*
46. The Respondent State contends that this particular aspect of the Application does
not meet the requirement of a new fact justifying the admissibility of the
Application for review. It submits that, in substance, the Applicant's allegations
call into question the finality of the Judgment delivered on 2 December 2021 and
prays the Court to dismiss the present Application.
***
47. The Court recalls that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 28(3) of the
Protocol, the review procedure is without prejudice to Article 28(2) of the Protocol,
such that such a procedure cannot be used to undermine the principle of the
finality of judgments7 , which are not subject to appeal8 .
48. The Court recalls that the reasons for its decision cannot be considered as new
facts or evidence warranting an application for review of its judgment.
49. In the present case, the Court notes that, here again, the Applicant misconstrues
as new facts the grounds of its judgment of 2 December 2021, in which it held
that, having failed to lodge an appeal on grounds of abuse of power against an
administrative decision adversely affecting him, the Applicant did not exhaust the
existing local remedies.
50. The Court considers that the finding in its judgment that the Applicant had the
possibility of bringing an action for misuse of power before the administrative
courts in order to claim to have exhausted local remedies is not a new fact within
the meaning of Article 28(3) of the Protocol.
7
Alfred Agbesi Woyome v. Ghana, ACtHPR, (review), op. cit. § 26. Urban Mkandawire v Malawi (Review and
interpretation) (2014) 1 AFCLR 299 § 14.
8 Delta International Investments S.A. and others v. Republic of South Africa, ACtHPR, Application No.
001/2012, Judgment of 15 March 2013 (appeal), § 6.
14