62. Further, it was the Respondent’s case that the orders sought cannot be granted as Articles 6(d) and 7(2) have not been violated in any way. 63. In making the above submissions, Mr. Kayobera relied on the decision of this Court in Rugumba vs. AG of Rwanda [supra] to make the point that although exhaustion of local remedies is not a condition precedent before filing any matter before this Court, the Applicant had exercised its rights under Burundian Law and obtained a decision at the Constitutional Court and had no reason to come to this Court. 64. On the jurisdiction of this Court to grant certain orders, he relied on the case of Nyamoya Francis vs. AG of Burundi & Anor, Ref. No.8 of 2011 and Masenge vs. AG of Burundi, Ref. No.9 of 2012 to make the point that this Court, under Articles 23 and 23 of the Treaty as read with Article 30 thereof, cannot issue some of the orders sought in the Reference including annulling the Press Law in part or in whole. 65. For the above reasons, Mr. Kayobera prayed that the Reference should be dismissed with costs Submissions by the Amici Curiae 66. The Amici Curiae submitted that looked at against past decisions of International and National Courts, the Press Law is inconsistent with freedom of expression and freedom of the Press and therefore, also contravenes the Fundamental and Operational Principles of the Treaty under Articles 6(d) and 7(2). 67. In his submission and in furtherance of the above position, Mr. Nshimirimana submitted that there is a crucial relationship between freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the Treaty – projected principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice and the promotion and protection of human rights. Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 21