Tokens: ...
The
Court
further
finds
that
the
fact
that
Judge
P.
,
in
his
impugned
remark
,
allegedly
confirmed
that
he
considered
the
applicant
to
be
dangerous
on
22
June
2009
does
not
raise
objectively
justified
doubts
that
the
judge
lacked
impartiality
in
the
proceedings
at
issue
here
.
In
these
proceedings
,
which
were
terminated
some
three
years
after
the
impugned
remark
,
the
Regional
Court
heard
fresh
evidence
in
order
to
determine
whether
,
at
that
time
and
under
the
law
as
modified
by
the
Federal
Constitutional
Court
’s
judgment
reversing
its
previous
case
-
law
,
the
applicant
’s
retrospective
preventive
detention
had
to
be
ordered
.
The
impugned
statement
does
not
give
any
legitimate
reason
to
fear
that
Judge
P.
would
not
have
carried
out
that
necessary
fresh
assessment
of
the
level
of
danger
that
the
applicant
posed
on
the
basis
of
the
evidence
produced
and
arguments
heard
in
the
new
proceedings
.
”
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O