Tokens: “
As
regards
the
alleged
lack
of
impartiality
of
Judge
P.
in
the
present
case
,
the
Court
observes
that
the
domestic
courts
examined
the
case
on
the
assumption
that
Judge
P.
could
have
made
the
statement
in
question
...
and
it
will
therefore
proceed
on
the
basis
of
the
same
assumption
.
It
further
notes
that
Judge
P.
made
the
impugned
statement
in
the
course
of
a
confidential
exchange
between
the
judges
of
the
Regional
Court
and
the
applicant
’s
two
defence
lawyers
.
That
discussion
,
which
took
place
just
after
the
Regional
Court
had
delivered
its
first
judgment
ordering
the
applicant
’s
retrospective
preventive
detention
on
22
June
2009
,
concerned
the
applicant
’s
possible
future
transfer
to
a
psychiatric
hospital
.
It
appears
uncontested
between
the
parties
,
and
the
Court
agrees
with
that
interpretation
,
that
the
remark
allegedly
made
by
Judge
P.
within
that
context
to
the
effect
that
the
applicant
’s
female
counsel
should
be
careful
that
the
applicant
would
not
visit
and
“
thank
”
her
when
released
was
to
be
understood
as
meaning
that
Judge
P.
considered
that
there
was
a
risk
that
the
applicant
would
commit
a
serious
violent
or
sexual
offence
against
his
lawyer
(
similar
to
the
one
he
had
been
found
guilty
of
)
if
released
.
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
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