Applicant’s property rights. It was his contention that in so far as the EAC Treaty recognizes the human rights enshrined in the two Conventions, the Respondent’s contravention thereof entailed an infringement of the provisions of the Treaty. 49. Conversely, it was the Respondent’s submission that the Commission did not take over UTC as a company but only assumed the management of the shares therein held by Mr. Tribert Rujugiro. It was learned Respondent Counsel’s submission that the assumption of the management of the shares was undertaken in accordance with Rwanda’s Law No. 28 of 2004 and therefore was not a violation of the principles of the Treaty. Learned Counsel countered the Applicant’s allegation of arbitrariness in the manner in which the Respondent’s actions accrued, with the assertion that the Commission’s action was undertaken with the knowledge of the Applicant as demonstrated by the Minutes of a meeting held on 29th July 2013. Finally, Counsel drew a distinction between the facts of James Katabazi & 21 Others vs. The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (supra) and the present case to the extent that no court order had been violated by the Respondent herein. 50. Court’s determination: We have carefully considered the pleadings, evidence and supporting documentation of both parties. The crux of the matter herein is whether the Commission’s acts contravene Articles 5(3)(g), 6(d), 7(1)(a) and (2), and 8(1) of the Treaty. For ease of reference the cited Articles are reproduced below. Article 5(3)(g) For purposes set out in paragraph 1 of this Article and as subsequently provided in particular provisions of this Treaty, the Community shall ensure: REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 24