57. It was also the Court’s opinion that in Article 30 as reproduced elsewhere above, “the Treaty confers on any person resident in a Partner State the right to refer the specified matter to this Court for adjudication and as we have just said, by the same provision it creates a cause of action.” 58. Regarding the claim in this Reference, we note that the Applicant is a legal person and as “the umbrella regional organization of the national bar associations within East Africa”, it was prompted to bring this Reference following what it considered as the unprocedural manner in which Mr. Rufyikiri, then President of the Burundi Bar Association, was prosecuted before the Anti-Corruption Court, banned from leaving the country and disbarred from the Roll of Advocates of the Burundi Bar Association. 59. Given the foregoing, we hold that the Applicant has a cause of action against the 1st Respondent under Article 30 of the Treaty. 60. As for the 2nd Respondent, who is the Secretary General of the Community, the cause of action arises from the fact that the Applicant is faulting him for having allegedly sat idly by, omitting or neglecting to act on violations of the Treaty by a Partner State through the alleged illegal treatment of Mr. Rufyikiri by agents/servants/officials of the Republic of Burundi. 61. On his part, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent categorically refuted the Applicant’s argument contending that the 2nd Respondent had discharged his obligation as prescribed in the Treaty, and therefore, there is no cause of action against him. 62. Using the same reasoning as above, we are of the view that a cause of action against the 2nd Respondent has arisen by the fact that the Applicant, a legal person resident of a Partner State, is moving the REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 20