Article 14, Paragraph 1 of and General Comment No. 32 on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as related international human rights treaties all mention that courts are the guardians of legal standards that act as checks and balances against government departments and must ensure that legislative and administrative laws and regulations adhere to legal norms and meet international human rights standards in order to ensure the realization of fairness and justice. Only by maintaining core judicial values can human rights be fully and equally implemented and protected, democracy and rule of law realized, and sustainable development for humanity sought.
Accordingly, any judge who participates in the ordinary criminal proceedings and judgment of a specific case and then fails to recuse themselves from the extraordinary appeal judgment of the same case violates the right to a fair trial; a judge who is involved in the second-instance criminal proceedings and judgment of a specific case and then fails to recuse themselves to participate in the retrial and judgment of the case in the court of second instance (after the court of third-instance has revoked and remanded the case) should undergo a review of their judicial impartiality and whether they have any preconceptions or biases in the specific case. If a judge participates in a third-instance criminal judgment at the Supreme Court and, after the case is remanded for retrial, fails to recuse themselves to participate again in the appeal to the Supreme Court, then a comprehensive review should be conducted to consider whether the procedural regulations in use at the Supreme Court at the time of arbitration of the disputed case violate the principle of legal reservation or the principle of judicial integrity, leading to a violation of the repeated participation clause and the principle of a fair court.
Accordingly, on August 14, 2023, the Constitutional Court handed down 2023 Constitutional Court judgment No. 14.