21. The Applicant then alleged that the acts of the servants/agents/institutions of the 1st Respondent of prosecuting Mr. Rufyikiri before the Anti-Corruption Court, disbarring him from the Roll of Advocates and prohibiting him from travelling outside Burundi were unprocedural, and in breach of the rule of law, good governance, the right of free movement, as well as Articles 6(d), 7(2), 11,27,29,30,38,67(3)(d),71,143,146 and 147 of the Treaty. 22. The Applicant further alleged that the 2nd Respondent was in breach of his duty under the Treaty for failure to regularly monitor the observance of Treaty obligations by Partner States so as to advise the Summit and the Council over measures to effect compliance. 23. The Applicant therefore seeks declarations and orders from the Court as follows: a) A declaration that the system of administration of justice and governance in Burundi is not conducive and enabling for the effective operation of the justice as envisaged by Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty; b) A declaration that by virtue of the legal system currently existent in Burundi, there is no distinctive separation of powers between the Judiciary and the Executive and hence a breach of the relevant provisions in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty; c) A declaration that the procedure adopted and employed by both the Prosecutor General and the Court of Appeal of Bujumbura to disbar Mr. Isidore Rufyikiri was in breach of the international instruments on the right to a fair trial as provided by Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty; d) A declaration that the decision and order of the Court of Appeal of Burundi [sic] of 28th January 2014; and the travel ban imposed on Mr. Isidore Rufyikiri by the Prosecutor REFERENCE NO.1 OF 2014 Page 6