facts and evidence, and concluded that that there was strong evidence on the record to home a conviction.48 The judgments of the domestic courts reveal that PW1 gave a clear account of the incident and testified that she saw the Applicant and his brother assaulting the deceased with sticks. 49 105. In light of the foregoing, this Court considers that the manner in which the domestic courts evaluated the presented evidence and the weight accorded to it does not disclose any manifest error or miscarriage of justice to the Applicant. 106. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegations that his right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal was violated and finds that the Respondent State did not violate Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter. iv. Alleged violation of the right to be tried by an impartial court or tribunal 107. The Applicant alleges that the trial court participated in cross-examination of witnesses, the purpose of which, as set out in the Respondent State’s legislation, is to allow an adverse party to shake the witnesses’ credibility by injuring his character, and to elicit answers that might incriminate him or might directly or indirectly expose him to a penalty or forfeiture. It is the Applicant’s averment that by cross-examining the witnesses in his case, the trial court took a position adverse to him and became a second prosecutor, violating his right to a fair trial. 108. The Respondent State did not specifically respond to this allegation but maintained generally that the Applicant’s rights under the Charter and the Constitution were fully observed and protected. *** The Republic v. Dominick S/O Damian, Criminal Sessions Case No. 61 of 2008, ibid, pages 15-16 and Dominick Damian v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2013, ibid, page 7. 49 Republic v. Dominick S/O Damian, Criminal Sessions Case No. 61 of 2008, ibid, pages 2-3 and Dominick Damian v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2013, ibid, page 4. 48 30