13. The 1st Respondent filed a Response to the Reference on 14th December 2010 and in it, raised the following issues: (i) That although he was not aware of the Subject’s arrest and detention as claimed, upon the Reference being filed and served on him, “all necessary measures [would] be undertaken to address the situation.” (ii) That the Reference is misconceived, frivolous and vexatious because the Applicant has failed to exhaust the local remedy of habeas corpus to seek the production of the Subject and neither has she shown that the Republic of Rwanda has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Treaty and therefore necessitating an investigation by the 1st Respondent or even the filing of a Reference in that regard. In Submissions, the Counsel for the 1st Respondent added that: (iii) Upon learning of the Applicant’s complaint, the 1st Respondent initiated correspondence with the 2nd Respondent and he was informed that the Applicant’s allegations were being appropriately addressed. That therefore, the 1st Respondent had no further role to play in the matter and this Court should not find that he has failed in his obligations under the Treaty, in any way. REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 8