81. Consequently, the Court dismisses the Applicants’ claims and holds that the Respondent State did not violate its obligation to guarantee the independence of the Supreme Court. b. On the impartiality of the Courts that heard the Applicants’ case 82. The Court notes that according to the dictionary of international public law, impartiality is the “absence of bias, prejudice and conflict of interest in a judge [...] in relation to the parties appearing before him”.12 83. The Court states that in line with its jurisprudence, the impartiality of a judge is presumed and that incontrovertible evidence is required to rebut this presumption.13 84. The Court notes that the Applicants advance the same arguments for both the alleged violation of the guarantee of the independence of the Courts and the alleged violation of the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal. 85. The Court emphasises that since the impartiality of the judges is presumed, the Applicant does not produce any irrefutable evidence of such a nature as to call it into question. In fact, their first allegation was not backed with any evidence on record, while the second was vague. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Applicants’ allegation is unfounded. 86. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right to be tried by an impartial court. 12 Dictionary of international public Law, under the supervision of Jean Salmon, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2001, p. 562. 13 Alfred Agbesi Woyome v. Republic of Ghana, Judgment (merits and reparations) (2019) 3 AfCLR 235, § 128; ; Ibid. Ajavon v. Benin, § 293. 20