demonstrated or substantiated unequally, how he has resulting been discriminated into discrimination against, or unequal treated treatment differently or based. on the criteria laid out under Article 2 and 3 of the Charter...In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Applicant's rights to non- discrimination, his right to equality before the law and to equal protection of law as guaranteed under Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter were not violated by the Respondent State.* 36. In relation produced to supporting documents, for the first time the Court before it, the evidence recalls that although, that is required under Article 28(3) of the Protocol is evidence that exerts influence on its initial decision.§ 37. The Court further recalls that, substantiation does not constitute “new evidence” that would not have been in the foreknowledge of the Applicant at the time of filing.® 38. The Court refers to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights case, where it held: The application situations for judicial that were unknown review must judgment may therefore be impugned those the involving documents time the judgment was be based on important facts at the time the judgment was delivered. for existence delivered; exceptional of which documentary such unknown or testimonial 4 Alfred Agbesi Woyome v Ghana, op.cit, § §138 and 139. 5Frank David Omary and others v Tanzania (review) (2016) 1 AfCLR 383 § 49. ® Thobias Manga'ra v Tanzania op.cit. § 25. 10 was reasons, or The as at the evidence or