quasi-judicial bodies have defined, interpreted and continue to enforce the principle of continuing violations. DECISION OF THE COURT: 25. After considering arguments from both parties, the First Instance Division made a ruling that the Reference was not time barred. The ruling and order of the First Instance Division were based on the reasoning that the alleged violation was a “continuous act which cannot be subjected to mathematical computation of time”. 26. The Appellate Division of this Court has carefully considered the rival submissions of the Parties in support of their respective positions. First and foremost, we find (supported by the Parties’ own affirmation), that the acts complained of (such as the arrest, rendition and detention of the Respondents) happened between 22nd July and 17th September 2010; and that those acts were well known by the Applicants/Respondents, right from the inception of the various acts. 27. In the above regard, it is plainly evident that both parties have no dispute concerning the fact that the Applicants promptly filed their legal challenges on behalf of their relatives (the Respondents) in the domestic Courts – namely, the High Court of Kenya and of Uganda, seeking their release. Later on, they lodged their Reference in this Court, in June 2011. This was more than one year after the expiry of the two-month time limit prescribed by the Treaty. 28. This Court finds that there can be no disputation on the computation of time. This is so because the Applicants readily admitted to having been aware of the acts complained of, as and when those acts were happening – as evidenced, in any event, by the prompt lodging of their complaints in the national courts of Kenya and Uganda. That being the case, this Court must conclude that the Reference, having been filed in this Court more than one year after the happening of the events complained of, was time-barred for non-compliance with Article 30 (2) of the Treaty. Consequently, the 8