before the High Court on 11 December 1998 to the delivery of the decision of the Court of Appeal from the High Court decision 27 October 2009 is unreasonable to process and finalise the case. 105. As a consequence, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the Applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter due to the lengthy period of time that the domestic proceedings lasted. iii. On the alleged failure of the court assessors to examine the witnesses 106. The Applicant alleges that during the trial the court assessors did not adhere to mandatory requirements of Section 177 of the Evidence Act, which necessitated them to cross examine the witnesses and that this resulted into an unfair judgment being rendered. * 107. The Respondent State avers that this allegation is not clear since the Applicant has not demonstrated how the assessors failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 177 of Evidence Act. 108. The Respondent State further avers “that the foregoing provision does not mandatorily require the assessors to put questions to the witnesses. However, during the trial of the Applicant the assessors had an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses58 and gave their final opinion(s) to the court as required by the law”.59 *** 109. 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. 58 See pages 8, 9, 13, 14 and 19 of the High Court Proceedings. 59 See paragraph 4 (viii) of the Respondent States Response to the Application. 30