30. We shall spend little time with this question because it is not in doubt that there is no express provision barring this Court from determining any matter that is otherwise properly before it, merely because the Applicant has not exhausted Local remedies. It has been agreed by the parties that upon the Reference being filed, the Republic of Rwanda produced the Subject before the Military High Court of that Country. Can that action be said to be sufficient for this Court to tell the Applicant to go to Rwanda and exhaust whatever remedies are available there? We must answer the question in the negative. 31. We say because it has been admitted by the 2nd Respondent that from 20th August 2010 until 28th January 2011, the Subject was held in detention without lawful authority. The Military High Court in Rwanda found that action to be a contravention of Articles 90 – 100 of the Rwandan Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the Subject was placed in Preventive Detention as is the Law in Rwanda. This Court was already seized of the Reference now under consideration when the Rwandan Military High Court made its order for Preventive Detention and whereas the Applicant may well have a remedy in the Rwandan Justice System, this Court cannot abdicate its mandate under the Treaty to apply, interpret and ensure compliance therewith. REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 21