delivery, parties will be notified by the Registrar, and, therefore, this matter is adjourned sine die." It should be noted that when deliberations are concluded is an internal matter of the Court. 9. The second point is that the Applicant recollects, and rightly so , that he appeared before nine judges in Mauritius but the judgment states that seven judges voted for the decision and three judges voted against it. He points out that it is six judges, not seven , who voted for the judgment. The Court concedes that there is a typographical error and the record should have read six and three judges instead of seven and three and a corrigendum has been issued . Nevertheless, this is not a point for interpretation . 10. The request for the interpretation of the judgment satisfies the requirements of Rule 66(1) with regard to the time limit of 12 months within which to file an application for interpretation of a judgment. However, it fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 28(4) of the Protocol, and of Rule 66(2) of the Rules. In view of the foregoing , the Application for interpretation of the judgment cannot be entertained. Ill. APPLICANT'S REQU EST FOR REVIE W IN TERMS OF RULE 67 11 . The Court has power provided by Art 28 of the Protocol to review its decision: "2. The judgm ent of the Court decided by the majority shall be final and not subject to appeal. 3. Without prejudice to sub-Article 2 above, the Court may review its decision in the light of new evidence under conditions set out in the Rules of Procedure". trl 6 ~0 .