Respondent and fully integrated in the Burundi Constitution by Article 19 thereof. Respondent’s Submissions: 40. Conversely, it was argued for the Respondent that the Constitutional Court of Burundi had rendered a decision in which it held the creation of a Special Court on Land and Other Assets to be in conformity with the Constitution of the Republic of Burundi. Mr. Kayobera argued that the right of appeal was guaranteed under Act No. 1/26 in so far as the said law made provision for an Appellate Division. Finally, citing the case Africa General of East Law Republic of Burundi Society EACJ vs. Attorney Ref. No 1 of 2014, as well the decision of the Constitutional Court of Burundi, Learned Act right to an No. 1/26 was of the consistent with the Counsel argued that independent and impartial judicial system, as well as the right to a fair trial, and was therefore international consistent with instruments and Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty. Court’s Determination: 41. We have carefully considered the pleadings and submissions of both Parties on the alleged and 7(2) of the Treaty. and 16 of the non-compliance of the Act with Articles 6(d) As can be deduced from paragraphs 5, 11, 15 Reference, the specific legal provisions in contention are Articles 2, 5, 8 and 9 of the Act. 42. However, the Applicants provisions of Act No. did also take issue with the following 1/26: Articles 7, 40, 44, 50, 52, 73, 87 and 89. These Articles provide as follows: Reference No.1 5 of 2014 Page 16