## Facts

- A 1992 ICJ Chamber judgment delimited parts of the land boundary and maritime areas between El Salvador and Honduras; Nicaragua had intervened in those original proceedings.
- The revision request concerned only the sixth sector of the land boundary, between Los Amates and the Gulf of Fonseca, tied to the course of the Goascorán River.
- In 1992, Honduras argued the boundary followed the Goascorán’s course; El Salvador argued an earlier river course controlled because the river had shifted by avulsion (a sudden change in the riverbed).
- The 1992 Chamber rejected El Salvador’s avulsion account and treated the boundary as following the river’s course as it existed in 1821.
- On September 10, 2002, El Salvador applied for revision under Article 61 of the ICJ Statute, asserting discovery of previously unknown, decisive facts.
- El Salvador’s claimed new material included (a) scientific/technical/historical material said to show an eighteenth-century avulsion and (b) additional historical documents, including another copy of the “Carta Esférica” and the 1794 *El Activo* expedition report.
- A specially constituted five-judge Chamber held hearings focused on admissibility and issued a judgment on December 18, 2003 addressing admissibility only.

## Issues

1. Whether El Salvador identified a “fact” unknown to the Court and El Salvador in 1992 that was “of such a nature as to be a decisive factor,” as required for revision under Article 61.
2. Whether, in revision proceedings, the Court may require prior compliance with the judgment sought to be revised and whether party consent affects admissibility.

## Decision

- The Chamber held, by 4–1, that El Salvador’s application for revision was inadmissible.
- The Chamber concluded that the alleged new material was not of such a nature as to be a decisive factor for the 1992 judgment.
- Because the decisive-factor requirement failed, the Chamber did not examine the remaining Article 61 conditions (including ignorance not due to negligence and the time limits).
- The Chamber stated that Article 61 allows the Court, at any time, to require prior compliance with the judgment whose revision is sought before admitting revision proceedings.
- The Chamber stated that party consent plays no role in determining admissibility of a revision application.

## Legal Principles

- Revision under Article 61 is an exceptional remedy; its conditions are applied strictly.
- A revision applicant must show discovery of a fact (not merely additional support) that was unknown at the time of judgment and would have been decisive to the outcome.
- If the alleged new fact is not decisive, the Court may dismiss the application as inadmissible without reaching other Article 61 requirements.
- The Court may require prior compliance with the judgment sought to be revised before admitting revision proceedings.
- Admissibility under Article 61 does not depend on, and cannot be cured by, party consent.

## Conclusion

The Chamber refused to reopen the 1992 boundary determination because El Salvador’s newly presented scientific and historical material did not meet Article 61’s threshold requirement of a decisive newly discovered fact, reinforcing the finality of judgments and the narrow scope of revision.


Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 (El Sal. v. Hond.), 2003 I.C.J. 392 (Dec. 18)