103. The Respondent State submits that these claims be dismissed by making reference to the Court of Appeal’s decision, which, allegedly, addressed the Applicant’s contentions. The Respondent State also submits that the burden of proof was not shifted, thus the trial was free from bias, and that the assessors are, by law, allowed to put questions to accused persons, which is what they did during the Applicant’s trial. *** 104. The Court observes that Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter provides that, “[e]very individual shall have the right to have [their] cause heard. This comprises…the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal.” 105. With regard to the grounds invoked by the trial judge in relation to the Applicant, particularly the allegation that she was described as a “cruel woman”, the Court notes that this issue was considered by the Court of Appeal in order to determine if the trial court had indeed shifted the burden of proof. The Court of Appeal found that the burden of proof was not shifted and that the proceedings before the High Court were fair. 106. On its own perusal of the record, the Court finds that no grounds have been made out on the basis of which the Court of Appeal’s findings can be impeached, particularly in relation to the alleged violation of Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter. In view of the preceding, the Court dismisses the Applicant’s allegation of a violation of Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter on the ground that the High Court shifted the burden of proof. 107. In relation to the argument on the role of the assessors in the Applicant’s trial, the Court observes, from the record, that during the trial the assessors sought clarifications from the Applicant. The Court notes that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate how this constitutes a violation her right to be presumed innocent under Article 7(1)(b) of the Charter. The Court takes 31