148. Against all expectations, the Court dismissed the Applicants' reliefs sought based on a never disclosed document. 149. Thus, they concluded the need for a revision of the Judgment delivered. 150. In its turn, the Defendant, in its response, argued that the plea relied on is inoperative and must be dismissed by the Court. The Court’s Analysis 151. The Applicants claim that in the Judgment, whose Revision they are now requesting, this Court decided to reject their claims, based on the existence of Title Deed No. 18, in favor of the Defendant, which was never presented in the records; They further added that, if this document was attached to the records, it was never notified to them to comment on it, and, therefore, the principle of adversary proceedings was violated. 152. The Applicants considered the situation invoked as a new fact of which they took legal cognizance on July 29th, 2020, the day they were able to find out that the Respondent did not attach the said document to the case file. 153. This understanding of the Applicants reveals a misunderstanding of the Judgment handed down by this Court and whose Revision they are now requesting. 154. This Court has not taken any decision, based on the existence of Title Deed No. 18, as the Applicants intend to make-believe. 155. It was the Applicants who, in their application initiating proceedings, reported to this Court, that before the national authorities, they claimed the property right of the land in question based on customary titles, and that a 28