2. Right to a trial before an impartial court Impartiality is a guarantee that is linked to the principle of equality before the law (see following paragraph) and involves the idea that everyone should be treated the same. It requires that judicial officers exercise their function without personal bias or prejudice and in a manner that offers sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt of their impartiality. Impartiality consists both in the guarantee that judges do not allow their judgment to be influenced by personal bias, prejudice toward any parties or any preconceptions about the case before them. Equally important is that the judiciary appears to be impartial, since it is of fundamental importance in a democratic society that the courts inspire confidence in the public. Although ISTIQLAL observed no obvious cases of lack of court impartiality, it did observe some case where judges granted requests for adjournment of a hearing to a specific date because they had personal knowledge of a particular lawyer. Although this led to no obvious infringement of the overall fairness of the trials against the accused involved, it may have undermined the appearance that the court did not act in compliance with the principle of impartiality towards all parties. A corollary of the principle of impartiality is that judges may base their own decision only on evidence administered during the trial, subjected to scrutiny by the parties. Article 205 of the Palestinian CPC states that “In passing judgment, the judge may not rely on his personal knowledge”; moreover, Article 207 establishes that “The judgment shall not be predicated except on the evidence presented during the trial and openly discussed at the session in the presence of the parties.” During the monitoring period, ISTIQLAL observed at least one instance where these principles were not respected. In a case before the Khan Yunis First Instance Court, a defendant charged with issuing a bad check submitted a request for release on bail after having been arrested. The judge assigned to the case obviously had prior knowledge of the defendant and his activity as owner of a bankrupted company, so that he engaged in a discussion with the defendant, countering some of his assertions with arguments that had no grounds in the criminal file or any relation to the charge. Although this appears to have been an isolated incident during the reporting period, it nevertheless may have had a negative impact on the reputation of Palestinian court system’s impartiality. 3. Equality before the law (with a focus on gender) Equality in the administration of justice lies at the heart of the rule of law. It demands that all persons have equal rights of access to the courts and that justice is administered in a way that achieves fairness for all, regardless of the identity of the parties to the proceedings or the nature of the proceedings themselves. Article 9 of the Palestinian Constitution foresees that “Palestinians shall be equal before the law and the judiciary, without distinction based upon race, sex, color, religion, political views or disability.” 38