matter relating to or affecting the Community that appears to it to merit examination or upon investigating such a matter, he had failed or refused to submit findings to the concerned Partner State to respond thereto. 48. It was Counsel’s submission that judging from the Applicant’s pleadings on record, there was nothing to prove that the 2nd Respondent had failed/neglected his responsibilities under Articles 29(1) or 71(1)(d) of the Treaty. On the contrary, he invited this Court to consider his positive stance and actions on the matters pertaining to Mr. Rufyikiri. In this regard, he pointed out, as deponed in Mr. Charles Njoroge’s Affidavit that appropriate steps were taken by way of constituting a Task Force to investigate the alleged breach of Treaty provisions by the Republic of Burundi way before the Applicant had even filed the instant Reference. In addition, he averred that the 1st Respondent was informed about the Team and dates were proposed for a possible meeting to discuss, among other issues, the alleged breach of the Treaty, although despite several reminders, the 1st Respondent did not assent to any proposed schedule in order to start investigations. 49. Moreover, it was submitted that this Court’s decision in the Katabazi Case (supra) cannot be cited to fault the 2nd Respondent because as indicated in his evidence, he, without being prompted but upon his own consideration that the matters allegedly affecting Mr. Rufyikiri merited examination within the meaning of Article 29 of the Treaty, took immediate action. 50. In concluding his submissions, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent contended that “the Reference does not disclose a cause of action against the 2nd Respondent because there is no evidence to show that Articles 29(1) and 71(1)(d) of the Treaty were infringed as REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 17