inconsistent with internal law and, on that basis, a breach of a Partner State’s obligation under the Treaty to observe the inescapable Partner Principle duty State of rule to consider in law, the determining it is the Court’s internal law of such whether the conduct complained of amounts to a violation or contravention of the Treaty.” 27. Thus, where the subject matter complained a ‘directive, decision or action’, it would of under Article 30(1) is be evaluated against totality of a given Partner State’s laws to determine its legality. instant case, Parliament however, where contravenes Treaty the complaint provisions, is the that internal the In the an Act of or domestic laws of the Partner State that enacted that Act would be immaterial to a determination Treaty.Rather, of whether it would be or not such Act incumbent upon this contravenes Court to the make a determination as to what is envisaged by the principles of rule of law and good governance as invoked by the Applicant and enshrined in the Treaty, and whether, in fact, the provisions of Act 1/26 do violate the said principles as has been alleged. 28. We are fortified in this approach by the provisions of Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It reads: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.” 29. Article 46 pertains to the competence Convention to consent to be bound internal laws. Reference No.1 5 of 2014 The competence by a of the of a State Party to the treaty in contravention of its Republic of Burundi to be Page 11