67. The Court further recalls its earlier decisions, where it noted 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”.22 68. The Court notes that nothing in the record placed before it shows that the assessors cross-examined the witnesses. 69. The Court also notes that the Applicant has not provided any proof that the manner in which the proceedings before the trial court were conducted resulted in any manifest error or serious miscarriage of justice to the detriment of the Applicant. 70. In view of this, the Court, therefore, dismisses this allegation and finds that the Respondent State has not violated the Applicant’s right to be tried by an impartial court or tribunal protected under Article 7(1)(d) of the Charter with regard to the allegation of bias of the assessors and the allegation that they cross-examined the witnesses. B. Alleged violation of the right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law 71. The Applicant alleges that the conduct of the courts in the Respondent State violated his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Charter which provides for the right to equality before the law and the right to equal protection of the law. 72. The Respondent State contends that the Applicant was treated fairly and was not subjected to any discriminatory treatment in the course of the domestic proceedings. Therefore, it did not violate any provision of the Charter. 22 Makungu Misalaba v. United Republic of Tanzania, supra, § 96; Dominick Damian v. United Republic of Tanzania ACtHPR, Application No. 048/2016, Judgment of 4 June 2024 (merits and reparations), § 111. 17