15.The 1st Respondent finally contends that the Applicant is not entitled to the remedies sought and the Amended Reference should be dismissed with costs. The case for the 2nd Respondent 16.The 2nd Respondent’s case rests on his response filed on 9th November 2012 which is supported by the affidavit of Dr. Julius Tangus Rotich,the then Deputy Secretary General of the Community, filed on 9th November 2012 and another by Ms.Jesca Eriyo, Deputy Secretary General, filed on 27th February 2013 as well as his written submissions filed on 14th June 2013. Mr. Kaahwa, learned Counsel for the Community, later highlighted those submissions when the matter came up for hearing on 6th November 2013. 17.It is the 2nd Respondent’s case that firstly ,the instant Reference is timebarred because while the Applicant was arrested on 28th July 2011,the Reference was filed on 14th October 201 in breach of Article 30 (2) of the Treaty which obligates any party claiming a violation of the Treaty to institute any proceedings in this Court within two months of the Act, regulation, directive, decision or action complained of. 7