23. The Appellant submitted therefore that when a State ratifies any of the international Human rights treaties, it assumes a legal obligation to implement the rights recognized in that Treaty; in the sense that, through ratification, the Partner States undertake to put in place domestic measures and legislation compatible with their Treaty obligations. Issue No.3. Whether the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that the 1st Respondent had no duty under the EAC Treaty to supervise the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents to comply with their obligations under the Charter, the Protocol, and under the Vienna Convention. 24. The Appellant submitted that indeed, the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that the 1st had no duty under Articles 29 of the Treaty, 67 and 71 of the Treaty to ensure that the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Respondents comply with the provisions of Articles 5, 6, 7(2), 126, 130, and 131 of the Treaty, and Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol; and that, therefore, Reference No. 2 of 2012 disclosed no cause of action against the 1st Respondent. 25. Furthermore, the Appellant submitted that the 1st Respondent being the Chief Executive Officer of the East African Community (“the Community”), is mandated to play a supervisory role over the Partner States to ensure that the Partner States comply with the provisions of the Treaty. He contended that it is a duty under Articles 29 and 71 of the Treaty to carry out investigations, collect information, and verify matters that are brought to his attention, and, ensure that the Partner States comply with the Provisions of the Treaty. 10