the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, he qualifies it with “as recognised by Article 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty”. In effect, we understand the cause of action in his case to be the alleged infringement of a Partner State’s Treaty obligations which we find to be a matter which lies outside the province of human rights. -see Attorney General of Uganda v Omar Awadh (supra). 31. What matters, in our view, is that the Application seeks that this Court determines whether the actions and decisions of the Respondent were an infringement of specific Treaty provisions. It is the interpretation and application of these provisions in order to determine whether the impugned actions and decisions are infringements that provides the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 27(1). 32. Consequently, we think the Applicant has passed the test established by the Appellate Division of this Court in the IMLU Case (supra). It is not violations of human rights under the Constitution and other laws of Uganda or of the international community that is the cause of action in the Reference, rather the cause of action is constituted by allegations of infringements of specific Treaty provisions by the Ugandan Government. Applying the IMLU test to the present case, as the Respondent urged us to do, we do find, indeed, that the Treaty provisions alleged to have been violated have, through Uganda’s voluntary entry into the EAC Treaty, been scripted, transformed and fossilised into several principles, obligations and treaty guarantees now stipulated in, among others, Articles 6(d), 7(2), 104 of the Treaty and 7 of the Protocol, breach of any of which by Uganda would give rise to infringement of the Treaty. It is that alleged infringement which, through interpretation of the Treaty under Article 27(1) constitutes the cause of action in the instant Reference, and consequently, establishes the legal foundation of the jurisdiction of this Court in this Reference. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 14