115. With or without notification, however, we are still of the view that the Applicant’s case had to be evaluated on its own merit. A Partner State, before imposing a limitation on an individual would have to satisfy itself that the measure is merited in each particular case. If, for example the Applicant, was slapped with a limitation because he was a threat to the security interest of the East African people, it was incumbent on the Respondent to satisfy themselves that it was merited, and where he challenged the legality of the limitation in Court, the Respondent had a duty to prove in Court that the Applicant indeed constituted a real threat to regional security. 116. In stating so, we are fortified by the European Court of Justice, which, while interpreting a similar provision, in Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain, Case – 503/03, held, inter alia, that; the Spanish authorities were not justified in refusing entry to the persons concerned without having first verified whether their presence constituted a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. We find, from the foregoing, that the actions of the Respondent were not in conformity with Article 104 of the Treaty and Article 7(6) of the Protocol. Whether the Provisions of section 52 of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Act are inconsistent and in violation of Articles 6 (d), 7 (2) and 104 of the Treaty and Article 7 of the Protocol As Section 52 of the Citizenship and Immigration Control Act 1999 (the Act) is reproduced verbatim and discussed at length elsewhere in this judgment, we do not find it necessary to reproduce it here. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 52