June 16, 2022

Dear @UN_HRC President @FVillegasARG: Having seen the latest protestations by Navi Pillay about her impartiality, as reported by @tovahlazaroff @Jerusalem_Post, we once again urge you

This is a self-evident case where an appearance of impartiality has been created. For Navi Pillay, her fellow commissioners and the UNHRC to dig in

It is hard for us to accept that Pillay's lobbying to “Sanction Apartheid Israel!”— and to declare Israel guilty of the May 2021 Hamas-Israel war

Art. 4, ICC Code of Ethics: “Judges shall be impartial & ensure the appearance of impartiality in the discharge of their judicial functions.” The Pillay

In his UN War Crime Tribunals book, Pillay's friend Schabas wrote: “A judge may be disqualified in any case in which he or she has

Rome Statute Art. 41(2)(a) establishes as a “ground for disqualification of a judge” the “expression of opinions, through the communications media in writing or in

of whether the reasonable person aware of the facts and circumstances might consider the judge to be biased. Indeed, the ICC's founding Rome Statute provides:

That Navi Pillay thinks she can adjudicate claims against Israel fairly and independently has no bearing on the question of impartiality. Judicial disqualification is not

For our 34-page motion filed in Feb. 2022 to remove Pillay over her disqualification under the UNHRC's own impartiality rules—a motion which she told me

Fact-finding missions are obliged to avoid even the perception of bias. Regrettably, Pillay's prior public lobbying to “sanction apartheid Israel” is a basis for questioning

As Lord Hope added, “protestations” by an individual accused of bias that she has an open mind “are unlikely to be helpful.” Pillay cannot magically