31. In line with the foregoing, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the commitments by the Government of the Republic of Burundi are to inter alia adhere to the principles of good governance and rule of law under Article 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. 32. As regards his case against the 2nd Respondent, Counsel submitted that the cause of action arose because he failed in his obligations under Articles 29(1) and 71(1)(d) of the Treaty to regularly monitor the observance of the Treaty obligations by the Government of Burundi so as to advise the Council of Ministers and the Summit of Heads of State over measures to effect compliance by the Republic of Burundi with its commitments under the Treaty. 33. Secondly, Counsel stressed that the cause of action in the instant Reference is not a breach of the human or other rights of Mr. Rufyikiri, but the alleged infringements of Treaty obligations. In support of this contention, Counsel relied to the decision of this Court in Samuel Mukira Mohochi Vs The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, EACJ Ref. 5 of 2011. He hastened to add that although Mr. Rufyikiri’s rights are referred to in the Reference, the Court had decided that it would not abdicate from exercising its jurisdiction of interpretation under Article 27(1) of the Treaty merely because the Reference includes allegation of human rights violation. [See James Katabazi and 21 others Vs The Secretary General of the East African Community and other, EACJ Ref. 1 of 2007 (The Katabazi Case) and The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya Vs Independent Medical Unit, EACJ Appeal 1 of 2011 (The IMLU Case)] 34. Counsel further argued that “The Partner States’ obligations, to their citizens and residents, in respect of good governance, have ‘through those States’ voluntary entry into the EAC Treaty, been REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 12