175. On the other hand, so that the Court could verify whether the position of the Applicants was the same as that of another owner to which they referred and be able to conclude that they would be facing “same cases treated differently," it was crucial for the Applicants to demonstrate their position as owner, which did not happen. 176. Given this clarification and in light of the above, it is evident that the Court, because of the reliefs sought by the Applicants, did not omit to take any decision regarding any of the reliefs sought by the Applicants. The Court made it clear that "all other reliefs sought, as they depend on the establishment of the violation of the property right, are thus dismissed.” 177. Therefore, no pronouncement is omitted in the decision, which would authorize the Revision of the Judgment. 178. On the other hand, considering that, with their arguments, the Applicants intend to question the assessment of the facts and the application of the law carried out in the Judgment, it should be noted that this has nothing to do with the intended Revision. 179. This Court highlighted in the case OCEAN KING NIGERIA LTD V. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL, in the decision on the Revision of Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/11-REV, dated February 12th, 2014 (not reported): “It is elementary law that issues of misconstructions/misapplications of law are issues of law and have nothing to do with facts at all. Article 25 (1) explicitly states that reviews are founded on the discovery of facts of a decisive nature and not on law issues. Issues of law are grounds of appeal and not review…” (See §26, page 12). 180. The Court acknowledges that it is legitimate for the Applicants to disagree with the Court's analyses and conclusions. 34