Paras 47‑48: relying on Delić, Tadić and Josipović,[1] the Appeals Chamber noted that there is a fundamental distinction between the admission of additional evidence on appeal and a review based on a “new fact”. Rule 115 provides for the admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings only, and is related to Article 24 of the Statute. Rule 120, on the other hand, pertains to review proceedings under Article 25 of the Statute and constitutes an “exceptional” procedure; it does not represent a second appeal. Further, there is a distinction in the nature of the additional material which may be considered under Rule 115 and that which may be considered during a review proceeding. The Appeals Chamber recalled that while Rule 115 accepts any relevant and credible additional evidence of an issue which has already been considered at trial, Article 25 and Rule 120 require a “new fact”, defined as “new information of an evidentiary nature of a fact that was not in issue during the trial or appeal proceedings”. The Appeals Chamber held that it will only permit review on the basis of new evidence of a fact known at trial under exceptional circumstances. The Appeals Chamber held that it is incorrect for parties to rely on the provisions of Rule 115 for the purpose of review instead of relying on Article 25 of the Statute and Rule 120 of the Rules.

Para. 42, lines 8‑10; para. 72, lines 4‑5: reinforcing the strictly exceptional nature of review proceedings, the Appeals Chamber held that it will not consider de novo arguments which were already raised by the Applicant and rejected at the appeals stage as a review proceeding is not an opportunity simply to re-litigate unsuccessful appeals.