The Affidavits basically and 9 of Act No. regurgitate the provisions of Articles 2, 5, 8 1/26, as well as Articles 4, 9, 22, 23, 25 and 31 of Act No. 1/31, and the deponents’ understanding thereof. C. RESPONDENT’S CASE 9. The been Respondent contends that the Reference instituted on 17" November 2014 is time barred, having yet the Act of Parliament in issue had been enacted on 15" September 2014. It is the Applicant's contention that the Reference was, therefore, filed outside the twomonth limit prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty. 10. The Respondent does also question this Court’s jurisdiction determine the matters in issue herein, contending that some prayers The sought do not fall within the ambit of the Court’s Respondent specifically took issue with the to of the mandate. prayer for the annulment of the impugned Act. 11. It is the Respondent's case that Article 4 of Act No. 1/26 address the Applicants’ concerns with regard to parties’ right of appeal in so far as it makes The provision Respondent for an Appellate further contends Division that for the the Special alleged Court. lack of dependence of the Judiciary was resolved by the Constitutional Court of Burundi which, by endorsing the constitutionality of the Bill that preceded Act No. 1/26, in effect confirmed that the then proposed Act did not contravene the Treaty. 12. The Respondent relied on the Affidavit of the Permanent in the Ministry of Justice of Burundi, one Sylvestre Secretary Nyanddwi, which in essence reiterated the Respondent's case as stated above. Reference No.1 5 of 2014 Page 4