Evidence Act. According to the Respondent State, the assessors did not cross-examine the Applicant, rather, the questions put to the Applicant by the assessors was for the purpose of seeking clarification from him and help the trial court reach a fair decision. 63. The Respondent State further states that the assessors who sat in the High Court at the Applicant’s trial were impartial. Furthermore, the Respondent State maintains that the procedures in the conduct of the Applicant’s case in the trial court did not violate article 16(6)(a) of the Constitution of the Respondent State. *** 64. The Court notes that pursuant to Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter, every accused individual has the right to be tried by an impartial court or tribunal. 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”.20 65. 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.21 66. The Court further 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. 20 XYZ v. Republic of Benin (judgment) (2020) 4 AfCLR 83, §§ 81-82. 21 Makungu Misalaba v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 033/2016 Judgment of 7 November 2023 (merits and reparations), § 95. 16