11 - 7.3. QUESTION The above claims and counterclaims of the parties have raised some very important and interesting issues, but we are however left with the foundational question to be answered by this Court, as follows. 7.3.1. Whether or not the criteria set out in Article 25 of the Revised Treaty are applicable to the instant case and thus renders the Application of the Applicant admissible? 8. DISCUSSIONS 8.1. The sole legal question this Court shall answer is whether or not the criteria set out in Article 25 of the Revised Treaty are applicable to the instant case thus rendering the Application of the Applicant admissible? We answer in the negative. 8.1.1. Our decision in this case is and has to be anchored on the governing law on the subject of revision of judgments/rulings, namely: (1.) Article 25(1) of the 1991 Protocol on the Community Court of Justice, (2.)Articles 92 and 93 of the Rules of the Court, and of course,(3.) some case law. Article 25(1) of the 1991 Protocol: “An application for revision of a decision may be made only when it is based upon a discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the decision was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, provided always that such ignorance was not due to negligence.” Article 92 of the Rules of the Court: “An application for revision of a judgment shall be made within three months of the date on which the facts on which the application is based came to the applicant’s knowledge.” Article 93(2) of the Rules of Court: “In addition, the application for revision shall (a)…; (b)….;(c)…; (d) indicate the nature of the evidence to show that there are facts justifying revision of the judgment, and that the time limit laid down in Article 92 has been observed.” 8.1.2. We will now use these laws and apply the facts of this case in our decision.