51. Be that as it may, the Court holds the view that the Newspaper article of 16 March 2011, does not constitute new evidence within the meaning of Rule 67(1) of its Rules in the sense that it could not have led to a change in the decision taken by the Court in its Judgement of 28 March 2014. 52. The Court recalls that the requirements for admissibility for an Application for Review are cumulative; inadmissibility Nicaragua’, Application the of the absence the of any Application. International for revision Court one In the of them is Matter of of Justice is admissible only sufficient E/ observed if each to the Salvador/Honduras in this of the engender regard, conditions that v. “an laid down is satisfied. If any one of them is not met, the Application must be dismissed.” 53. The Court therefore does not deem it necessary to consider the requirement in respect to time limit. 54. Consequently, the Application must be declared inadmissible. 55. FOR THESE REASONS, The Court, Unanimously, i) Rules that the Application for Review dated 28 June 2014, does not meet the requirement regarding new evidence. ii) Declares the Application inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 67 (1) of its Rules. ' International Court of Justice, Matter of the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (E/ Salvador/Honduras v. Nicaragua (intervening), Judgement of 18 December 2003, par 20 17 | Ne Page a “iJ _P fe ie) 4 Bs &§