97 . The Commission also observes that the Complainant has not made the argument, nor adduced evidence , demonstrating that the Parliament included a Judge in the Independent Panel for the purpose of influencing the Judiciary, and by extension violating the separation of powers between the three branches of Government in the Respondent State. 98 . In addition , the Complainant averred that Rule 129V dealing with the appointment of a Judge does not differentiate between a Judge in active service and a retired Judge, and further that the appointment of a Judge who is still in active service in the Independent Panel weakens the independence of the Judiciary. However, as indicated in the submissions of both Parties, the facts of the Communication demonstrate that a retired Justice was appointed to the Independent Panel tasked to conduct the assessment to determine whether the Victim should be removed from office. 34 99 . In this regard , the Commission observes that, the fact that a retired Judge was appointed to the Independent Panel refutes the Complainant's argument that the presence of a Judge affects the independence of the Judiciary, or it's perception thereof. While the mere fact of the inclusion of a Judge in the Independent Panel , constituted following established processes , is not on its own enough to compromise the independence of the Judiciary, the fact that the member of the Independent Panel is a retired Judge renders the allegation of the Complainant without reasonable grounds. 100. The Complainant also averred that the Constitutional Court misdirected itself, and in so doing violated Article 26 of the Charter. This allegation is in reference to the Judgement of the Constitutional Court,35 in which it held that "the application relating to the constitutionality of Rule 129V is dismissed ;" 36 - that is the Rule pertaining to the appointment of a Judge to the Independent Panel. 101 . In this regard , the Commission observes that the Complainant is in effect requesting the Commission to review the Constitutional Court's decision to determine whether it 'misdirected' itself, thereby violating Article 26 of the African Charter. However, this falls outside the Commission 's mandate given that it has no appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by Courts in the State Parties. Accordingly, the Commission declines to assess whether the Constitutional Court misdirected itself and violated Article 26 of the Charter. 102. This notwithstanding, the Commission takes the opportunity to highlight the distinction between the Commission sitting as an appellate body reviewing the