Court has jurisdiction to entertain prayers (a) and (d) of the Reference. However, in light of the aforementioned case law, we agree with the Respondent that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant prayers (b) and (c) since they fall outside the Court’s jurisdiction as provided for by Articles 23, 27 as read together with Article 30 of the Treaty. 34. We therefore answer issue No. 1 partly in the affirmative. 35. Having so decided, we now turn to the substantive matter pertaining to whether or not there has been violation of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and the question of the admissibility of this Reference while there is another related case pending before the Supreme Court of Burundi. This imperatively calls for a determination on whether the Reference discloses a cause of action under Article 30(1) of the Treaty. 36. As recalled above, the substratum of the Reference is the Applicant’s contention that, by refusing to execute “a definitive and enforceable” judgment rendered by the Administrative Court of Bujumbura, awarding damages to him for loss allegedly caused by the Government of Burundi, the latter violated Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. The Respondent’s main opposing argument is that there is no infringement to any provision of the Treaty since there is no enforceable judgment that the Government has failed to execute as the very judgment referred to by the Applicant has been overturned by another judgment of the Supreme Court of Burundi and that an application to review the latter is still pending before the Supreme Court. REFERENCE No. 2 OF 2013 Page 11