scripted, transformed, and fossilized into the several objectives, principles and obligations to be found in the Treaty the breach of which gives rise to a cause of action before this Honorable Court.” [See The IMLU Case (supra) and The Attorney General of Rwanda Vs Plaxeda Rugumba, EACJ Appeal 1 of 2012 (The Rugumba Case)]. 35. It was Counsel’s final submission on this issue that “Whether some of the matters were litigated before the Burundi Courts is irrelevant to a cause of action. The Applicant and Respondents were not party to the Burundi litigation. The Burundi courts could not, and did not determine the issue of non-observance of the Treaty. Therefore res sub judice and res judicata are not applicable.” [See The Katabazi case (supra) and Anthony Calist Komu Vs The Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania, EACJ Ref. 7 of 2012]. 1st Respondent’s Submissions 36. In reply to the Applicant’s arguments supporting the existence of a cause of action against the 1st Respondent, the latter’s Counsel asserted that this issue had to be addressed together with Issue No. 2 on the alleged breach of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and relied on the decision of this Court in Ndorimana Benoit Vs The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi, EACJ Ref. No. 2 of 2014 (The Ndorimana case) in support of his allegation. 37. Based on Article 30(1) of the Treaty which provides that “Subject to the provisions of Article 27 of this Treaty, any person who is resident in a Partner State may refer for determination by the Court, the legality of any act, regulation, directive, decision or action of a Partner State or an institution of the Community on the grounds that such act, regulation, directive, decision or REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 13