grounded on the content of judicial decisions cannot be considered objectively justified. See the case of DIMITROV & ORS. V. BULGARIA, (APPLICATION NO. 77938/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 JULY 2014, PARA. 159 where it was held that “under the subjective test, the personal impartiality of a judge must be presumed until there is a proof to the contrary […]. The facts that some of the judges hearing the case sat and ruled against them on some points or decided to proceed in a certain manner do not constitute such proof”. 132. In the CASE OF KYPRIANOU V. CYPRUS 73797/01 | JUDGMENT (MERITS AND JUST SATISFACTION) | COURT (GRAND CHAMBER) | 15/12/2005; it was held that it was only when there is a proven functional defects on the part of the tribunal or a judge that the objective fears of the Applicant could be justified: “The Court therefore finds that, on the facts of the case and considering the functional defect which it has identified, the impartiality of the Assize Court was capable of appearing open to doubt. The applicant's fears in this respect can thus be considered to have been objectively justified and the Assize Court accordingly failed to meet the required Convention standard under the objective test.” 133. The celebrated BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT provides under Principle 2 as follows: “Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made”. In its application section under 2.5, it provides that: “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in any proceedings in which the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that the judge is unable to decide the matter impartially”. 54