102. In light of the foregoing findings, we hold that not following the letter of law (i.e. exhausting the period of time allowed to the Bar Council to take a decision on the disciplinary matter) in instituting the disbarment case against Mr. Rufyikiri before the Court of Appeal of Bujumbura, constituted a violation of due process and this contradicts the Respondent’s Counsel’s contention that Mr. Rufyikiri was disbarred in accordance with the law. Having so found, we see no reason to scrutinize the Court of Appeal process. On the disbarment issue therefore, we hold that the violation of due process by the 1st Respondent offends the rule of law principles enshrined in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. Issue No. 3: Whether the 2nd Respondent failed/neglected his responsibilities under the provisions of Articles 29(1) and 71(1)(d) of the Treaty Submissions 103. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the gist of the Applicant’s case against the 2nd Respondent was that, having got prior knowledge of the alleged violations of the 1st Respondent’s Treaty obligations triggered by the unprocedural way in which Mr. Rufyikiri’s case was handled, the 2nd Respondent did not take any action that would have compelled the 1st Respondent to comply with its Treaty’s commitments. 104. In order to prove that the 2nd Respondent had prior knowledge about allegations of lack of good governance in Burundi, learned Counsel referred to letter Ref.: CAMRI/0484/2013 of 27th December 2013 written by Mr. Rufyikiri to the Public Prosecutor of Burundi and copied to the EAC Secretary General, among others. In addition, he pointed out the contents of letter Ref. ORG/2/1 of 11th November 2013 written by the EAC Secretary General to the Minister to the Office of the President Responsible for EAC Affairs in Burundi, in which the REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 34