(b) That because the instant Reference is premised on allegations of human rights violations, this Court lacks jurisdiction to try such violations unless the jurisdiction of this Court is extended or a protocol to do so, is concluded. Counsel stressed that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain human rights disputes still awaits the operationalisation of a Protocol under Article 27 (2) of the Treaty and without it there cannot be jurisdiction to address such issues . Counsel concluded his submission in respect of this issue contending that the instant case is different from by and can be distinguished from the case of Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda Vs. Plaxeda Rugumba – EACJ Appeal No. 1 of 2012 because the Applicant in the instant matter ,unlike the subject of the Rugumba case, had not at any material time been detained in violation of Burundi national laws, a fact that was admitted by the Attorney General of Rwanda in Rugumba, nor has the Applicant been held incommunicado and in ignorance of his charges. Counsel went on to say that it has in fact been shown that the legality of the Applicant’s detention was affirmed by the Court of Appeal of Burundi after determining the Appeal by the Public Prosecutor in that regard. 13