33. While it seems easy to apply and interpret the first limb of the provision, it might not be as straight forward to apply or interpret its second limb, which starts with the phrase “in the absence thereof”. Indeed, it is quite evident that the second limb comes into play only where the first limb cannot apply. However, it is not clear as to what should be absent. Is it the enactment, publication, directive, decision or action complained of? Or is it the date of such enactment, publication, directive, decision or action? To any reasonable mind, the first question can only be answered in the negative, since one cannot complain against something that does not exist. We are convinced that by the phrase “in the absence thereof”, the drafters of the Treaty meant “in the absence of any known date thereof”. 34. The second limb would then apply where the claimant does not know the exact date of the action complained of. For instance in the case of The Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda v Plaxeda Rugumba, Appeal No. 1 of 2012, decided by this Court on 22nd June 2012, the action complained of was the incommunicado detention of the Complainant. The detainee’s sister who filed the complaint in Court, did not and could not know of the date of her brother`s detention. But that is not the same situation in this instant case of Omar Awadh. 35. In the circumstances of the instant Appeal, the Court must determine the specific actions complained of. In this regard, the Respondents indicated that the dominant action complained of was the detention. They also alleged other wrongful actions, such as their arrest and rendition. Nonetheless, they conceded that all those were “instantaneous actions”, meaning that they are capable of being time barred – unlike detention which is “continuous”. For the purposes of this Appeal, therefore, detention is the action which the Respondents aver cannot be time-barred (on account of its being a “continuous violation”). 36. The Court finds that the detention complained of followed a chain of events – all of which can be very well located in time. Applying Article 30 (2) and following the approach described above would establish whether the first limb of the provision applies 10