Application, he averred that these violations occurred continuously from July 1995 until 31 July 2005, when he was released from prison. 35. Furthermore, he submits that in his Application he raised the violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court, but that the Court in its judgment assumed its temporal jurisdiction to rule on the right to be tried within a reasonable time, without ruling on his right to be tried by an impartial court, both rights guaranteed by the same Article 7(1)(d). The Applicant prays the Court to review its judgment of 2 December 2021 by taking cognisance of the lack of impartiality of the court which sentenced him to ten (10) years' imprisonment in 1995. He therefore prays the Court to erase and rectify the error it made when assessing its temporal jurisdiction3 . * 36. The Respondent State submits that the Application for review does not raise any new facts within the meaning of Article 28(3) of the Protocol and Rule 78(1) of the Rules. It further submits that the Applicant merely interprets the judgment of 2 December 2021, with a view to lead the Court to adopt his own perception of the facts contained in the initial Application. *** 37. The Court notes that new facts or evidence refer to "new discover(y)(ies)" which "were not known to the party bringing the case"4 or of which that party "could not with due diligence have known" at the time of filing the initial Application5 . The Court further considers that a fact or event that occurs after a judgment has been delivered is not a "new fact" within the meaning of Rule 78(1) of the Rules, 3 See paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Application for Review. Alfred Agbesi Woyome v. Ghana, ACtHPR, Application for Review No. 001/2020, Judgment of 26 June 2020 (Review) § 38; Urban Mkandawire v Malawi (Review and interpretation) (2014) 1 AfCLR 299 § 14.2. 5 Alfred Agbesi Woyome v. Ghana, § 43. 4 11