International Court of Justice" and Article 80 (1) of the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights.” 16,What is even more fundamental is the fact that these three instruments refer to the existence of a new “fact” and not to a new “evidence”, which is quite different; they also provide for two other important conditions, that the party applying for revision did not negligently ignore the new factand that this new fact should be of such a nature as to be a “decisive factor” on the verdict of the matter decided by the disputed judgment. 17. In my view, these questions relating to the meaning to be given to Article 28 (3) of the Protocol and Rule 67 (1) of the Rule sought to have been given at least as much attention by the Court as the question relating to the meaning to be given to Article 28 (1) of the Protocol and Rule 59 (2) of the Rules, relating to the 90 days deadline in which the Court must render its judgments. 18. Lastly, I would like to underline that in the operative part of the judgment, the Court decided to reject the application for interpretation whereas in its reasoning it made a decision on two of the nine “points” contained in the request of the Applicant. oe ee Fatsah Ouguergouz Judge Robert Eno, Registrar * «An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence», ° «A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court, within a period of six months after that party acquired knowledge of the fact, to revise that judgment». The American Convention of Human Rights, the Statute as well as the Rules of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, do not contain provisions dealing with revision of judgments; these three instruments make reference only to the issue of interpretation of judgments.