21. He further submitted that in determining a matter in question under the above Article, the Court is required to review the lawfulness of that matter and whether it amounts to an infringement of the Treaty. 22. In response to the Respondent’s assertion that the cause of action in this Reference is human rights violations, Counsel argued that while agreeing that the jurisdiction of the Court is subject to the provisions of Article 27 of the Treaty, the crux of the Applicant’s plea, as exhibited in the Reference, is that the actions complained of are breaches of Uganda’s obligations under Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 104 of the Treaty and Article 7 of the Protocol. It is on the basis of the foregoing, that the Applicant is asking the Court to pronounce itself on the alleged breaches of the said Treaty obligations by Uganda in light of his grievances. 23. Furthermore, relying on the authority of the Katabazi case (supra), Counsel submitted that this Court’s jurisdiction is not ousted merely on the basis that the acts complained of are based on allegations of human rights violations. 24. Finally, Counsel submitted that Article 7 of the Protocol creates subjective rights to which citizens of the East African Community are entitled in their individual capacities and those rights are enforceable vide the Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 27 and 30(1) of the Treaty and it matters not whether those rights are said to be “human rights” or rights by whatever lexicon. 25. In answer to the Respondent’s assertion that Articles 6 (d) and 7(2) of the Treaty contained aspiration and broad policy provisions not capable of being breached and therefore not justiciable, Counsel cited the IMLU Case (supra) as his authority to show that the Articles create obligations that Partner States have voluntarily entered into and that to breach them is a Treaty violation. To drive his point home, Counsel pointed out that in the Applicant’s view, provisions of Article 6 (d) are, in fact, foundational to the Community in that they are conditions precedent to a foreign country being granted membership REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 11