The contention by the Respondents that the Applicant is invoking the Human Rights jurisdiction is a speculation that cannot stand. We agree with the Respondents that as long as the Protocol to operationalize the extended jurisdiction is not concluded, this Court is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain Human Rights matters. However, as to whether the functionality of Article 30(1) of the Treaty is subject to the provisions of Article 27(2), we are unable to back that misinterpretation. A reference under Article 30 of the Treaty is to be construed as an action to challenge the legality under the Treaty of an activity of a Partner State and/or an institution of the Community. A clear reading of the points of disagreement arrived at during the Scheduling Conference shows that the Applicant sought this Court to determine whether or not his arrest, interrogation and detention was an infringement of Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 104(1) of the Treaty as well as Articles 2(4)(b), 4(5), 5(2)(b), 7(2), 10(3), 11(1) and 12(1) of the Protocol for the Establishment of the Common Market. The wording of the issues (c) and (d) agreed upon at the Scheduling Conference and the prayers sought relate to the interpretation which is the preserve domain of the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 33(2) of the Treaty. It is not in dispute that the Court has jurisdiction to interpret each Article of the Treaty. The inclusion of allegations of human rights violation in a reference will never distract this Court from exercising its interpretative jurisdiction. This has consistently been the finding of the Court in Katabazi case (supra), Rugumba case (supra), Omar Awadh case (supra) and Prof. Anyang Nyong’o vs. the Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya, EACJ Reference No.1 of 2006. Furthermore, this instant Reference is similar to Mohochi case (supra), in which the Applicant challenged the violation of Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 104(1) REFERENCE NO.11 OF 2011 Page 14