the end her presence on the Commission would strike to the requisite guarantees of impartiality. 40. The Commission’s Oral Verbatim Recording of the event reveals that the Honourable Commissioner sat on the panel and made the opening remarks. In those remarks she mentioned the parameters guiding the right to freedom of expression under the Charter and the limitations therein as well as the requirement that any limitation thereof should be provided for under the law. 41. The recording of the Commission also reveals that the Honourable Commissioner mentioned how she sent several letters to the government of Eritrea expressing concerns with violations of freedom of expression including letters in relation to specific cases. She also stated that she sent a letter, in her capacity as Special Rapporteur in October 2011 to the government of Eritrea in respect of Mr Dawit Isaak’s continued violation. She also commended the institutions that produced the report and stated that the report was a welcome development in defending freedom of expression. 42. It begs the question whether an objective person would find that these particular words created doubt as to the Honourable Commissioner’s impartiality in the current case. The Commission has previously found that how a judicial body is perceived and actual manifest proof of its partiality can discredit it. 7 43. The current case relates to Mr Dawit Isaak’s continued detention in what the Complainant alleges is state action against his exercise of freedom of expression as the former editor of a news publication in Eritrea. The Commissioner publicly endorsed the Commission’s previous decision which substantially addresses the same issue and involves the same victim. It does not seem unreasonable, for an objective observer to presume that her pronouncements limited the likelihood that she would reach a different conclusion in the current case. 44. Objectively, the allegations of bias may be arguable. However, the Commission notes the exact words of the Respondent State as “…her action will negatively influence the outcome of the case…” 7 Communication 266/03 - Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon (2009) ACHPR para 210 and 211.