21. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction to hear the Application for Review, which was received on 17 January 2022. VII. ADMISSIBILITY 22. The Applicant states that, on reading the Judgment, he discovered four (4) new facts that negatively influenced the outcome of the case, which he prays the Court to review. 23. The Court observes that within the meaning of Article 28(2) of the Protocol, which restates the provisions of Rule 72(1) of the Rules of Court, its judgments are final and not subject to appeal. However, under Article 28(3) of the Protocol, the Court may, without prejudice to the finality of its judgment as set out in sub-paragraph (2) of the same Article, review its judgment under the conditions laid down in the Rules of Court. Thus, Article 28(3) of the Protocol therefore makes the procedure for review of the Court's judgments an exceptional one, subject to admissibility requirements set out in Rule 78(1) and (2). 24. Rule 78(1) and (2) of the Rules provides as follows: 1. A party may, in the event of the discovery of a new fact or evidence, which by its nature, has a decisive influence and which, when the judgment was delivered, was unknown to the party and could not with due diligence have been known to that party, request the Court, within a period of six months after that party acquired knowledge of the fact (or evidence), apply to the Court to revise that judgment. The Court shall not accept any request for review of its judgment after five (5) years of the delivery of the same 2. The Application shall specify the judgment in respect of which review is requested, contain information necessary to show that the conditions laid 8