0osr 4 7 comments while sitting at the supreme court ordin'ary Bench. calls to queslion. first, his impartialiiy, and then the impartiality of the Supreme Court as a whole. ll. The question of Judge Dotse's impartiality on this poinl. this court holds that although the impugned stateme*ts of the Judge were "unfortunate". and "weni beyond what can be corrsiderecl as an appropriate 4. ;udicial cornment, they however did not give an impression of preconceived opinrons and do not reveal bias" (paragraph .129 of the.iudgment) To arrrve at this conclusion. the court relies on twa main arguments. (i't that the personal philosophy and morai convictions of a judge cannot be regarded as constituting bias (paragraph 1271: and (ii) that the impartiairty oi a judge rs presumed. and undrsputable evidence is required to refute this presumption {paragraph 128). The problem is that these arguments. in themselves valid in principle. are not applicable in the instant case. 5, As to the argument invoking the philosophy and moral convictions of a Judge. Judge Dotse's statement$ have nothing philosophical or moral in thern. To say that the Applicant is a looter of the country s resources and that he is at the heart of a scandal, is an opinion on purported or real facts, whichever. and is not an expression of a philosophical or rnoral principle. The statements are subjective assessments of the Applicant's conduct and actions, assessments which express the negative feelings he has towards the Applicant and which. as the Court acknowledges, were misplaced. As slated in the Commeptary on the Bangalore Principles on Judicial CondLtct, "A ludge's personal values. phtlosophy or beliefs about the law" which do not constitute a bias. refers to "a g*neral apinion abaut a legal or $acia! matter directly related to the case .. 1" ln this case, however, the Judge concerned expresses. through his remarks. no general opinion on a legal and social question, but only a spec,fic and detailed opinion on pure facts. 6 With regard to the presurnption of the Judge's impartiality. this in the instant case is clearly refuted by his undisputed statements. The said statements show. without any shadow of ooubt that the Judge concerned nad a negattve optnion o, the acts of the I Unite.i N;rtions Of{icc on Drugs and Ci;mr, fommeola ry ofi the Befllalaie Frintiple$ ol Judiciel Conriuct september 2007, prra- 60 ltalics add€.d. "|