15. In doing so, we have in mind that the two first issues were raised as preliminary objections by the Respondent. Since those issues have been distilled as issues for determination, we think it is prudent to address them one by one as they were agreed upon during the Scheduling Conference. ISSUE NO.1: Whether this is a Matter for Interpretation before this Honourable Court pursuant to Articles 27(1) and 30(1) & (3) of the Treaty: 16. First and foremost, surprising as it may be, the Applicant shied away from submitting on the above issue in his written submissions, but rather, he opted to await and counter the written submissions thereof by the Respondent since he is the one who raised that issue as a preliminary objection. THE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS 17. The Applicant, when he finally addressed the Court on this issue in his Rejoinder to the Respondent’s written Submissions, submitted that the jurisdiction and mandate of the Court is clearly stated in the Treaty and that in the context of the Reference, the Court is under obligation to determine whether the acts of the Attorney General of Uganda and the IGG, through their respective letters breached Treaty provisions. The Applicant added that it was for that reason that he challenged the legality of the acts of the IGG through his letter dated 8th July, 2013. 18. In conclusion, the Applicant submitted that the preliminary objections should be dismissed and he invited the Court to answer the said issue in the affirmative. Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 10