Issue No. 4: Whether or not the Applicant is entitled to the remedies sought 114. We have addressed all the core issues as framed during the Scheduling Conference and we now proceed to determine the prayers sought in the Reference in light of our findings. 115. Starting with the submissions of Counsel for the 1st Respondent, the latter relied on the Ndorimana case (supra) and submitted that the Applicant is not entitled to any remedy sought and that the Reference ought to be dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent. 116. The 2nd Respondent’s Counsel, on his part, pointed out that out of the ten declarations and orders the Applicant had sought against the Respondents, it was only two of them that specifically related to the 2nd Respondent, namely the proposed orders under paragraphs (vii) and (viii). 117. As regards the order sought under paragraph (vii), learned Counsel contended that such an order cannot be issued because there was already a Task Force duly constituted and mandated to ascertain whether or not the 1st Respondent breached the fundamental and operational principles of the Community. 118. Concerning the order sought under paragraph (viii), the 2nd Respondent’s Counsel submitted that Article 29 of the Treaty which covers the matter at issue did not confer upon the 2nd Respondent any advisory role to merit the grant of the order sought by the Applicant. He maintained that the order sought is not tenable and that the practical thing to do was to let the ongoing investigation that led up to the procedure laid out in Article 29 of the Treaty play out. 119. In his reply to the 2nd Respondent’s submission, Counsel for the Applicant submitted that what was sought was for the 2nd Respondent to establish an effective Commission/investigative mechanism. REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 38