with the East African Community Common Market (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations, specified in Annex I to this Protocol. 112. We should recall for clarity of issues that the actions complained of are the denial of entry to the Applicant, being declared a prohibited immigrant, detention and return to Kenya. We have shown above that these actions were in violation of the freedom of movement of the Applicant which is among the foundational principles of the Common Market. We therefore do not hesitate to hold that the same actions are in violation of Article 104 of the Treaty. 113. As regards the question whether the actions of the Respondent were in violation of Article 7 (6), we also indicated earlier in this analysis that the provision created an obligation on a Partner State imposing a limitation of the freedom of movement of persons under Article 7(5) of the Protocol to notify the other Partner States accordingly. 114. The Respondent argued that the Applicant had a duty to prove that Uganda did not comply with that provision, since he is the party who made the allegation. With respect, we think otherwise. Article 7(6) is a Protocol obligation upon a Partner State imposing a limitation to inform the other Partner States. It is also a Treaty obligation under Article 8(3) (c). It is not dependent on whether there is litigation or not. A notification is, in our view, a notice meant for the public in the Partner States to be known and be complied with by all. With respect, therefore, we think that the burden was on the Respondent to prove that Uganda had or had not made the notification. It would otherwise be an unbearable burden on the Applicant to do so. The Respondent did not discharge this burden. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 51