14.2 Furthermore, what the Applicant presents as "new piece of information" is in fact neither new, nor "evidence ~~ at all as contemplated in Article 28 of the Protocol, or Rule 67 (1) of the Rules, as it purports to be the findings of the Court, conta ined in its judgment. The new evidence contemplated by the Artic le and the Rules is evidence, which was not previously known by the party concerned. Nothing contained in the Appl icant's submissions constitutes any ~'evidence " which was not know n to the party at the time the Court handed down its judgment. 15. The request for review satisfies the requirements of Rule 67(1) with regard to the time limit of six (6) months within whic h to file an application for review of the judgment. However, it fails to comply with the requirements of Article 28 (3) of the Protocol, as well as Rule 67 (1) and (2) of the Rules. 16. Although the Respondent has not filed a reply to the Application , this does not cure the defects in the Application , or add to it. For all the reasons given above, the Court decides as follows: 1. The Applicant has complied with Rule 66(1 ) with rega rd to the time limit of 12 months within which to file an applicatio n for interpretation of a judgment; 2. The application for interpretation of the judgment fails and is struck out' 3. The Applicant has complied with Rule 67(1) with regard to the time limit of six (6) months within which to file an application for review of a judgment from alleged date of discovery of new facts ; 4. The request contained in the Application for the revie w of the Court's judgment of June 2013 is inadmissible and is struc k o The Court will not therefore go into the merits of the request. I 9