a violation of Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol; nor indeed, of any of the enumerated provisions of the Charter, or of the Treaty. 34. On issue No.5 namely, of whether the Appellant was entitled to the remedies sought, the 1st Respondent submitted that in light of the various laws cited above and by the foregoing submissions, the Appellant is not entitled to any of the prayers sought; that therefore, this Appeal be dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent. THE 2ND RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS 35. As regards the 1st Issue, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent was in agreement with the Findings of the First Instance Division. He submitted that the instant Reference presented two legal regimes namely, the EAC Treaty; as well as the Charter and the Protocol. Counsel observed that both regimes create institutional mechanisms through which redress can be sought in case of infringement of the Treaty on one hand, or of the Charter or the Protocol, on the other hand. 36. Counsel added that the institutions created under the two legal regimes are not seized with parallel jurisdiction to handle infringements arising out of other instruments which have their own mechanisms to handle disputes referred to them. 37. Counsel submitted that the Appellant has not presented any evidence before this Court to demonstrate that the East African Court of Justice has concurrent jurisdiction with the African Court and African Commission. 13