29. We shall now proceed to address each of the above issues. ISSUE (A): WHETHER THE REFERENCE IS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT: 30. This issue was limited to whether the Reference can stand after a challenge to the Press Law was made before the Constitutional Court of Burundi, which interprets its Constitution, and whose decisions are final and cannot be appealed from. Applicant’s submissions 31. Invoking Articles 23 (1) and 27(1) of the Treaty, the Applicant submitted that this is the only appropriate Court to rule on questions regarding the interpretation and application of Burundi’s obligations under the Treaty. In that regard, it placed reliance on past decisions of this Court in Anyang’ Nyongo’ & Others vs. the Attorney General of Kenya, EACJ Ref. No. 1 of 2006; Modern Holdings (EA) Ltd vs. Kenya Ports Authority EACJ Reference No.1 of 2008 and Emmanuel Mwakisha Mjawasi & 78 Others vs. the Attorney General of Kenya EACJ Appeal No.4 of 2011. 32. In addition, it was the Applicant’s submission that under Article 33 of the Treaty, decisions of this Court on interpretation and application of the Treaty shall have precedence over decisions of National Courts on a similar matter. In that regard and in any event, the Applicant argued that there is no requirement that a Party must exhaust local remedies before approaching this Court and relied on the decision of Rugumba vs. Attorney General of Rwanda , EACJ Reference No.1 of 2012 in that regard. 33. The Applicant also made the point that, in the present Reference, whereas the Constitutional Court of Burundi has ruled on the Constitutionality of the Press Law, that fact is not a bar either to the Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 9