as an automatic stay of execution would not per se impute procedural or legal impropriety or lack of transparency. temptation to speculate as to the We rationale cannot yield to the behind that provision without the benefit of the Respondent's input, but we do note that it is quite commonplace Indeed, an for judicial analogy can systems be drawn to abide with the legal such regime a clause. within this Court's jurisdiction, where Rule 110 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure negates the incidence of an automatic stay of proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal. 60. We take the view that it would with the rule of law promulgated in transparent, fair impartial application and Such the law a of law, setting with consistent standards of the accordance tribunal. international that suffice for purposes the up law, manner legal and by certainty, to and have stated hereinabove, suggest that the law was we did promulgated not and Special is Court applied is in a independent and would the meet fairness procedural transparency propounded earlier hereinabove. we an environment accountability legal the of compliance and in the legal In the instant case, as hear the Applicants to in a manner that violated the laws of Burundi. They merely took issue with the content of the law. Consequently, we do not deduce any infringement of the rule of law or good governance from the provisions of Articles 2 and 9 of Act No. 1/26. 61. The Applicants did, however, raise issues about the independence of the judges of the Special Court. It seems to us that the Applicants are particularly aggrieved with the appointment Court the ‘by decree on proposal of the of judges Minster of the Special of Justice’ to the extent that it restricts the function of appointment solely to one branch Reference No.1 5 of 2014 Page 27