5 judgment. 9. As stipulated in the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the Rules of the European Court, pursuant to the general principles of both domestic and international procedural law, and, in accordance with the criterion of generally accepted doctrine, the decisive or unappealable character of a judgment is not incompatible with the existence of the remedy of revision in some special cases. 10. There are innumerable references in legal writings to the remedy of revision as an exceptional recourse for preventing a res judicata from maintaining a patently unjust situation resulting from the discovery of a fact which, had it been known at the time the judgment was delivered, would have altered its outcome, or which would demonstrate the existence of a substantive defect in the judgment. 11. The legal motives envisaged as reasons for the remedy of revision are restrictive in nature, inasmuch as the remedy is always directed against orders that have acquired the effect of res judicata, that is, against judgments of a decisive nature or interlocutory judgments that are passed and put an end to the proceeding. 12. The application for judicial review must be based on important facts or situations that were unknown at the time the judgment was delivered. The judgment may therefore be impugned for exceptional reasons, such as those involving documents the existence of which was unknown at the time the judgment was delivered; documentary or testimonial evidence or confessions in a judgment that has acquired the effect of a final judgment and is later found to be false; when there has been prevarication, bribery, violence, or fraud, and facts subsequently proven to be false, such as a person having been declared missing and found to be alive. IV 13. The Court now considers whether the request for revision lodged by the Commission is covered by any of the exceptional reasons that could justify amendment of the ruling of January 29, 1997. 14. In the instant case the remedy of revision is based on the fact that: a. The judgment of February 12, 1997, delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua which did not nullify the judgment of second instance because no reference had been made to injuries in the application to appear constitutes a new fact that deprived the victim of prompt, simple and effective recourse for protection of his rights against the acquittal by the military courts, with the violation