“Generally, Incumbit in the application probation Party putting the forward of the court will a claim principle formally of actori require the or a particular contention to establish the elements of fact and of law on which the decision has in its favour said: ‘Ultimately might be given. ... is it the .... As litigant the Court seeking to establish a fact who bears the burden of proving it.’...” 48. In the instant case and with regard to Article 2 of Act No. 1/26, the Applicants argued that the fact that the Special Court decides in the last the instance on decisions of the Commission, without any possible appeal to the Supreme Court, was a violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty as it negated the opportunity for the Court constitutionally designated as ‘a guarantor of good application of law’ to test the legal soundness of the Special Court’s decisions. 49. With regard to Article 5, on the other Applicants that the second hand, it was component thereof, argued which appointment of the Special Court’s members, for the deals with the contravened Burundi domestic laws that prescribe consultation with the Superior Council of the Judiciary, as well as the approval of the Senate appointment process for judges of the higher bench. and 226 of the Burundi Constitution. Learned as part of the See Article 222 Counsel for the Applicants imputed a violation of the principle of separation of powers Mut. in so far, the impugned appointment process, Act placed ignored the the said role of the process Senate solely in the with the Executive and thus rendered judges of the Special Court vulnerable to the influence of the said branch of government. Reference No.1 5 of 2014 Page 22