assessors contradicted or weakened the evidence that the witnesses had given during their testimonies. Furthermore, the recorded witness responses were confirmations of statements that all the three witnesses had already made in their testimonies.53 Therefore, it cannot be said, as the Applicant contends, that the trial court breached his rights owing to the assessors questioning witnesses. As the Court has earlier established in the present Judgment, the manner in which the domestic courts evaluated the evidence does not reveal any manifest error or a miscarriage of justice to the detriment of the Applicant. 113. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s contentions that the Respondent State failed to arrange a trial that was free from actual or perceived bias and holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicant’s right to be tried by an impartial court or tribunal under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to life 114. The Applicant alleges that the breach of various rights to a fair trial in the course of the proceedings that led to his sentencing rendered the imposition of the death penalty a violation of the right to life. 115. The Applicant avers that the Respondent State violated his right to life under Article 4 of the Charter by imposing the mandatory death penalty without giving due consideration to the personal circumstances of the offender and the particular offence, including its specific aggravating or attenuating elements. It is the Applicant’s contention that the Respondent State imposed the death penalty based solely on its mandatory nature in municipal law while such a sentence was not warranted or compatible with their right to life due to good character and lack of any prior criminal history. The Applicant further submits that the Respondent State also failed to prove The Republic v. Dominick S/O Damian, Criminal Sessions Case No. 61 of 2008, supra, pages 10-13; 15-17 and 19-21. 53 32