obligations, now stipulated in among others, Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty, breach of any of which by the Republic of Burundi (1st Respondent) would give rise to infringement of the Treaty. It is that alleged infringement which, through interpretation of the Treaty under Articles Article 27(1) of the Treaty constitutes the cause of action in the instant Reference. Facts and applicable Burundian laws in support of the claim have been presented by the Applicant which led him to the allegation that acts committed by the Respondent infringe Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. 54. We are of the opinion that for the Applicant, it is enough to clearly state a complaint against the 1st Respondent that its actions, to wit, prosecuting Mr. Rufyikiri before the Anti Corruption Court and issuing a travel ban without due process of law and alleged irregularities in initiating a case against Mr. Rufyikiri to disbar him from the Bar Association without awaiting the decision of the Bar Council, all constitute a cause of action against the 1st Respondent. 55. In support of his submissions that the Reference does disclose a cause of action against the 1st Respondent, Counsel referred us to some authorities including The James Katabazi Case (supra) and The Anyang’ Nyong’o Case (supra). 56. We note that in the Anyang’ Nyong’o Case (supra, p. 18)), this Court defined a cause of action as “a set of facts or circumstances that in law gives rise to a right to sue or to take out an action in court for redress or remedy.” The Court further opined that the Treaty provides for a number of actions that may be brought to this Court for adjudication. In this regard, the Court was of the view that Article 30 of the Treaty, among others, virtually creates a special cause of action, which different parties may refer to this Court for adjudication. REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 19