The Court shall reject such standpoint. Indeed, under the arrangement set out above, it would be unreasonable, and even unrealistic, to condition the enjoyment of the benefits of the subjects of such international law to the administration of the evidence of reciprocity. In cases of such nature, it shall be up to the person challenging the exercise of such right – and also having the means of determining whether or not the treaty may be applied by the other party – to bear the burden of proof, since the issue at stake concerns States. Neither the letter of the above-cited Article 34 nor the spirit of the condition regarding reciprocity, are of such nature as to shift the burden of proof upon an individual, in terms of whether or not an aspect of the treaty is applicable by one party or the other. Incidentally, in international practice, it is the States, in possessing the diplomatic means for so doing, which are responsible for proving the reciprocal terms of treaties signed among themselves, a condition which is often clearly stated in international conventions. In other words, the Defendant State has no right to contest Maître William Bourdon’s right to represent and assist the Applicant before the Courts of Burkina Faso, since Maître William Bourdon is a lawyer registered with the Bar Association of Paris. It is up to Burkina Faso to provide proof if it considers that the condition regarding reciprocity is not fulfilled. Still, nothing in the case-file compels one to think that such reciprocal terms are lacking. It must thereby be concluded that it is appropriate to dismiss this argument, as advanced by the Defendant State. The second argument of Burkina Faso relates to the situation of other lawyers who plead UEMOA rules for the purposes of contesting the refusal by the trial judge of the Ouagadougou Military Tribunal to grant them the right of legal representation and assistance. The text invoked by the lawyers is Article 7 of the 1 January 2015 Rules of Procedure No. 05/CM/UEMOA, which provides: “Lawyers registered with the Bar Association of a Member State of UEMOA may practice their profession in the other Member States of UEMOA, or permanently establish their main firm there, or else create a subsidiary law firm there, in accordance with the provisions relating to the Regulations on Free Movement and Establishment of Lawyer Citizens of the Union in the UEMOA Space”. 9