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 Session of the Commission in Banjul, the Gambia entitled “The erosion of the Rule of Law in Eritrea: Silencing Freedom of Expression.” The report was a collaboration between the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, South Africa and the United Nations mandated University of Peace in Costa Rica in support of the mandate of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. 29. The Commission is required to answer the question whether a judge whose impartiality may legitimately give rise to doubts should refrain from taking part in the decision-making. Ordinarily, impartiality refers to the absence of prejudice or bias. 30. Undoubtedly, the impartiality of an adjudicatory body is critical to the parties before it as this gives assurances of fairness. Impartiality relates to two critical aspects, first that the adjudicatory body must be subjectively free of personal prejudice or bias and; second that the body must be objectively seen as impartial and offer sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect’.1 31. In Communication 281/2003 - Marcel Wetsh’okonda Koso and Others v Democratic Republic of Congo 2 the Commission stated that Articles 7 and 26 constitute the two prongs of sound justice; namely to mete out appropriate justice and to guarantee the independence of justice and that independent justice refers to trial before impartial and credible courts. 32. The existence or non-existence of bias can be tested in a number of ways. The Commission will adopt the approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights (the European Court) which identifies two distinctive ways of testing impartiality; the subjective approach and the objective approach.3 Whereas the subjective approach seeks to ascertain the actual existence of bias by assessing the personal conviction of a given judge in a given case, the objective 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. 3 Piersack v Belgium, (Application no. 8692/79) European Court of Human Rights, Judgment Strasbourg, 1 October 1982, Para 30 and 31.