No.1 of 2011 and the Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda vs. Plaxeda Rugumba, EACJ Appeal No.1 of 2012. On the basis of the above reasons, Counsel for the Applicant urged the Court to answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative. Counsel for the 1st Respondent on their part stated that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this Reference. Counsel for the 1st Respondent argued that the Court derives its jurisdiction from the Treaty and pointed out specifically Articles 23 and 27 of the Treaty. Article 23 of the Treaty provides that: (1) “The Court shall be a judicial body which shall ensure the adherence to law in the interpretation and application of and compliance with this Treaty; (2) The Court shall consist of First Instance Division and an Appellate Division; (3) The First Instance Division shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine, at first instance, subject to a right of appeal to the Appellate Division under Article 35A, any matter before the Court in accordance with this Treaty.” Article 27(1) and (2) of the Treaty gives more clarifications as regards the jurisdiction of the Court as follows: (1) ”The Court shall initially have jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of this Treaty; (2) The Court shall have such other original, appellate, human rights and other jurisdiction as will be determined by the Counsel at a suitable subsequent date. To this end, the Partner States shall conclude a Protocol to operationalize the extended jurisdiction.” REFERENCE NO.11 OF 2011 Page 12