Court alleging that the 2nd Respondent failed to take appropriate actions, under Articles 29 and 71 of the Treaty, against a Partner State alleged to have violates its Treaty obligations by the unprocedural way it handled Mr. Rufyikiri’s case. 63. On Issue No. 1, therefore, we hold that the instant Reference discloses a cause of action against both the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Issue No. 2: Whether the acts of the servants/agents of the 1st Respondent in prosecuting Mr. Isidore Rufyikiri before an Anti- Corruption Court, disbarring him from the Table of Barristers and prohibiting him from travelling outside Burundi constituted a breach of the provisions of Article 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. Applicant’s Submissions 64. The Applicant contended that “the sum total of the treatment so meted out to Mr. Isidore Rufyikiri amounts to a scheme by the Government of Burundi to suppress criticism, and/or democratic advice, to interfere with the rule of law, and a wanton disregard of the human and professional rights of a Burundi citizen and therefore contrary to the principles of the Treaty as provided in Articles 6(d), and 7((2).” 65. As regards the prosecution of Mr. Rufyikiri and the prohibition from travelling outside the country, Counsel for the Applicant alleged that the scheme of acts that amounts to violation of the Treaty was disclosed by the 1st Respondent’s failure to prove that there were any valid grounds for commencing a prosecution against Mr. Rufyikiri in the Anti-Corruption Court. 66. In addition, learned Counsel submitted that given that Mr. Sylvestre Nyandwi’s affidavit in support of the 1st Respondent’s Response alleged but did not disclose any evidence of mismanagement of CEBAC funds, REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 21