(c) Abstain from any measures likely to jeopardize the achievement of those objectives or the implementation of the provisions of this Treaty. 51. We must reiterate from the onset our earlier finding that the Minutes of the meeting of 29th July 2013 are not on record and therefore cannot be relied upon by this Court. However, even if we were to make reference to them, they do relate to a decision to manage an individual shareholder’s equity in the UTC mall rather than the assumption of the mall. Clearly there is contention between the Parties as to whether the Commission took over management of the UTC mall or simply assumed management of a shareholder’s ‘abandoned’ equity therein. 52. Be that as it may, in the present Reference this Court is faced with the question as to whether actions allegedly undertaken in accordance with the internal law of a Partner State contravene the provisions of the Treaty. Rwandan internal law does provide for the management of abandoned property by the Commission. Whether, in fact, the Commission’s actions were undertaken in compliance with Rwanda’s internal laws is another matter. The material before this Court raises fundamental questions as to whether the ‘property’ in respect of which the Commission had assumed management had actually been abandoned so as to evoke the provisions of Law No. 28 of 2004, and whether the Applicant was given an opportunity to be heard prior to being deprived of the mall’s management or, indeed, rental proceeds therefrom. The determination of those questions is critical to the ascertainment by this Court of the Respondent’s compliance with Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. It seems to us that were those questions to be answered in the affirmative then there would be no breach by the Respondent of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty because due process that is inherent in the principles of REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 26