executing a judgment that has become definitive and enforceable”[sic]. He argued that, in so doing, the Respondent violated the principles of rule of law and good governance enshrined in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. He then urged the Court to grant all the prayers sought in the Reference. 43. The Respondent’s Counsel countered the Applicant’s allegations by arguing that the matter forming the basis of this Reference is going due process in the Supreme Court of Burundi and in accordance with the Laws of Burundi. He contended therefore that no violation of the Treaty was committed and that the Applicant is not entitled to the orders sought. 44. As found above, the Applicant did not adduce evidence that there has been a Treaty violation imputable to the Respondent. Therefore, prayer (a) cannot be granted. As regards prayers (b) and (c), we are of the view, in agreement with the Respondent, that this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant them since they undoubtedly fall outside the Court’s jurisdiction as provided for by Articles 23, 27 as read together with Article 30 of the Treaty REFERENCE No. 2 OF 2013 Page 14