detention beyond forty eight (48) hours can only be by an Order of a competent Court.” 35. There is little more to say in answer to the question posed above except to state that the continued detention of the Subject without trial in a competent Court was a breach of the Laws of the Republic of Rwanda and we so declare. 36. As a corollary to the above, we must now turn to the single issue that concerns the interpretation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. Although we have touched on the issue in passing, elsewhere above, it is clear to us that the arrest of the Subject on suspicion of having committed a crime known to the Laws of the Republic of Rwanda may per se not attract the intervention of this Court. However, his detention from 20th August 2010 to 28th January 2011 must do so. In making the intervention in this case, as we shall shortly do, we are not questioning the Partner State’s right to apprehend and prosecute criminal suspects. In fact, we recognize this as every Partner State’s duty and obligation to its populace. What we respectfully reiterate however, is that Partner States should apprehend and prosecute criminal suspects in accordance with established laws and if they do not, then they violate the Treaty. REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 25