4 Court but that the provisions established in the Statute of the International Court of Justice would fully apply in the instant case under general international law. g. That the judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua constitutes a new act, a new juridical act that deprives the victim of the possibility of prompt, simple and effective recourse for protection against the violation of his rights (Art. 25 of the Convention), against the acquittal by the military tribunals ... [which] denied the Genie family the opportunity to enjoy EFFECTIVE RECOURSE against the military judgment. It constitutes a new element in the Proceeding, which justifies the REVIEW of the Judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. II 5. The Court as currently composed is competent to hear the instant matter, by analogy with Article 16 of its Rules of Procedure which establishes that [a]ll matters relating to reparations and indemnities, as well as supervision of the implementation of the judgments of this Court, shall be heard by the judges comprising it at that stage of the proceedings, unless a public hearing has already been held. In that event, they shall be heard by the judges who had attended that hearing. III 6. There is no provision for the remedy of revision in the American Convention or in the Statute or the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court. However, this Court deems it opportune to hear the aforementioned application for revision filed by the Inter-American Commission inasmuch as it was submitted within a reasonable time and because "[t]he transparency of this Tribunal’s proceedings is enhanced by clarification, when it so deems appropriate, of the content and scope of its judgements, thereby dispelling any doubts about them, and that they may not be challenged on the basis of merely formal considerations" (El Amparo Case, [Application for Judicial Review of the Judgment of Septem-ber 14, 1996], Order of the Court of April 16, 1997. Series C No. 46, Considerandum 1.) 7. Article 61 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice establishes the remedy of revision and states that [a]n application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. 8. There is no provision for such a recourse in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but Rule 60 of Rules of Court B of the European Court of Human Rights (corresponding to Rule 57 of Rules of Court A) provides as follows: [a] party or the Commission may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when the judgment was delivered, was unknown both to the Court and to that party or the Commission, request the Court, within a period of six months after that party or the Commission, as the case may be, acquired knowledge of such fact, to revise that