have required the appointment of a different prosecutor to handle the case; and that the Applicant raised the issue of the relationship between the Prosecutor and the complainant in court as far back as 12 August 1997. 108. At that same hearing, the Respondent State’s representative, referring to the record of the proceedings before the national courts, explained this regard was based on hearsay as he indicated had a relationship with the complainant; Prosecutor averred that the Applicant’s complaint in that he was told that the Prosecutor that the court sought to know more; that that the allegations were not true and were baseless; that the on the basis of this rebuttal, the court was satisfied with the matter and saw it fit to proceed with consideration bringing the of the case; and that in any case, the Applicant had complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions who the possibility of could have changed the Prosecutor in the interest of justice, which the Applicant did not do. 109. The Court notes that the record of domestic judicial procedures Applicant had, indeed, conflict of interest; requested that the a change Prosecutor shows of the Prosecutor for reasons contested this allegation; that the of alleged but that the court ultimately took no explicit decision on this, and simply proceeded with consideration of the case. 110. The Court notes that a possible conflict of interest on the part of a Prosecutor for reasons of his alleged relationship with the complainant is a matter of crucial importance in any trial, especially in criminal cases, as it touches on the very principle of impartiality of judicial institutions, including prosecuting institutions, as impartiality is one of the pillars of a fair trial. 111. Consequently, the Court holds that, in the instant case, the national judge, before further consideration of the case, should have pushed for further investigafions on the 32 “Bye Eo 4