Facts
By judgment of 29 December 2006, the Federal Tribunal dismissed, to the extent that it was admissible, the public law appeal and partially admitted the nullity appeal filed by A. against a judgment of 21 June 2006 from the Criminal Court II of the Valais Cantonal Tribunal. Regarding the procedural costs, a court fee of 2,000 francs was charged to the appellant for the public law appeal, while no costs were incurred and no compensation was awarded for the nullity appeal.
A. submits a request for revision of this judgment, arguing that the Federal Tribunal did not rule on his conclusion requesting the granting of legal aid. He concludes that the contested judgment be modified so that his request for legal aid be granted, that attorney B. be appointed as court-appointed counsel, that compensation be awarded to the latter as fees for each of the two appeals, and that no costs be charged. He also requests legal aid again for the revision procedure.
Considerations
According to the case law, the fact that the Federal Tribunal did not rule on a conclusion constitutes a ground for revision only with regard to conclusions on the merits, excluding in particular those relating to the granting of legal aid, as these conclusions may be implicitly decided upon.
However, this presumption is not absolute. It is necessary to examine whether there are serious reasons to admit that the Federal Tribunal has actually omitted to rule on the conclusions relating to the granting of legal aid.
In the present case, the judgment of 29 December 2006 does not mention the appellant's conclusions relating…