frenzy in the Respondent State surrounding the tender process for the construction of the stadia for the CAN 2008. Thus, the Court finds that the supporting document adduced herein is neither “new’ nor “evidence” as contemplated by Article 28(3) of the Protocol and Rule 67(1) of the Rules. 42. The Court further notes that, the supporting document submitted by the Applicant has no correlation with its initial Judgment which is the subject of this review. In other words, it is not related to his claims that the truncation of proceedings and assumption of jurisdiction by the Respondent State’s Supreme Court and the conduct of the Review Bench of the Supreme Court resulted in violations of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter. 43. In light of the foregoing, adduced does the Court not constitute new finds that the evidence which supporting was document not within the knowledge of the Applicant at the time the initial Judgment was delivered, as contemplated by Article 28(3) of the Protocol and Rule 67(1) of the Rules. 44. Therefore, the Court, dismisses the Application for Review and declares it inadmissible. 45. As regards the request for Provisional Measures, the Court holds that, having found the Application for Review inadmissible, the request for those measures becomes moot. IX. CcOsTS 46. The Parties did not make any submissions on costs. 47. In terms of Rule 30 of the Rules “unless otherwise decided by the Court, each party shall bear its own costs.” 12