6. Secondly, that the 2nd Respondent, representing the Republic of Rwanda, was in breach of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) when the Government of Rwanda detained the Subject, unlawfully. In furtherance of this issue, it was the argument of Counsel for the Applicant that the 2nd Respondent in fact admitted the breach when in his Amended Reply to the Reference, he conceded that agents of the Government of Rwanda had unlawfully detained the Subject from 20th August 2010 to 28th January 2011. That since the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights was specifically accepted as one of the sources of the fundamental principles governing the achievement of the objectives of the EAC, (in Article 6(d) of the Treaty), then it follows that the unlawful detention of the Subject must be held to be in breach of the Treaty. 7. Thirdly, an issue arose as to whether this Court is clothed with the Jurisdiction to determine the two (2) issues raised above. The Applicant’s position in that regard is that by dint of Article 30(1) of the Treaty, legal and natural persons resident in the Partner States are granted the right to refer an action or decision of any Partner State, for the Court’s interpretation under Article 27(1) of the Treaty and for it to determine whether or not that act or decision infringes on any provision of the Treaty. REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 5