Case for the 5th Respondent 20. By its Response to the Reference filed on 26th March, 2012, the 5th Respondent has urged that this Court should “declare itself incompetent to hear and determine this Reference” and should instead dismiss it with costs as against the 5th Respondent for reasons inter-alia: That in matters of good governance affecting the East African Community, only the Summit can review the state of affairs in that regard under Article 11(3) of the Treaty and like Kenya, the Republic of Burundi has taken all measures in its Constitution and the Treaty as regards adherence to “the principles of good Governance, rule of law, social justice as well as recognition, provision and Protection of human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter ….”. Further, that this Court has no jurisdiction to determine the Reference which is filed contrary to the provisions of Article 30(1) of the Treaty. Lastly, that this Court has no jurisdiction to “review the provisions of the Protocol to the African Charter … on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.” Scheduling Conference 21. On 1st February, 2013, parties attended a Scheduling Conference convened by the Court and the following points were found to be subject to no dispute: a) that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents all signed, ratified and acceded to the Charter, the Protocol and the Treaty. b) that there are triable issues based on the provisions of Articles 6, 7, 27 and 30 of the Treaty for The Establishment of the East African Community. 14 | P a g e