2 my view, the Court ought to have ended its analysis on this conclusion and proceeded to consider the application for review . 5. Jn spite of tbis negative conclusion, the Court however decided that there were two ''po ints" which needed clarification"for the avoidance of doubt". By doing that, the Court does not only implicitly accept the application for interpretation filed by the Applicant, but does so without explaining why it focuses on these two '·points" in particular. Equally unclear is the assertion made in Paragraph 8of the judgment that " it is not important for the Court to determine the request, since it has already cited what Article 28 ( 1) of the Protocol and Rule 59 (2) of the Rules provide". 6. The Court further gave clruification on the 90 days Rule contained in Article 28 ( l) of the Protocol by noting that "when deliberations are concluded is an intemal matter of the Court" and admitted tha t there was a typographical eo-or in the judgment of 21 June 2013 which resulted in the publication of a corrigendum. 7. I am of the view that the developments in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of this judgment are tantamount to "justifications" which should not have been given, especially with regard to the application of the 90 days rule, the meaning of which remains up to now ambiguous. 2 The Court should have therefore avoided such developments. 8. To summarize, the Court, in the instant case, could simply have rejected the application without going into all the different considerations contained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment. ln the examination of similar applications, which are manifestly unfounded, the Cowi could in the futw·e draw inspiration from Rule 80 (3) of the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights which provides that "the original Chamber may decide o[ its own motion to refuse the request on the ground that there is no reason to warrant considering it". II ~Concerning the application for review 9. l do not share the interpretation of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 28 of the Protoco l made by the Court in paragraph 14 of the present judgment. The expression "without prejudice" used in paragraph 3 of this Article should, in my 2 It should indeed be noted that there is a discrepancy between the English and French versions of this provision: the English version refers to the comple1ion of lhe «deliberalions» of the Court while lhe Frcncb version refers to the comp letion of the «instruction» of U1c case, lbat is to say all the procedural steps (filing of written and oral arguments by the parties) berorc Lbe matter can actua lly be decided by tlte Court.