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. How ver, th ee notes the exact words of the Respondent State as “...her action will'n case...” The allegation is therefore of future bias and) which case the Honourable Commissioner’s On allegations of breaching cll lll 46. The getty ee My tt Saiflogs that the H "iy sent to theae. ll) WV of | eine in respect of Mr. Dawit Isaak. ne “throu gh the audio recording, that the Commissioner igs: i the Republic of Eritrea on 3 October 2011. h further rtriel this lette 4 but more special 5 did The Commission baa contents relate to Mr. Dawit Isaak’s continued detention to the non-implementation of the Commission’s earlier decision. The letter provided tha yy? “the Spec Rapporteur is concerned that the State of Eritrea has still not complied with the recommendations of the Commission in Communication 275/2003- Article 19/ The State of Eritrea, adopted during its 40! Ordinary Session. In this Communication, the Commission held that Eritrea was in violation of Articles 5, 6, 7(1), 9 and 18 of the African Charter ...” 48. As the Commission has ascertained, the specific letter mentioned in the Honourable. Commissioner’s address did not say anything new. The Honourable Commissioner merely