the subjective test as it strikes to the core of the Commission’s functionality. If upheld, it would amount to a unilateral amendment of the Charter, and require the Commission to make a declaratory order outside the scope of its jurisdiction. 36. Further, the Commissioner’s comments were statements of fact repeating established findings as ascertained in previous decisions of the Commission. These statements cannot suffice as proof of bias. Consequently, the Commission finds that the allegation of bias fails on the subjective test. 37. The Commission however notes that bias is not easy to read in the mind of the adjudicator but perceptions, impressions and appearances are equally important where bias is alleged. An adjudicator caught up in allegations of bias where there is legitimate fear of lack of impartiality affects the public’s confidence in that court’s ability to deliver justice. Courts are themselves of no use if they do not inspire confidence in the public in a democratic society. Similarly, this Commission’s credibility is at stake where one of its adjudicators is alleged to be biased. The question is therefore whether the imputed statements are sufficient to create doubt in the mind of an objective person of the Honourable Commissioner’s impartiality in adjudicating this Communication. 38. The Commission notes that the Honourable Commissioner was speaking from a nuanced perspective as the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa. That position requires her to keep abreast with allegations of violations of freedom of expression and to follow up on state implementation of recommendations, urgent appeals and any other measures taken by the Commission to protect individuals whose rights have been infringed upon through the exercise of their freedom of expression. The Honourable Commissioner’s role is of fact finding, to establish the truth of the allegations and where they are confirmed to facilitate a remedy. This role is not unique to her but to all 11 Commissioners who take up roles on special mechanisms and take action against violations of rights protected by those special mechanisms. Exercising this role, in itself, cannot suffice to sustain the alleged bias. 39. The second approach is whether the specific actions and words of the Honourable Commissioner, in this particular instance constitute a legitimate reason to doubt whether in