115. It is important to note that despite the about ten measures taken by the judicial authorities within that period of time, the case did not make any significant progress. In seven (7) years of pre-trial detention, the Complainant was served six (6) remand warrants, four (4) separation orders and four (4) committal orders without any of the successive charges being different from those of the initial indictment of August 2008. The situation was worsened by the violation of a decision of the Yaoundé Mfoundi High Court ordering the release of the Complainant after four (4) years of remand in custody. Under such circumstances, the Complainant obviously did not enjoy the right to be tried within a reasonable time. 116. Regarding the second point on the impartiality of the trial court, the Commission notes that according to jurisprudence, the question of impartiality may derive from internal and external factors relating to the judge himself or other competent authorities in the organisation of the judicial system.31 The principle covers the subjective impartiality of a judge and the objective impartiality of a court.32 In fact, the aim is to guarantee an apparent impartiality. The burden to prove such impartiality lies with the party which makes the allegation. 117. In the present Communication, the Commission is of the view that the Complainant failed to prove impartiality, both from the objective and subjective points of view. That said, the Commission notes that in his arguments buttressing his request for provisional measures dated 15 June 2015, the Complainant recounts that he is still being prosecuted by the Centre Region Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. He states that in the course of the proceedings, magistrates who had previously been part of the prosecution team have been appointed judges. See among others Civil Liberties Organisation and Others op. cit. (trial of civilians by military tribunals); Olo Bahamonde v. Equatorial Guinea (2001) AHRLR 21 (HCR 1993) (courts under the control of the Executive). 32 See Piersack v. France (ECtHR 1982) (objective and subjective impartiality); Remlic v. France (ECtHR 1996) (subjective impartiality); Morel v. France (ECtHR 2000) (objective impartiality). 31 34