International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Finality of judgments — Principle of legal certainty — Article 44 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Revision — Exceptional procedure — Rule 80(1) of Rules of Court — Whether revision request submitted within six-month time limit — Scope of revision request — Whether revision request permissible — Whether documents submitted by applicant Government disclosing new facts — Whether any new facts of decisive influence on findings in original judgment — Whether new facts unknown to Court when original judgment delivered — Whether new facts could not reasonably have been known to applicant Government requesting revision — Whether original judgment requiring revision to include finding of practice of torture as well as inhuman and degrading treatment

Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Interrogation techniques — Whether constituting practice of inhuman and degrading treatment — Whether constituting practice of torture — Commission establishing facts of case — Commission unanimous opinion that practice constituting inhuman and degrading treatment and torture — Original judgment finding practice of inhuman and degrading treatment only — Documentation later coming to knowledge of applicant Government — Medical evidence — Non-disclosure evidence — Whether documentation might have decisively influenced original judgment — Whether original judgment requiring revision to include finding of practice of torture also — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Rule 80(1) of Rules of Court — Applicant Government requesting revision of original judgment — Documents from archives — Medical evidence — Non-disclosure evidence — Applicant Government claiming documents demonstrating new facts — Whether new facts of decisive influence — Whether new facts unknown to Court at time of original judgment — Whether new facts could reasonably have been known to applicant Government — Revision — Exceptional procedure — Principle of legal certainty — Whether documents submitted in support of revision request providing sufficient prima facie evidence in support of applicant Government’s version of events