“There is a presumption of impartiality which attaches to a Judge. This presumption has been recognised in the jurisprudence of the International Tribunals, and has also been recognised in municipal law. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that judges can disabuse their minds of any irrelevant personal beliefs or predispositions. It is for the Appellant to adduce sufficient evidence to satisfy the Appeals Chamber that the Judge in question was not impartial in his case. There is a high threshold to reach in order to rebut the presumption of impartiality.” The Tribunal further held that: “The Judges of this Tribunal and those of ICTY often try more than one case at the same time, which cases, given their very nature, concern issues which necessarily overlap. It is assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that by virtue of their training and experience, judges will rule fairly on the issues before them, relying solely and exclusively on the evidence adduced in the particular case.” 129. In the CASE OF MARGUŠ V. CROATIA 4455/10 | 15 | 8 | 27/05/2014 IN THE ECHR, the Applicant alleged, in particular, that his right to a fair trial had been violated in that the same judge had presided over both sets of criminal proceedings against him. The European Court of Human Rights held that: “The Chamber observed that in both sets of criminal proceedings at issue, Judge M.K. had taken part at the first-instance stage. In the first set of proceedings the facts of the case had not been assessed, nor had the question of the applicant’s guilt been examined, and Judge M.K. had not 52