alleged or at all. If anything, the 2nd Respondent has led evidence to show that he complied with Article 71(1)(d) of the Treaty. The obligation under Article 29(1) can only be triggered by the completion of the investigations provided under Article 71(1)(d) of the Treaty. This has not yet happened. Having established that the Reference does not disclose a cause of action against the 2nd Respondent, it cannot also be argued that he failed/neglected his responsibilities under the provisions of Articles 29(1) and 71(1)(d) of the Treaty.” Determination of Issue No.1 51. It can be gleaned from the Applicant’s pleadings and submissions that the crux of the Applicant’s complaint against the 1st Respondent is the allegations that the act of its servants/agents and institutions in prosecuting Mr. Isidore Rufyikiri before the Anti-Corruption Court, prohibiting him from travelling outside the Republic of Burundi and debarring him from the Roll of Advocates were unprocedural and in breach of the 1st Respondent’s Treaty obligations, in particular Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. 52. In this regard, the Applicant’s Counsel has submitted that the cause of action against the 1st Respondent is constituted by the aforesaid allegations of infringement of specific Treaty provisions by the Government of Burundi. In support of this stance, learned Counsel has referred us to the authorities indicated above. 53. For the determination of the cause of action against the 1st Respondent, we are of the view that the findings of this Court in Samuel Mukira Mohochi (supra) referred to us by Counsel for the Applicant are conclusive. In the same line, we find that the Treaty provisions alleged to have been violated have, through Burundi’s voluntary entry into the Treaty, been crystallized into actionable REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 18