from Article 42 of the Treaty and, to the extent that they regulate the detailed conduct of the Court's business, they do compliment and operationalize the function of the Court as stipulated in Articles 23(1) and 30 of the Treaty. 35. We take the most considered terms that postulate that view that Article 42(1) whereas the Treaty is couched makes in general provisions for the institutionalization of the Court, the detailed conduct of the Court's provided business or the Court's for in its Rules implementing routine of Procedure. the Court’s mandate, operations Therefore, the Treaty must read together with the Court’s Rules of Procedure. seems abundantly would be for purposes of be applied and In that regard, it clear to us that the time limit stipulated in Article 30(2) of the Treaty would be computed in the manner outlined in Rule 3(1)(d) of the Court's Rules. 36. Before we take leave of We so hold. this issue, we deem it necessary to distinguish the cases cited by learned Counsel for the Respondent on the issue decisions of limitation in Independent Ndayizamba (supra). Article 30(2), therein as continuing fixed and violations We Medico have Legal carefully Unit considered (supra) and the Hilaire Both cases addressed the import and scope of categorically advanced therein. We of time. designating binding, on and account the negating of the time any principle limit prescribed considerations of legal certainty We do most respectfully abide by those positions. hasten to add, however, that the matter under consideration the present of Reference is not the scope or import of Article 30(2) of the Treaty but, rather, how the time limit prescribed therein may computed.Clearly, applicable would be the in law in that regard be Rule 3(1)(d) of the Court's Rules. Reference No.1 5 of 2014 Page 14