* 55. The Respondent State reiterates its argument that the application for review only illustrates the Applicant's understanding of the facts of his original application. The Respondent State invites the Court to dismiss the Applicant's request for review of the original Judgment for lack of new evidence. *** 56. The Court recalls its jurisprudence that an application for review must be based on material facts or circumstances that were not known at the time the judgment was delivered10. In this regard, the Court has pointed out that the evidence required under Rule 78(1) of the Rules is defined as the "demonstration of the existence of a fact", that is, an "event which occurred or took place"11 outside the proceedings before the Court and which was not previously known to a party or parties12 . 57. In this respect, the Court underscores that judgment review may be sought for exceptional reasons, such as those relating to documents whose existence was unknown at the time the judgment was delivered, to documentary or testimonial evidence or confessions in a final judgment and is later found to be false, or when there has been prevarication, bribery, violence, or fraud, and facts subsequently proven to be false, such as a person having been declared missing and found to be alive.13 10 Alfred Agbesi Woyome v. Ghana, (Review), op. cit. § 38; Ramadhani Issa Malengo v. Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application for Review No. 001/2019, Judgment of 15 July 2020 (Review), § 31. 11 Dictionnaire de Droit international public, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2001, p. 493, cited in Frank David Omary et autres c. Tanzanie (Review) (2016) 1 AfCLR 383. 12 Urban Mkandawire v. Malawi (Review and interpretation) op. cit § 14.2. 13 IACtHR, Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, (Application for Judicial Review of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACHR, Series C No. 45, § 12. 16