under which the acts complained of had ensued. That is not the case presently; Law No.28 of 2004 is not in issue before us. 55. This Court is enjoined to restrict itself to the jurisdiction conferred upon it under Article 27(1) and acknowledge the jurisdiction of national courts as delineated in the proviso to Article 27(1). The restriction of this Court’s jurisdiction to the interpretation of the Treaty would defer legal disputes that fall outside that ambit to the jurisdiction of national courts or other related bodies. Accordingly, we find that the question as to whether or not the Respondent’s actions were in compliance with Rwanda’s internal laws is not a matter of Treaty interpretation and is therefore not an issue for determination by this Court. 56. On the other hand, the Applicant faults the Commission for engaging in acts contrary to Articles 5(3)(g) and 8(1)(a) and (c) of the Treaty. A plain reading of those Treaty provisions reveals that they highlight parameters that are intended to facilitate the crystallization of the Community’s objectives as outlined in Article 5(1) of the Treaty, as well as the implementation of the Treaty. The Applicant faults the Commission for engaging in acts contrary to those parameters. With respect, we are unable to agree with the Applicant. We find that Articles 5(3)(g) and 8(1)(a) pertain to Rwandan national policy which is not in issue before this court. What is in issue here is the conduct of the Commission. 57. Unlike Articles 5(3)(g) and 8(1)(a), however, Article 8(1)(c) pertains to any ‘measures’ undertaken by Partner States which are likely to jeopardize the realization of the objectives of the Community or implementation of the Treaty. This would extend beyond policies to include the Commission’s actions that are presently under scrutiny and, indeed, the law on abandoned property itself. However, first, we have already found that the actions in question REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 28