2022, and filed with the Registry of the Court on 17 January 2022, a date subsequent to that on which the withdrawal of its Declaration took effect. * 18. The Applicant prays the Court to dismiss the objection. Relying on Rules 40 and 78 of the Rules of Court, the Applicant urges the Court to avoid the confusion created by the Respondent State as to its personal jurisdiction. He submits that Rule 40 on the institution of proceedings cannot apply in the case of an application for review. He notes that in the circumstance, the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility requirements of an application for review, which are spelt out in Rule 78 of the Rules. He submits that his application for review in respect of the judgment of 2 December 2021 is not a new application but rather a “rebuttal” of Application No. 034/2017 brought before the Court prior to the Respondent State withdrawing its Declaration. The Applicant prays the Court to dismiss the objection to its personal jurisdiction raised by the Respondent State. *** 19. The Court emphasises that the purpose of an application for review is not to submit a new case to it but to seek a review of a judgment it has already delivered in a case, in respect of which a revision is sought. 20. In the instant case, the Court notes that the present Application for Review was filed in relation to the initial Application filed on 8 November 2017, which was before the Respondent State's withdrawal of the Declaration took effect on 30 April 2021. In this respect, the Court notes that the withdrawal of the Declaration under Article 34(6) of the Protocol by the Respondent State has no effect on the initial Application and, consequently, on the application for review of the Judgement rendered in the initial case. 7