30.Finally, relying on the authority of James Katabazi & 21 Others Vs. Secretary General of the East African Community – Reference No. 1 of 2007, Counsel submitted that this Court’s jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the acts complained of are based on allegations of human rights violation and that following the Katabazi case (supra) ,this Court should not abdicate from its duty to interpret the Treaty even if the issues raised in the Reference may touch on human rights. 1st Respondent’s Submissions 31.Mr. Nestor Kayobera, for the 1st Respondent, in a nutshell submitted that while this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Reference in respect of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the said Reference, it lacks jurisdiction in respect of other prayers basically for the following reasons: (a) That the Court’s jurisdiction ought to be in accordance with Articles 27(1), (2) and 30 (3) of the Treaty and that under Article 27(1) “the Court shall initially have jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of this Treaty; provided that the Court’s jurisdiction to interpret under this paragraph shall not include the application of any such interpretation to jurisdiction conferred by the Treaty on organs of Partner States’. 12