DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ANTÔNIO A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. I regret not to be able to concur with the decision taken by the majority of the Court in the present Resolution on the application for the judicial review of the Judgment on the merits of 29 January 1997 in the Genie Lacayo case. May I proceed to an explanation of the juridical foundations of my dissenting position, concentrating, first, on the question of the admissibility of that appeal, and then, on the question of whether it is well-founded or not. I. The Admissibility of the Application for Judicial Review. 2. The present appeal before the Inter-American Court is unprecedented in its history: whereas in the Velásquez Rodríguez (1990), Godínez Cruz (1990) and El Amparo (1997) cases the Court pronounced on appeals of interpretation of a judgment,i a recourse foreseen in the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 67) itself, in the present Genie Lacayo case the Court is for the first time called upon to pronounce on an appeal of revision of a judgment,ii for which there is no provision either in the American Convention, or in its Statute or Regulations. The silence of these instruments on the question is not to be interpreted as amounting to vacatio legis, with the consequence of the inadmissibility of that appeal. 3. Nor is there any such provision in the European Convention on Human Rights, and, nevertheless, the possibility of an application for the judicial review of a judgment was inserted in the Regulations of the European Court of Human Rights (Rules of Court A, Rule 58; and Rules of Court B, Rule 60). iii Recently, in the case of Pardo versus France, the European Court indeed declared admissible an application for the judicial review of a judgment (Judgment of 10.07.1996), even though it later dismissed it as unfounded as to the merits (Judgment of 29.04.1997). iv 1. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez case, Judgment of 17.08.1990; Godínez Cruz case, Judgment of 17.08.1990; El Amparo case, Resolution of 16.04.1997. 2. That is, of a judgment on the merits. It may be recalled that, in the Neira Alegría and others case, Peru actually filed an appeal of revision (of 13.12.1991) of the jugment on preliminary objections, which, however, it withdrew (on 01.07.1992). Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Neira Alegría and others case, Resolution of 03.07.1992. 3. Rules of Court A apply to cases concerning States Parties to the European Convention which have not ratified Protocol IX; and Rules of Court B to cases concerning States Parties to the Convention which have ratified Protocol IX. 4. European Court of Human Rights, case of Pardo versus France (Revision), Judgment (Admissibility) of 10.07.1996, p. 11, par. 25; European Court of Human Rights, case of Pardo versus France (Revision), Judgment (Merits) of 29.04.1997, p. 9, par. 23.