43. On the supervisory role of the Secretary General of the East African Community, Counsel for the 3rd Respondent contended that the case of Katabazi (supra) cited by the Appellant is distinguishable on the basis of interpretation of Article 71 of the Treaty. Counsel concluded that that case, therefore, was not applicable to the circumstances of the instant Reference. 44. Accordingly, Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Appeal, with costs to all the Respondents. THE 4TH RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION. 45. On the issue of jurisdiction, Counsel for the 4th Respondent submitted that the First Instance Division arrived at a proper decision by holding that it had no jurisdiction to interpret the Charter and the Protocol. In so doing, the Court read Article 23 of the Treaty in conjunction with Article 27 (1). 46. Counsel contended that the Treaty provisions cited above made it clear that the East African Court of Justice can only interpret the Treaty and not the other international Conventions. 47. As to the alleged delay by the Respondents to deposit their declarations as per the provisions of the Protocol, the 4th Respondent submitted that even if, for argument’s sake, the Protocol were held to enjoin the State Parties to make declarations within a specific time; and thus, not doing so occasioned a violation of the Charter and the Protocol, the East African Court would not be the proper forum to provide redress. The right forum would the African Court pursuant to Article 3 of 15