would be to deter the Partner State/Respondent from repeating the breach and thereby reduce the anticipated millions of Applicants with similar complaints of breaches of the Treaty. In the event, the 2nd Respondent’s fear of an avalanche of litigation in the EACJ is misplaced and is accordingly overruled. 42. We need say no more; the conduct of the 2nd Respondent with regard to the detention of the Subject without trial and without at the very least, production of the Subject before a competent Court or Tribunal for a period of five (5) months was in breach of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and we so declare. As he is now before a competent authority in the Partner State, we decline to say anything of the proceedings subsequent to 28th January 2011, save that by Rwandan law, to wit Article 100 of the Rwandan code of Criminal Procedure, the Preventive Detention Order cannot exceed one year and the 2nd Respondent must appreciate that fact, noting that the initial order was made on 28th January, 2011 and must necessarily come to an end on 28th January, 2012. (F) COSTS REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 30