Pillay Commission

…that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased”.

The appearance of bias is sufficient to disqualify a person. There is no need to show actual bias. /5

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 16, 2022

The legal principle was stated by Lord Hope of Craighead for the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in 2001.

A person should not sit in a judicial or quasi-judicial role if “the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude… /4

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 16, 2022

Yet like Schabas in 2014, Pillay effectively argues that “What I am going to try to do is park my views at the door…they’re not relevant to the job I have to do.”

This argument has no merit and confuses the legal test concerning the impartiality of judges and fact-finders. /3

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 16, 2022

Two key facts:

1. In June 2020, Pillay publicly lobbied governments to “Sanction Apartheid Israel!”https://t.co/qsGeI7TfQ9

2. In June 2021, Pillay publicly lobbied President Biden to declare Israel guilty of the war she's now meant to investigate. https://t.co/c1cZXRCBci /2

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 16, 2022

Navi Pillay says her lobbying to “sanction Israeli apartheid” doesn't make her biased because “statements made as individuals in the past” are unrelated to “the legal fact base analysis she would reach as part of the COI.”

The law says the opposite: 🧵
https://t.co/MuZ0kXTqWh

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 16, 2022

Boom: @ColRichardKemp blasts U.N.'s Pillay Commission in their faces. “Mr. President, Putin's disinformation justifies his illegal war on Ukraine; your own disinformation justifies Hamas’ illegal war on Israel.”

PLO rep tried to shut him down—but failed.https://t.co/SW0zoZGM9x pic.twitter.com/Y09b38ZJ7i

— Hillel Neuer (@HillelNeuer) June 14, 2022