directive, decision or action complained of, or in the absence thereof, of the day in which it came to the knowledge of the complainant, as the case may be.” The general Rule of interpretation set out by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties reproduced elsewhere above is applicable to the interpretation of this Article. It is our understanding from the plain reading of Article 30(2) that a reference challenging any unlawfulness or infringement provided for under Article 30(1) must be instituted within a period of two months of their occurrence or in the absence thereof, when the complainant came to know the Act or action complained of. That is the clear and ordinary meaning to be given to the Article 30(2). It is undeniable that the Applicant was arrested upon his arrival at Entebbe International Airport on 15th September, 2010 by the Ugandan Rapid Response Unit (RRU) and was escorted by Ugandan security officers into an Aircraft of Uganda Airlines destined for Nairobi, Kenya on 18th September, 2010. It is also common ground that this Reference was filed before this Court on 30th December, 2011. The Applicant took exactly one year, three months and twelve days to file the Reference instead of two months prescribed by the Treaty. Is there any hardship that can explain such unusual non-compliance with the Article 30(2) of the Treaty? To that question, the Applicant contended that he wanted to be told before he initiated any reference when, where, why, and by whom he had been detained. At this juncture, we hasten to say that this reasoning is not helpful at all. Why do we say so? Applicant that he It is well set out in the Reference brought by the was arrested and detained on 15th September, 2010,(when), upon his arrival at Kampala, (where). The Applicant further pointed out that he was threatened with being charged with the same REFERENCE NO.11 OF 2011 Page 18