VI     establishing the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (see supra, paragraph 5). 16. The Court should therefore have used the powers inherent in its judicial function and the principle that “the court knows the law” (jura novit curia), to rule on the basis of the general principles of procedural law as enshrined in the aforementioned four instruments. 17. It is in light of the aforesaid principles of procedural law that the Court should have interpreted Article 28 (3) of the Protocol and 67 (1) of the Rules, unless the said principles are being deliberately set aside in order to throw the revision remedy wide open, the effect of which would however be to distort the revision institution. 18. Before pronouncing on the admissibility of the Application for Revision, the Court should therefore have clearly spelt out all the conditions for admissibility of such an application regardless of whether or not such conditions had been expressly prescribed by the Protocol and the Rules. 19. A perusal of the grounds for the Judgment (paragraphs 32-52 of the Judgment) gives the impression that the conditions providing the grounds for revision of a judgment are two in number: “the requirements concerning time limit and the discovery of new evidence” (paragraph 35). 20. However, the said conditions are, in my view, five in number: 1) The Application must be grounded on the “discovery” of an “evidence”, 2) The evidence, discovery of which has been invoked, must be of such nature as can exert decisive influence on the initial judgment, 3) Such evidence must not have been within the knowledge of the Court and of the party which invokes it, prior to the delivery of the said judgment, 4) The party invoking such evidence must not have been negligent in being unaware of the evidence in question, 5) The Application for Revision must have been brought “within six months from the time the evidence discovered came within the knowledge of the party concerned”. 21. It would then have been enough for the Court to indicate, as it did in paragraph 51 of the Judgment, that the afore-listed conditions are cumulative and that in case any of them has not been met, the Application for Revision must be dismissed; and then determine whether the said conditions have actually been met in the instant case. 22. The Court however proceeded directly to consider the requirement concerning “the discovery of new evidence” without indicating what that