Analysis of the issue 31. We have carefully considered the opposing arguments in respect of the instant issue. We first of all note that under Article 27(1) of the Treaty, this Court has jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of the Treaty, where such jurisdiction is not conferred by the Treaty on organs of Partner States. As persistently stated by the Applicant, his Reference seeks, among other orders, that this Court determine whether the refusal by the Government of Burundi to abide by the Laws of Burundi in paying the amount awarded to him by the Administrative Court of Bujumbura is an infringement of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. 32. In his written submissions and during the hearing held on 19 th September 2014, Counsel for the Respondent conceded that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain some prayers of the Reference, namely, a prayer seeking a declaration that the refusal by the Government of the Republic of Burundi to pay damages as per the decision of the Administrative Court of Bujumbura is an infringement of Articles 6 (d) and 7(2) of the Treaty [prayer (a)] and another one regarding costs of this Reference [prayer (d)]. Learned Counsel, however, maintained that the Court lacks jurisdiction to determine other prayers [i.e. prayers (b) and (c)] sought by the Applicant. 33. Guided by the Court’s previous decisions on similar matters [see Plaxeda Rugumba case (supra), Peter Anyang Nyong’o case (supra), James Katabazi case (supra) and EACJ REF. No.9 of 2012, Venant Masenge Vs The Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi], we are of the decided opinion that the REFERENCE No. 2 OF 2013 Page 10