bringing of the Reference or the jurisdiction of this Court to interrogate that Law from a Treaty perspective and to determine whether a Partner State has breached its obligations under the Treaty. 34. Finally, it was the Applicant’s case that the Reference is not misconceived and this Court has the jurisdiction to determine the salient and important issues raised in it. Respondent’s submissions 35. The Respondent on this issue submitted that on 7th January, 2014, the Constitutional Court of Burundi declared that the Press Law was constitutional save for a number of Articles that it struck down. 36. In the event, it was his argument that the said Judgment is final and not subject to the intervention of any other court ,including the EACJ, and that a contrary decision to the effect that the Law violates press freedom and the right to the freedom of expression would mean bringing chaos to Burundi and would also “mean challenging the decisions of the Constitutional Court ….and would contravene the powers conferred to the EACJ by the Treaty.” 37. In addition to the above, it was the Respondent’s submission that Burundi is preparing itself for General Elections in the first quarter of the year 2015 and to invalidate its lawfully enacted Press Law would jeopardize the fragile peace enjoyed by the people of Burundi taking into accounts its history and future. Amici curiae’s submissions 38. On this issue, the Amici Curiae preferred not to make any submissions at all. Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 10