13. The 1st Respondent has further denied the argument that advocates are not granted audience before the Commission and that there is no evidence that any litigant has been denied the right to fair representation in any such proceeding. 14. On the Applicants’ submission that the Commission has invaded the space constitutionally reserved for the Judiciary, the 1st Respondent has argued that the doctrine of separation of power is alive and well in the Republic of Burundi and that its Constitution clearly demarcates powers as between the Executive and the Judiciary. 15. As to the background for the creation of the Commission, Mr. Nyandwi deponed that it was a result of the 2000 Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement for Burundi and is a popular initiative supported by a majority of the people of Burundi and not one person has challenged its legality in any court in Burundi. 17. It is also the 1st Respondent’s contention that none of the provisions of the Treaty have been breached or violated and the Applicants are malicious persons bent on reaping from lands unlawfully acquired since 1972 when Burundi descended into ethnic violence forcing many people to flee their lands. That therefore, this Court ought not to reward them by granting the orders sought and instead the Application should be dismissed with costs. 18. In his submissions, Mr. Kayobera made a lot out of the place of Prof. Nditije in UPRONA and argued that he had no mandate in law to represent that Party and that the Application is, for that reason alone, incompetent. 6