Consequently, the obligation of impartiality owed by judges also extends to these assessors. This is evidently because any appearance of bias among assessors has the potential to cast doubt on the accuracy of the judges’ factual findings and the overall credibility of the courts. 96. It is further important to note that in the Respondent State’s legal system, the role of assessors is limited to asking questions to obtain some clarifications and they “are not statutorily mandated to cross-examine witnesses”.26 97. The Court notes from the record that in the present case, the Applicant’s trial was conducted in the presence of three assessors, which the High Court approved as “neither the accused nor the prosecution has indicated doubt” and their duties were addressed to them.27 It is evident from the record that the Applicant did not challenge the impartiality of the assessors at this stage or later in the course of his trial or appeals. At no moment did he particularly claim that the assessors overstepped their mandate and engaged in cross-examination. 98. In any case, the Court observes from the file and the Applicant’s own admission that the questions posed by the assessors were not recorded. Rather, the file captures only the responses provided by the defence counsel on behalf of the Applicant. Given this circumstance, the Applicant has not presented any compelling evidence demonstrating that the assessors exceeded their designated roles by engaging in crossexamination, thereby jeopardizing the High Court’s impartiality. 99. Consequently, the Court finds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant’s right to be tried by an impartial tribunal as provided under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter. 26 Mathayo Mwalimu and Another v. The Republic; Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2008 and Yusuph Sylivester v. R; Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2014; Lucia Anthony Bishengwe v. The Republic, Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2016. 27 See Records of the High Court of Tanzania, Criminal Case No. 12 of 2012, p. 3 25