37. It transpired from the parties’ pleadings and submissions, especially from oral submissions made during the hearing held on 19th September 2014, that Case RCC 21625 in which the Applicant requested the Supreme Court of Burundi to review its judgment delivered in RAA 669, is still pending before that Court. 38. During the hearing, when pressed to answer the question whether the Respondent could be faulted for not executing a decision that has been overturned by a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, the latter decision being itself subject to an application for review pending before the same Court, Counsel for the Applicant evasively stated that the case before the Supreme Court has been instituted following an “illegal procedure.” We find, with respect, that this argument is untenable, the reason being that, if some procedural irregularities were committed in instituting the case, it was up to the Applicant to raise the matter before a court of competent jurisdiction in Burundi. 39. In view of the above Applicant and Respondent’s averments, the only conclusion to be drawn is that there is no final and enforceable decision in the matter in issue. It then follows from this finding and in line with Article 30(1) of the Treaty that, although the Applicant does have locus standi as he need not exhaust local remedies before coming to this Court, his Reference did not disclose a cause of action as commonly defined to be “a set of facts or circumstances that in law give rise to a right to sue or to take out an action in court for redress or remedy” [see Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o case (supra)]. REFERENCE No. 2 OF 2013 Page 12