ABSTRACT
Regarding the Government’s objection of failure to exhaust his domestic remedies, the applicant’s complaint before the Convention organs was directed at something completely different from that suggested by the Government. The preliminary objection was therefore devoid of purpose. The mere fact that a judge had already taken pre-trial decisions in the case, including decisions relating to detention on remand, could not in itself justify fears as to his impartiality. Only special circumstances might warrant a different conclusion. There was nothing of that nature in the present case. The judges based their decision on the applicant’s own statements. He did not retract those statements and never claimed that they had been obtained under duress. They were moreover corroborated by uncontested physical evidence. The judges made a brief assessment of the available facts in order to establish whether prima facie the police suspicions had some substance and gave grounds for fearing that there was a risk of the accused’s absconding. Accordingly, the participation of the judges in the adoption of the judgment did not undermine the impartiality of the Criminal Appeals Division since the applicant’s misgivings could not be regarded as objectively justified. There had therefore been no violation of A 6(1).
