action is unlawful or is an infringement of the provisions of the Treaty”, learned Counsel submitted that there was no action which was unlawful or was an infringement of the Treaty and that, therefore, in the absence of such an action, no cause of action against the 1st Respondent could arise. 38. Counsel further pointed out that as elaborated in the 1st Respondent’s Response to the Reference and in the Supplementary Affidavit of Mr. Sylvestre Nyandwi, Mr. Rufyikiri, in his capacity as the President of the Burundi Centre for Arbitration and Conciliation (CEBAC), was being prosecuted in the Anti-Corruption Court of Burundi in accordance with Law No.1/12 of 18th April 2006 on measures of preventing and combating corruption and related offences and Law No. 1/10 of 3rd April 2013 on Criminal Procedure Code of Burundi, under Case No.RMPCAC 2066. 39. He then contended that this case is distinguishable from The Mukira Mohochi Case (supra) since the whole process of prosecuting Mr. Rufyikiri and the measure prohibiting him from travelling outside Burundi did not violate any articles of the Treaty, including Articles 6(d) and 7(2) as they were being done in accordance with the relevant Laws of Burundi. 40. In the same vein, Counsel argued that since the disbarment of Mr. Rufyikiri was done in accordance with the applicable Burundian laws and by national competent institutions (i.e. Court of Appeal of Bujumbura and Review Chamber of the Supreme Court of Burundi) as detailed in the Respondent’s case above, there was no ground to support the Applicant’s allegations that the 1st Respondent has violated his Treaty obligations embodied in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. It is on the basis of the foregoing and again relying on the Ndorimana REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 14