A TT ee me -_— on the part of the Respondent Stat to the absence of the respected Delegates from the Republic of Eritrea from the actual panel discussion. The Commission’s analysis On the allegation of the Honourable Commissioner’s bias on the matter 28. The Commission notes that the Respondent State’s allegation of bias originated from the launch of a report on 24 April 2015, during the 56th Ordinary Se Banjul, the Gambia entitled “The erosion of the Rule ofLayjin Erin The pea was a collaboration between the ion of the Commission in Eritre Silencing Freedom of Centre for Human Rights at the th (ti Hit 29. The Commission is required to answer may legitimately give rise to doubts should refrain from taking part in the decision-making. UT lh) HH Ordinarily, impartiality sells to the fees jie Hi prejudi HH} , 30. Undoubtedly, the imipartiality of ana juc icatory body this gives assuranc es | of fairness. Impartiality adjudicatory body ru the body — .be e or bis is critical to the parties before it as relates to two critical aspects, first that the be subjectively free of personal prejudice or bias and; second that Whmth?seen as impartial and offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any {i Republic of Congofi, ? the Commission stated that Articles 7 and 26 constitute the two prongs of sound justice; ely to mete out appropriate justice and to guarantee the independence of justice and that independent justice refers to trial before impartial and credible courts. 1 Nsongurua J Udombana, The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the development of fair trial norms in Africa (2006) 6 African Human Rights Law Journal p. 326. 2 Communication 281/2003- Marcel Wetsh’okonda Koso and Others v Democratic Republic of Congo (2008) ACHPR Para 76 and 77.