Scheduling Conference 7. Pursuant to Rule 53, a Scheduling Conference was held on 12th June 2014 and the parties framed the following issues: i. ii. iii. iv. Whether the acts complained of are acts of a Partner State or institution of the Community or whether the Attorney General of Rwanda was properly sued before this Honourable Court. Whether the Reference is time-barred and should be struck off the record. Whether the action of taking over the Applicant’s mall by the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission is inconsistent with and/ or in contravention of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Treaty. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought. Preliminary points of law 8. Both Counsel argued the points of law posed in the first and second issues above prior to addressing this Court on the substantive Reference. We do adopt the same approach in this judgment given that the points of law raised could dispose of the entire Reference. Issue No.1 : 9 Whether the acts complained of are acts of a Partner State or institution of the Community or whether the Attorney General of Rwanda was properly sued before this Honourable Court. It was argued for the Applicant that Rwanda was responsible for the injury the Applicant suffered as a result of the Commission’s actions. This argument was premised on the notion that under international law the acts or omissions of an organ of a State are attributable to that State as long as they occurred in an official capacity. In this regard, learned Counsel for the Applicant cited the International Law Commission’s Articles on the REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 4