publications_unodc_commentary-e

Such proceedings include, but are not limited to, instances where:2.5.1 the judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a partyor personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary factsconcerning the proceedings;CommentaryActual bias or prejudice92. The actual bias must be personal, and directed towards one of the parties,either individually or as a representative of a group. For a judge to be disqualifiedbecause of bias, there should be objective proof that the judge cannot preside withimpartiality: would a reasonable observer, knowing all the circumstances, harbourdoubts about the judge’s impartiality?Personal knowledge of disputed facts93. This rule applies to information gained before the case is assigned to thejudge, as well as knowledge acquired from an extra-judicial source or personalinspection by the judge while the case is ongoing. It applies even where suchknowledge has been acquired through independent research undertaken for apurpose unrelated to the litigation (e.g. writing a book), 46 and not called to the noticewhere that would be appropriate, for the submissions of the parties affected.Recusal is not required if the knowledge comes from prior rulings in the same case,or through adjudicating a case of related parties to the same transaction, or becausethe party had appeared before the judge in a previous case. Ordinarily, however,unless the information is obvious, is well-known, is of a type that has been discussedor represents common knowledge, such knowledge should be placed on the recordfor the submissions of the parties. There are obvious limits to what may bereasonably required in this respect. A judge cannot, for example, in the course ofhearing a matter, be expected to disclose every item of law of which he is awarerelevant to the case or every fact of common knowledge which may be relevant tojudgment. The yardstick to be applied is what might be reasonable according to theperception of a reasonable observer.46 See Prosecutor v Sesay, Special Court for Sierra Leone (Appeals Chamber) [2004] 3 LRC678.74