110. The Court observes that the concept of impartiality is an important component of the right to a fair trial. It signifies the absence of actual or perceived bias, or prejudice and requires that judicial officers “must not harbour preconceptions about the matter put before them, and that they must not act in ways that promote the interests of one of the parties”.60 111. The Court recalls its position in Makungu Misalaba v. United Republic of Tanzania, that the obligation of impartiality owed by judges extends to assessor bias, or the appearance thereof, which has the potential to cast doubt on the accuracy of the judges’ factual findings and the overall credibility of the courts.61 112. The Court notes that section 177 of the Respondent State’s Evidence Act provides that: In cases tried with assessors, the assessors may put any questions to the witness, through or by leave of the court, which the court itself might put and which it considers proper. 113. From the above provision, the Court observes that the assessors are permitted to put questions which the trial court considers proper to the witnesses either through or with leave of the court. 114. The Court further recalls its earlier decisions, where it noted that in the Respondent State’s legal system, the role of assessors is limited to asking questions to obtain some clarifications and they “are not statutorily mandated to cross-examine witnesses”.62 115. The Court observes from the record of proceedings that three assessors were assigned to the case at the High Court and they questioned each 60 XYZ v. Republic of Benin (judgment) (27 November 2020) 4 AfCLR 83, §§ 81-82. 61 Makungu Misalaba v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 033/2016, Judgment of 7 November 2023 (merits and reparations), § 95. 62 Misalaba v. Tanzania, ibid, § 96; Damian v. Tanzania, supra, § 111. 31