Notes of Proceedings: Case No. 1 – CP – 2011
1
79
views, she proceeded to give her views on that matter as it appeared to her then.
15
So on one view it can say she talked about the Iraq war and condemned the accused person that could suggest some apparent bias. But we would like to respectfully suggest that we look at it from a wider canvass, from a wider perspective, and that it is: That is an NGO situation where they talking about a war, of giving their opinion, and I think you Honour would be in a better position. The point I’m making is that that’s entire different from a situation where this is a formally constituted Tribunal, under a Charter, with it’s Rules of Evidence which are very similar to the Rules of Evidence of the Hague Tribunal for example, as we will submit later.
20
And so the gist of the matter is: Can we say that a person who has expressed strong vies on a particular thing, at a separate occasion, outside of the province of a Court setting, cannot apply his or her own mind on the evidence. That is the point.
5
10
25
So, I would like to urge, without really defending any one member, or more of the Panel, that we look at it from a broader perspective and I would like to respectfully submit that we reject the application to recuse the judge in this case. Thank you. Judge Niloufer Bhagwat: May I ...
30
35
40
2 AO-new.pmd
Professor Francis A. Boyle: I want to associate myself wholly with my colleague Professor Singh and just make 2 additional points drawn from practice in the highest court in the world, the International Court of Justice in the Hague, the World Court, and the United States Supreme Court. Now, in the International Court of Justice in the Hague, judges are capable and are permitted to adjudicate cases involving their own states of nationalities. There is no recusal at all. And they are deemed to be fair and objective even when it comes to their own state of nationalities. I submit in this case, even if
79
1/4/2012, 9:43 PM