by the Treaty on organs of Partner States. 2. The Court shall have such other original, appellate, human rights and other jurisdiction as will be determined by the Council at a suitable subsequent date. To this end, the Partner States shall conclude a protocol to operationalise the extended jurisdiction.” 20. We have heard the 2nd Respondent to argue that the issues raised by the Applicant are matters of a Human Rights nature which are not part of the “initial” Jurisdiction of the Court and therefore without a Protocol to operationalise any extended Jurisdiction, the Court cannot purport to exercise jurisdiction which has specifically been denied to it by the Treaty. 21. There is no debate that the extended jurisdiction as envisaged by Article 27(2) has not been conferred on this Court and in Katabazi and 21 others vs. Secretary General of the East African Community and A. G. Uganda, Reference No. 1 of 2007, the predecessor to this Court stated partly as follows; “It is very clear that Jurisdiction with respect to Human Rights requires a determination of the Council and a conclusion of a protocol to that effect. Both of those steps have not been taken. It follows, therefore, that this Court may not adjudicate on REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 14