have not been proven to have contravened Rwanda’s internal laws neither does this Court have jurisdiction to determine that issue. Therefore, we are unable to draw a conclusion that due process has been violated or the principles enshrined in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) have been breached. Secondly, although Law No. 28 of 2004 under which the acts complained of were undertaken may be deemed to be a ‘measure’ for purposes of Article 8(1)(c) and would therefore be open to scrutiny by this Court, that law was never in issue in the present Reference. At the risk of repeating ourselves, only the Commission’s actions as implemented thereunder were in issue herein. 58. In the result, we find that the Applicant has not established a Treaty violation attributable to the Respondent. We so hold. Issue No. 4: Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought. 59. The Applicant sought the following prayers and orders against the Respondent : a. A declaration that the actions of the Respondent in taking over the Applicant’s property contravened Articles 5(3)(g), 6(d), 7(1)(a) and (2), and 8(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Treaty ; b. An Order that the Respondent be restrained from further interference with the business and management of the Applicant’s property ; c. An Order that the Respondent pays general damages to the Applicant and costs of and incidental to this Reference be met by the Respondent. d. That this Court be pleased to make such further or other Orders as may be just and necessary in the circumstances. 60. Having found that the Applicant has not established a violation of the Treaty that is attributable to the Respondent, we decline to grant the Declaration sought in paragraph (a) above. Accordingly, the Applicant is not entitled to the restraining Order sought under paragraph (b) or to general damages as claimed REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 29