00514 6 Applieant. aets which were at the center of the case subsequently sat at the Supreme Court Review Bench in respect of which he 7. ln any event. what is at stake here is not the actual partiality of the Judge - which is not established in this case - but lhe perception of bras that his words may have generated in the eyes not only of the parly concerned, but also of any reasonable observer. According to the comm antary on the gangalorc prrncrples of Judiciat Cortduct referred to above: "lmpartiality is the fundamental quality requirbd of a judge and the core afirlbute of the judiciary. lrnpartiality must exist both as a matter of fact and as a /natfer of reasonab/e perception. lf partiality,sreasorlably perceived. thatperception is likely to leave a sense of grievance and of injustice. thereby destroying confidence in the judiciai system. The perceptian of impartiality is measured by the standard of a reasonable observer." ? 8. ln the same vein, the Commentary further indicates that: "tmpartiality is not only coneerned with the actual absence of bias and prejudice. but also with the perception af their absence. This duai aspect is captured in the often repeated words that jr-rstice musl not only be done. bulrnrst fianifestly b6 seen to be done"3. 9. As regards the conduct of a Judge, the Commentary provides examples of the following acts of bras' "...A judge must be alert to avoid behaviour that may be perceived as an expression of bias or prejudice. Unjustifieci reprimands of advocates, insulting and improper remarks about iitigants and witnesses. statements evidencing prejudgments and intemperate and impatient behaviour may destroy the appearance of impartiality. and must be avoided".a 10. Lastly, on the same point. the said Comrnentary makes the following clarification : ladeff, paragraph 52 Italics added ,Drdern, pareflre2h 5t Italics adCeC ! t&rdefl, paragrnoh 62