Counsel for the 1st Respondent averred that the issues referred to this Court are related to Human Rights Matters. Therefore, it follows that, until the Protocol to operationalize the extended jurisdiction is concluded, this Court is not vested with jurisdiction to handle the Reference. Counsel for the 1st Respondent further asserted that even if he agrees with the Applicant that the Court has jurisdiction to determine the matters set out in Article 30(1) of the Treaty, the Court is not empowered to entertain Human Rights matters as raised by the Applicant. Counsel for the 1st Respondent concluded his submissions by urging the Court to dismiss the Reference on basis of that issue itself. Counsel for the 2nd Respondent did not file written submissions. However, at the hearing date of this Reference, she associated herself with the Counsel for the 1st Respondent on Issue No.1. Counsel for Avocats Sans Frontières did not address the Court on the issue of jurisdiction. They considered that, being an issue argued between Parties, they did not have to interfere. Rather, they addressed the Court on the issue of the independence of the Advocates to practice in their respective Partner States. Counsel for Avocats Sans Frontières contended that the Court, being the guardian of the Treaty is bestowed with jurisdiction to interpret and apply it. FINDINGS OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO.1 We have read the Applicant’s submissions and counter submissions filed by the Respondents. At this juncture, we have to recall that Article 27 of the Treaty reproduced elsewhere above shows the jurisdiction of the Court. It is not in dispute that this Court has jurisdiction over interpretation and application of the Treaty. REFERENCE NO.11 OF 2011 Page 13