adjudicated by this Court.19 While the Applicant did not make any submissions directly on this issue in relation to the right to life and dignity, the Court finds it necessary to examine whether in the instant case the circumstances warrant a finding in respect of the issue of the mandatory imposition of the death penalty by hanging, in relation to (C) the violation of the right to life, protected under Article 4 of the Charter; and, finally, (D) the violation of the right to dignity, guaranteed in Article 5 of the Charter. A. Alleged violation of the right to be tried by an impartial court or tribunal 59. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent State violated his right to a fair trial as he considers that the trial against him breached one of the principles of natural justice, namely the rule against bias. Specifically, his grievance is that his trial was marred with an uncurable irregularity, in that the assessors who sat with the High Court judge did not properly exercise the right conferred to them by section 177 of the Tanzanian Evidence Act [2002] when putting questions to the witnesses. 60. The Applicant avers that during the trial, the assessors were allowed to cross-examine witnesses instead of asking questions that seek clarification. According to the Applicant, the assessors’ role is to aid the judge to arrive at a fair and just decision by asking questions which will help the court to know the truth, but they are not allowed at any time to take sides. 61. The Applicant, therefore, asserts that he was not accorded a fair trial because the assessors were allegedly biased as they cross-examined the witnesses instead of asking questions that sought clarification. * 62. The Respondent State submits that the assessors who sat in the trial court properly exercised their powers conferred to them under Section 177 of the 19 See Deogratius Nicolaus Jeshi v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Application No. 017/2016, Judgment of 13 February 2024 (merits and reparations), §§ 109-112. 15