Abstain from any measures likely to jeopardize the achievement of those objectives or the implementation of the provisions of this Treaty. While the Court will not assume Jurisdiction to adjudicate on human rights disputes, it will not abdicate from exercising its jurisdiction of interpretation under Article 27(1) merely because the reference includes allegation of human rights violation.” 23. We respectfully adopt the above reasoning as was also adopted in Mwakisha and 74 Others vs. A.G. Kenya, Reference No.2 of 2010 and would wish to clarify that the Applicant in the Reference is asking only one fundamental question, with more than one facet to it; has the Republic of Rwanda breached the principles set out in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty? She therefore seeks the interpretation of that question by this Court under Article 27(1) and we see no bar to our doing so. It would be absurd and a complete dereliction of this Court’s Oath of Office to refuse to do so as long as the two Articles are in the Treaty. There is no doubt that the use of the words, “Other original, Appellate, Human Rights and Other Jurisdiction …” is merely in addition to, and not in derogation to, existing Jurisdiction to interpret matters set out in Articles 6(d) and 7(2). That would necessarily include determining whether any REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 16