ii. Allegation of bias during trial 91. The Applicant alleges that his trial was not free from actual and perceived bias. He asserts that the assessors played the role of a second prosecutor, through cross-examination of witnesses, soliciting for incriminating information and stepping outside of their confined and neutral role. This, according to the Applicant, flouts the fundamental principles of a fair trial and established rules of criminal proceedings including the Respondent State’s own domestic law. The Applicant insists that assessors unlawfully engaged in cross-examination in a manner which clearly showed that they took a position adverse to him and became a second prosecutor. 92. The Respondent State does not directly respond to this allegation. However, it maintains that the Applicant’s trial was carried out in full compliance with its rules governing criminal proceedings. *** 93. 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. The Court observes that the concept of impartiality is an important component of the right to a fair trial. It signifies the absence of actual or perceived bias, or prejudice and requires that judicial officers “must not harbour preconceptions about the matter put before them, and that they must not act in ways that promote the interests of one of the parties”.25 94. In the present case, the Applicant’s claim of bias pertains not to the judges overseeing his trial and appeal, but to the assessors involved in the proceedings. 95. The Court notes that in the Respondent State’s system, assessors play a role in aiding judges to arrive at accurate factual determinations. 25 XYZ v. Republic of Benin (judgment) (2020) 4 AfCLR 83, §§. 81-82 24