Secretary General brought to the attention of the 1st Respondent some matters of alleged violations of its Treaty obligations, including allegations that were mentioned in the letter above from Mr. Rufyikiri. 105. It was also Counsel’s submission that rather than waiting to be prompted to act by litigants, the 2nd Respondent ought to have acted on his own and should have exercised pro-activeness in as far as bringing Partner States to account regarding their actions especially those actions that seemingly violate the Treaty’s provisions. 106. In response to the Applicant's contentions referred to above, the 2nd Respondent categorically denied any wrongdoing. He rather brought out several actions undertaken as highlighted in his case above, but pointed out that these actions did not bear any positive results, because they have been frustrated by the 1st Respondent’s lack of cooperation as regards the operationalization of the Task Force set up to investigate the alleged breach of the Treaty provisions by the Republic of Burundi even before the instant reference was filed on 17th February 2014. Determination of Issue No. 3 We have carefully reviewed the parties’ pleadings and submissions on this matter and we opine as follows: 107. It is on record that by his letter Ref. ORG/2/1 of 11th November 2013 mentioned above, the 2nd Respondent brought to the attention of the 1st Respondent, through the Minister to the Office of the President Responsible for EAC Affairs, two claims about land and property matters while stressing that those claims, if not handled properly, could give rise to failure of due process. In the same letter, the 2nd Respondent expressed his concern at the proliferation of litigation from the Republic of Burundi mainly relating to allegations of failure of due REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 35