suspicion”, the impartiality of the court became open to doubt and did not pass the
objective test.13.2.2.4 Private Life
Safeguarding impartiality also has implications for the private life of a judge.
Although most fundamental freedoms are not denied to them, their use of, for
instance, their freedom of speech requires some moderation. Strong affiliations with
political parties or pressure groups could give rise to doubts about their impartiality
and neutrality. Even in their private lives, they should be aware of possible
appearances that would undermine their credibility. Playing golf and leaving on
holidays with advocates should, in most cases, exclude the handling of cases of
those same advocates even if the judge concerned feels completely free to give a
judgment in accordance with law.
13.3 Procedural Principles
Procedural principles focus on the proceedings before the courts more than on the
organization of the judiciary. These principles should be observed by the legisla-
ture, but they can also serve as guidelines for the courts when handling a case. Even
parties themselves could be affected since they should not be allowed to frustrate
each other’s rights to a fair trial.
These principles will be discussed under five headings:
- the right to access to justice,
- the right to a fair hearing—fair trial,
- the right to a public hearing,
- the right to judgment within a reasonable time, and
- the right to enforcement of the judgment.
Again, this classification does not have legal consequences and treating the right to (for
instance) a public hearing as part of the right to a fair trial, would not change its scope or
meaning.13.3.1 Access to Justice
A court system, as perfect as it might be, would be idling if citizens could not get
access to it. Procedural codes establishing the most perfect trial imaginable would
be useless when they would not open the gates to those who are seeking justice.
Therefore, the right to access to justice is implied in the right to a fair trial even if it
is not stated literally in the human rights conventions (ECtHR 21 February 1975,
Golder v. United Kingdom).
292 F. Fernhout and R. van Rhee