international law. This rule concerns attribution of acts of so-called de jure organs which have been expressly entitled to act for the State within the limits of their competence. Since SOF and APAPS were legal entities separate from the Respondent, it is not possible to regard them as de jure organs.” 23. In the instant case, Article 2 of Rwanda’s Law No. 10 of 2006 – Determining the Structure, Organisation and the Functioning of the City of Kigali grants administrative and financial autonomy, as well as legal personality to the City of Kigali. Article 3 of the same law recognizes the division of Kigali City into districts. In turn, Article 6 of the same law grants administrative and financial autonomy, as well as legal personality to each district of Kigali City. On the other hand, this Court’s understanding of Article 11 of Law No. 28 of 2004 – Relating to Management of Abandoned Property is that it provides for the establishment of Commissions responsible for the management of abandoned property ‘at national level, in each province or the City of Kigali and in each district or town or municipality.’ The Commission that is under scrutiny presently is the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission that was set up under Article 11 of Law No. 28 of 2004 to undertake the management of abandoned property in Kigali City. No law was presented to us by the Applicant that expressly designates the Commission as an organ of the State of Rwanda as required by Article 4 of the ILC Articles or as was the case in the Noble Ventures Inc. case (supra). Consequently, the Commission cannot be deemed to be a de jure organ of the State of Rwanda neither can its actions be attributed to the said State on that account. We so hold. REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 13