directive, decision or action is unlawful or is an infringement of the provisions of this Treaty.” 28. Counsel further submitted that, with regard to the question of non-exhaustion of local remedies raised by the Respondent’s Counsel, the Applicant, being a natural person who has direct access to the Court under Article 30(1) of the Treaty, is not required to first exhaust local remedies before bringing a case to this Court. 29. As for the case Reference RCC 21 625 still pending before the Supreme Court of Burundi, he contended that the process which brought the matter before the Supreme Court was unlawful on the ground that the Applicant was forced by the Government of Burundi to follow an “illegal procedure.” He maintained that, in any case, he had written to the Supreme Court requesting the suspension of all proceedings in the matter since the case had been brought to this Court. 30. After referring the Court to some decided cases, to wit, EACJ REF. No.1 of 2006: Prof. Peter Anyang Nyong’o & 10 others Vs The Attorney General of Kenya & 2 others; Plaxeda Rugumba case(supra); James Katabazi case(supra), where this Court had to address issues pertaining to its jurisdiction, Counsel wrapped up his submissions by contending that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the case and to decide on the orders sought, since there are no similar prayers in the Reference before the Supreme Court of Burundi as wrongly submitted by the Respondent. REFERENCE No. 2 OF 2013 Page 9