bound by the provisions of the Treaty has not been questioned in any way in this advanced having Reference. any defence been Specifically, the Respondent as to its consent to be bound granted in contravention of its has not by the Treaty internal laws. Consequently, we are satisfied that the Respondent cannot invoke its internal laws as justification for a Treaty violation. Needless to say, the decisions of national courts do form part of the case law of that nation. See Henry Kyarimpa (supra). 30. We do also find appropriate persuasion on this matter in the decision of the International Sicula S.P.A Court of Justice (Elsi) Judgment in the case _(ICJ REPORTS) of Electtronica 1989 p.15, para. 73. In that case it was held as follows: “Compliance the with provisions What_is_a_ Municipal of Municipal Law the Treaty of Treaty breach and are compliance different may be with questions. lawful in the Law and what is unlawful in the Municipal law may be wholly innocent of a violation in the Treaty.” (Our emphasis) 31. In the instant case, although the constitutionality of the Bill that preceded Act No. 1/26 was tested and sanctified by the Constitutional Court of Burundi, it is the Applicant's contention that the Act nonetheless contravenes Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty in so far as it offends Clearly, the the principles decision notwithstanding, of of rule the of law and Constitutional good Court there are matters of Treaty interpretation by the Reference that beg the Court's interrogation. Reference No.1 5 of 2014 governance. of Burundi presented To that extent, Page 12