75. It was his submission that the Government of Burundi’s actions could not have been triggered by Mr. Rufyikiri’s letter to the Governor of Bubanza Province, dated 24th July 2013, two months before the action by the Government. His submission in that case was that the Government’s reaction constituted “another step in the overall scheme” to punish Mr. Rufkiri. In support of this submission, he stated that the contents of that letter were clearly alleging violations of rights in Burundi generally, although singling out the particular case of Mr. Venant Masenge. 76. He further argued that since the letter was written in Mr. Rufyikiri’s capacity as an advocate pursuing a client’s interests, in that capacity, he was entitled to the protection accorded to legal professionals under the Burundian law and International Instruments. 77. Counsel also contended that when reference was made in the said letter to the historical cleavage between ethnic communities of Burundi, it was simply pointing out that all the people of Burundi were entitled to equal protection of their human rights and that peoples’ (community) rights were protected by the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, which was in turn, entrenched by Article 6(d) of the Treaty. 78. Learned Counsel further stressed that the 1st Respondent had not presented any evidence that the Governor of Bubanza Province or the Government of Burundi have denied the allegations in Mr. Rufyikiri’s letter and that the Government of Burundi’s pursuit of that letter in the manner pleaded by the 1st Respondent “clearly demonstrates Burundi’s inclination to suppress criticism and to disregard the rule of law that Mr. Isidore Rufyikiri was attempting to protect.” 79. Addressing the matter related to the Burundi Courts’ approval of the disbarment of Mr. Rufyikiri from the Roll of Advocates, the Applicant’s REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 23