27.He further submits 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. 28.In response to the 1st Respondent’s assertion that the cause of action in this Reference relates to alleged violations of human rights and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Court, Counsel argued that the 1st Respondent’ s contention is erroneous and that on the contrary, while agreeing that the jurisdiction of this Court is subject to the proviso contained in 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 Burundi’s obligations not only under international law generally e.g. under the Bangalore Principles of Judicial conduct, 2002 but also under Article 6 (d) of the Treaty. 29.It is on this basis of the foregoing, that the Applicant is asking the Court to pronounce itself on the alleged breaches of the said Treaty obligations by Burundi in light of his grievances, namely that the three arms of government have come together and have freedom. 11 acted to deny him his