Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ILC Articles’) as reported in the Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II (Part Two). Mr. Gimara presented a two-dimensional facet to his contention that the conduct of the Commission was attributable to the State of Rwanda. First, learned Counsel argued that the Commission was an organ of the State of Rwanda within the precincts of Article 4 of the ILC Articles. Secondly, he asserted that the Commission had been empowered by the internal laws of Rwanda to exercise elements of governmental authority and therefore its actions were attributable to Rwanda under Article 5 of the ILC Articles. 10. Conversely, it was argued for the Respondent that the application of the ILC Articles was restricted to inter-State disputes and did not extend to a case initiated by a corporate person, as was the case presently. Learned Counsel for the Respondent did also contend that although the ILC Articles were indeed recognized customary international law, they did not take precedence over the Treaty which, in his view, is codified international law binding upon the EAC Partner States. Further, it was Mr. Malala’s argument that the internal law of Rwanda designated the Mayor of Kigali City as the rightful party to disputes such as the present one, rather than the present Respondent. Counsel cited the case of Modern Holdings Limited vs. Kenya Ports Authority EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2008 in support of his contention that it was only the acts of Partner State that could be litigated before this Court and not those of bodies such as the Commission whose actions are in issue presently. REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 5