The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-treatment in the African Human Rights System: A HANDBOOK FOR VICTIMS AND THEIR ADVOCATES Treaty’.115 It can also consider any matter ‘arising from an arbitration clause contained in a contract or agreement which confers such jurisdiction to which the Community or any of its institutions is a party’ or ‘arising from an arbitration clause contained in a commercial contract or agreement in which the parties have conferred jurisdiction on the Court’.116 At the same time Article 27(2) provides that ‘the Court shall have such other original, appellate, human rights and other jurisdiction as will be determined by the Council at a suitable subsequent date. To this end, the Partner States shall conclude a protocol to operationalise the extended jurisdiction’.117 While the EACJ does not have clear jurisdiction over human rights issues, the fundamental principles of the East African Community as set out in Article 6 of the Treaty include ‘good governance including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, accountability, transparency, social justice, equal opportunities, gender equality, as well as the recognition, promotion and protection of human and peoples rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’.118 Article 7 similarly obliges member States of the EAC to ‘abide by the principles of good governance, including adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, social justice and the maintenance of universally accepted standards of human rights’.119 Thus, in Katabazi v. Secretary General of East African Community, which challenged the lawfulness of the detention of Ugandan prisoners, the Court held that while it has not yet been mandated to adjudicate on issues relating to human rights violations per se,120 it referred to the abovementioned Articles 6 and 7 to justify declaring the case admissible. The Court made it clear that although it ‘will not assume jurisdiction to adjudicate on human rights disputes, it will not abdicate from exercising its jurisdiction of interpretation under Article 27(1) merely because the Reference includes allegation of human rights violation’.121 This is the position the EACJ continues to maintain in response to the States’ preliminary objections aiming to challenge its jurisdiction over human rights related cases.122 In May Ibid., Article 27. Ibid., Article 32(a) and 32(c). Ibid., Article 27(2) Ibid., Article 6(d). EAC Treaty, Article 7(2). EACJ, Katabazi v. Secretary General of East African Community, Reference No. 1 of 2007 (1 November 2007). 121 Ibid. at para. 39. 122 EACJ Ruling on Preliminary Objection in Independent Medico Legal Unit v. Attorney General of Kenya and 4 others, Reference No. 3 of 2010 (29 June 2011) […‘Court shall not abdicate its duty to interpret 115 116 117 118 119 120 38