3.6. On 15th December 2009, ETKL submitted to the Commission a copy a duly executed agreement dated 15th October 2009 entered into between ETKL and ACL for the provision of E1 services. 3.7. Upon review of the agreement sent to it by ETKL, the Commission was of the opinion that the parties had indeed entered into an interconnection agreement. In this regard, the Commission therefore noted that the disconnection of the E1 link by ETKL was unilateral contrary to Clause 45(2) of the Regulations. Consequently, on 17th December 2009, the Commission wrote to the parties, firstly directing ETKL to re-establish the E1 link to ACL with immediate effect, and secondly, requesting the parties to submit their records of transmissions made between 1st and 4th of November 2009 to support or deny the allegations made by ETKL that the E1 link was used for fraudulent/criminal activities by ACL during this period. 3.8. In response, ETKL, vide a letter dated 21st December 2009 referred the Commission to Clause 42(8) of the Regulations that obligates the Commission to carry out investigations where there is allegation of contravention or failure to comply with the provisions of the Act or Regulations; Clause 42(6)(e) on the discretion of the Commission to exempt a licensee from the obligation to enter into an interconnect agreement; and Clause 37(6) on the lawful use of a service acquired as part of interconnection. The letter was silent on whether ETKL had complied with the directive to re-establish the E1 link with ACL. 3.9. The Commission reviewed the issues raised by ETKL and wrote to ETKL on 23rd December 2009 reiterating that a party wishing to terminate an interconnection agreement can only do so in the manner prescribed by Clause 45(2) of the Regulations, and further advised ETKL to comply with the directive of the Commission to re-establish the E1 link with ACL with immediate effect. Page 3 of 11