CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003 page 25 20 Médiateur du Faso, Collège des sages, National Reconciliation Commission, and Compensation Fund for Victims of Political Violence. 21 Communication No. 612/1995, Vicente v. Colombia, Views of 29 July 1997. 22 Communications Nos. 612/1995, Vicente v. Colombia, Views of 29 July 1997, and 778/1997, Coronel et al. v. Colombia, Views of 24 October 2002. 23 Communications Nos. 950/2000, Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Views of 16 July 2003, and 886/1999, Schedko v. Belarus, Views of 3 April 2003. 24 Communication No. 821/1998, Chongwe v. Zambia, Views of 25 October 2000. 25 As an example, the State party mentions a bond in the amount of 1.5 million CFA francs deposited in the case Fonds Chrétien de l’Enfance Canada (FCC) v. Batiano Célestin in 1997. 26 Under articles 648-658 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and articles 291 and 292 of order No. 91-51 of 26 August 1991 on the organization and functioning of the Supreme Court, any party in court proceedings who entertains legitimate suspicions regarding a judge who is to rule on his or her interests may prevent the judge from doing so by applying for disqualification. However, according to the State party, the author did not make use of this opportunity. Nor did she make use of the appeal against judicial misconduct provided for in articles 283 and 284 of order No. 91-51, under which denial of justice may be punished. 27 The authors cite communications Nos. 161/1983, Herrera Rubio v. Colombia, Views of 2 November 1987, and 778/1997, Coronel et al. v. Colombia, Views of 24 October 2002. 28 The authors refer to communications Nos. 1024/2001, Sanlés Sanlés v. Spain, decision of 30 March 2004 on inadmissibility, and 717/1996, Acuña Inostroza et al. v. Chile, decision of 23 July 1999 on inadmissibility, and to the individual opinions on communication No. 718/1996, Vargas Vargas v. Chile, decision of 26 July 1999 on inadmissibility. 29 Communication No. 718/1996, Vargas Vargas v. Chile, decision of 26 July 1999 on inadmissibility, para. 6.7. 30 Communication No. 493/1992, Griffin v. Spain, Views of 4 April 1995: “… unless it can be ascertained that the proceedings were manifestly arbitrary, that there were procedural irregularities amounting to a denial of justice, or that the judge manifestly violated his obligation of impartiality” [para. 9.6]. 31 Communication No. 811/1998, Mulai v. Republic of Guyana, Views of 20 July 2004: “where attempts at jury tampering come to the knowledge of either of the parties, these alleged improprieties should have been challenged before the court” [para. 6.1]. 32 “In criminal matters, prosecution is time-barred 10 years after the date on which the offence was committed, if no act of investigation or prosecution has taken place in that interval. If such