IX – ADMISSIBILITY 121. In the instant case, the Respondent invoked the inadmissibility of the Revision requested by the Applicants, arguing that: 122. The facts relied on by the Applicants are not facts of which they have just taken legal cognizance; 123. That the Applicants’ intention is none other than to reopen the process in which their reliefs sought were dismissed; 124. And that, therefore, they do not meet the requirements to request Revision of Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/13/2020 of July 8th, 2020; 125. The Applicants responded in reply to these arguments, concluding as in the Originating Application. The Court’s Analysis 126. Revision of a judgment is a means of a particular revision procedure, which allows the parties, in very limited circumstances, to obtain the reexamination of a final decision due to the emergence of a fact that may decisively influence the decision of the case. 127. The application for Revision is governed by the provisions of article 25 of the Protocol A/P.7/1/91 on the Court of Justice and articles 92, 93, and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. 128. Article 25 of Protocol A/P.1/07/91 establishes that: 23