5. At the hearing Mr. Horace of the Reference, the Applicants were represented Necutiyumuheto while Mr. Nestor Kayobera appeared by for the Respondent. B: APPLICANTS’ CASE 6. It from is apparent the Reference that the Applicants’ case is premised on the alleged infringement by Act No. 1/26 of international instruments that underscore the right to a fair and equitable trial. the Applicants' contention that Article 2of the Act denies It is parties a right of appeal to superior national courts by prescribing the finality of the Special Court’s decisions when exercising its appellate jurisdiction viz decisions of non-judicial Articles 8 and 5(2), independence of bodies. 9 of the the The Applicants same Judiciary Act by also challenge for allegedly placing the eroding the appointment and determination of judges’ emoluments in the hands of the Executive. 7. In the same Act No. vein, it is the Applicants case that Articles 22 and 25 of 1/31 negate right to a fair and immediate litigants’ right of appeal and, consequently, equitable trial in so far as they enforceability ofdecisions of the National the underscore the Commission on Land and Other Assets (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’), the existence of a pending Appeal before the Special Courtnotwithstanding.The Applicants do also appear to challenge the apparent fusion of the Executive Articles 9 and 31 of Act No. of members the Judiciary 1/31, which of the Commission as denoted by provide for the appointment by the President of the Republic of Burundi, to whom the Commission 8. The Reference was supported and reports. by two identical Affidavits deponed by the First and Second Applicants respectively on 17"November 2014. Reference No.1 5 of 2014 Page 3