b) Amend it in accordance with Burundi’s obligations as specified in Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty by striking out or amending Articles 5 to 10, 17 to 20, 26 to 35, 44 to 46, 48 to 54, 56 to 64 and 66 to 69 of the Press Law. C. THE APPLICANT’’S CASE 12. The Applicant’s case is contained in the Reference, the annexures to it, a document titled “Amended Reply” filed on 30th March, 2014, written submissions filed on 3rd November, 2014, and Rejoinder submissions filed on 2nd December, 2014. 13. Mr. Donald Deya at the hearing also handed to Court his talking points to guide his oral highlights of the above submissions. 14. It was the Applicant’s contention that the Press Law received wide criticism even before its enactment when the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in a press statement urged the Burundi Legislature to review it “to ensure its conformity with international human rights standards”. 15. The African Union Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression and Access to Information also contended that “[criminal defamation, insult and false news] are often used by government officials and corporates interests to punish legislative criminal expression.” He added that Burundi had acted with a view to restricting amongst others “infringements that could affect the credit of the state and national economy” and “information that could affect the stability of currency” and if passed, would have the potential to reverse the gains that the country had made in the area of media freedom. 16. After the passage of the Law, the Applicant claimed that criticism continued with among others, the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 5