114. Furthermore, the Respondent State submits that the Supreme Court was not specifically constituted to try this matter and there is no evidence of manipulation or influence from the Executive. The Respondent State consequently contends that neither the composition of the Court nor an examination of the entire proceedings at the Supreme Court discloses a violation of the Applicant’s right to be tried by an impartial tribunal. KKK 115. The Court notes that it is not in dispute between the parties that the eight (8) of the judges of the Ordinary Bench also sat in the Review Bench consideration of the same matter in question. and participated in the The point of disagreement between the Parties and the main issue for determination by this Court is whether the composition of the Review Bench, the majority members who were also part of the Ordinary Bench, casts doubt on the impartiality of the tribunal to the extent that one could not reasonably expect a fair decision. 116. The Court observes that in order to determine the issue at hand, the common distinction between appeal and review proceedings. it should recall While an appeal involves a petition to a higher court or tribunal, a review relates to a petition before the same tribunal which made the decision being challenged changes in the number of judges constituting the in the petition, often with bench. The right to appeal presupposes that the appellate tribunal must be higher in authority and different in its composition from the tribunal whose decision is appealed against, but in contrast, a review is usually considered by a special bench of a court which has already examined a matter with a view to correcting any error found.