00514 4 stalement of a single judge cannol call to question tlre imparliality of the other Judges {ten.iudges in this case}, even though the Judge concerned wrote the tead ludgment (paragraph 131): and (il) that rhe Appticant did not show how Judge Dotse,s remarks at the ordinary Bench of the supreme court subsequenfly rnfluenced the decision of the court's Review Bench {paragraph 131) Neither argument is really convincr.rg. 15. with regard to the argument that the bias of a single judge cannot affect the impartiality of the entrre bench. it is importanl to again distinguish between the aciuaj impaiiality of a jurisdiction - which is not at issue here - aad the perception ot lhe impaftiality of lhat jurisdiction. ln the instant case, what is at issue is not the impartiality of all the olher Judges. but rather the perception of impartiality of the Bench of the Cou(, arising from tle perception of partiality of one of its members. 16" lt is generaliy accepted that the perception of pailialrty of a mernber of a court will also affect. indirectly. the perception of irnpartiality of the Bench in its entirety. The African commission on Human and Peoples' Rights established a link betvyeen these two situations in its Pr?rcrples and Guidelines on lhe Righl ta a Fair Trial and Legal Assjslance in Africa ln its view the impartiality of a judicial body may be called to question. inler alia. if'1 . . the position of the judicial officer allows him or her to play a crucial role in the proceedings; 2, the judicial officer may have expressed an opinron which would influence the decision.making . '; 17. ll follows from this prinaple that where a judge has expressed an opinion that mlght influence decisron-making by the judicial body. there is a problem of impartiality, not just of the judge concerned, but of the judicial body as a whole. 18" With respect to the argument thet the Appiicant did not provide proof that Judge Dotse s remarks influenced the decision of the Supreme Court Review Bench. this is a demand whieh is irnpossible to prove. The Applicant cannot in fact be asked to provide such proof. since by def'nition he cannot access the delherations of the Court which occur naturally in prrvate session and are covered by the principle of confidentiality. 'Pr)lcrples aod G$iCelites c,t tlte R$hl to a Fair Trial and Legal Assfsi6r?te h Africa, Ge{}etal Principles Appircable 10 All Legal pfoceedrngs, 2003. paragraph 5.c )