25. The objection to Jurisdiction as framed and argued by the Respondents is misguided and is hereby dismissed. (B) WHETHER IT WAS PERMISSIBLE TO FILE THE APPLICATION OUT OF TIME 26. Article 30(2) of the Treaty provides as follows: “The proceedings provided for in this Article shall be instituted within two months of the enactment, publication, directive, decision or action complained of, or in the absence thereof, of the day in which it came to the knowledge of the complainant, as the case may be.” 27. The Applicant has made the point that because the detention of the Subject was continuous, time could not have stopped running two (2) months after his arrest. We have taken into account the objections by the 2nd Respondent and we note that in the Amended Response and in the Affidavit of Lieutenant Rutayisire, not once has any of them stated the exact date when the Subject was arrested and detained by the agents of the Republic of Rwanda. The 2nd Respondent’s objection as to time is premised on the candid statement of the Applicant that her brother was arrested on 20th August 2010. Should we then take it that time stopped running on 20th October 2010 and REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 18

Select target paragraph3