comparative table of court decisions regarding ad … table of court decisions regarding ad hoc...

Comparative Table of Court Decisions Regarding Ad Hoc Judges

This table was prepared by the Human Rights Course at the Law School of the UNCuyo.

COUNTRY CASE NAME OF THE AD HOC JUDGE

OPINION

Argentina “Garrido y Baigorrea” (02/02/96)

Julio A. Barberis (Argentinean)

Unanimous opinion on operative paragraphs.

Argentina “Cantos” (11/28/02)

Julio A. Barberis (Argentinean)

Unanimous opinion on operative paragraphs. Note: A Separate Opinion was issued with the Judgment on the Merits.

Argentina “Bulacio” (09/18/03)

Ricardo Gil-Lavedra (Argentinean)

Unanimous opinion on operative paragraphs. Note: A Separate Opinion was issued with the Judgment on the Merits.

Argentina “Bueno Alvez” (05/11/07)

It cannot be inferred, from the text of the judgment, that the State was invited to nominate an ad hoc judge.

Argentina “Kimel” (05/02/08)

Although the Court sent the Invitation for the corresponding nomination, no ad hoc judge was appointed.

Argentina

“Bayarri” (10/30/08)

Although the Court sent the Invitation for the corresponding nomination, no ad hoc judge was appointed.

Bolivia “Trujillo-Oroza”. Charles N. Brower. No.



(01/26/00) (American) Note: First, the State appointed Carlos Ríos-Anaya, but as the latter had been related to the Executive Power of Bolivia, Brower was then appointed ad hoc judge.

Note: A Separate Opinion was rendered with the Judgment on Reparations and Indemnities.

Bolivia “Ticona Estrada et al.” (11/27/08)

No. When the complaint was served upon the State, it was notified of its right to nominate an ad hoc judge to hear the case. However, the State did not nominate one.

Brazil “Ximenes-Lopes” (07/04/06)

It was not necessary to appoint an ad hoc judge as Judge Cançado Trindade did not disqualify himself from hearing the case.

-

Brazil “Nogueira de Carvalho et al.” (11/28/06)

It was not necessary to appoint an ad hoc judge as Judge Cançado Trindade did not disqualify himself from hearing the case.

-

Chile “The Last Temptation of Christ” (02/05/01)

It cannot be inferred, from the text of the judgment that the State was invited to nominate an Ad Hoc Judge.

Chile “Palamara-Iribarne” (11/22/05)

No Ad Hoc Judge was appointed although the Court invited the State to nominate an Ad Hoc Judge.



Chile “Claude Reyes” (09/19/06)

The appointment was not possible since Judge Medina did not disqualify herself from hearing the case.

Chile “Almonacid -Arellano” (09/26/06)

It cannot be inferred, from the text of the judgment, that the State was invited to nominate an Ad Hoc Judge.

Colombia “Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana” (12/08/95)

No.

Colombia “Case of Las Palmeras” (12/06/01)

Julio A. Barberis. (Argentinean) Note: On December 11, 1998, the President invited Colombia to nominate an ad hoc judge since Judge Carlos Vicente de Roux-Rengifo, Colombian, had disqualified himself from hearing the case, pursuant to Article 19 of the Statute and Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

Colombia “Case of 19 Merchants” (07/05/04)

Ernesto Rey-Cantor. Note: On May 25, 2001, following the President´s instructions, the Secretariat notified the State of its right



to appoint an ad hoc judge as the President, on the grounds set forth in Articles 19 of the Statute and 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, had accepted the self-disqualification submitted by Judge Carlos Vicente de Roux-Rengifo, a Colombian judge. On June 27, 2001, the State appointed Rafael Nieto-Navia as Ad Hoc Judge. The Inter-American Commission, pursuant to Article 19 of the Statute and based on the arguments submitted by the Commission of Jurists of Colombia, communicated the Court its opinion on the survival of certain impediments affecting Rafael Nieto-Navia and that would prevent him from serving as ad hoc judge in the instant case. On October 6, 2003, Rafael Nieto-Navia submitted a writing, with the corresponding attachments, where he pointed out that he “ deem[ed] he had no impediment



[to act as ad hoc judge,] but for the sake of transparency [he] gave Colombian Government absolute freedom to appoint other judge” in that particular case.

Colombia The “Mapiripán Massacre” (09/15/05)

Gustavo Zafra-Roldán

Colombia “Case of Gutiérrez- Soler” (09/12/05)

Ernesto Rey-Cantor

Colombia “Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre” (01/31/06)

Juan Carlos Esguerra- Portocarrero

Colombia “Case of the Massacres of Ituango” (07/01/06)

No. Note: following the President´s instructions, the Secretariat informed the State of its right to appoint an ad hoc judge in that specific case. On November 12, 2004, the State nominated Jaime Enrique Granados-Peña as ad hoc judge. On June 28, 2006, the ad hoc judge Granados- Peña informed the Court that, due to force majeure reasons, he could not participate in the deliberations of the judgment to be rendered in this case, and he also referred to Article 19(3) of the Rules



of Procedure of the Court. Furthermore, he submitted a document explaining his position regarding the case at issue. The Court, sitting in full bench, was advised of the writing submitted by Granados-Peña. On June 29, 2006, the Court examined the reasons alleged by the ad hoc judge to justify his non-attendance to the deliberations of the Court regarding the case at issue. Taking into account that the ad hoc judge had been appointed and called in a timely and adequate manner; that his communication had been received by the Court only one day before the date set for commencing the above-referred deliberations; that the Court sessions are not permanent and the Court prepares the agenda of the sessions of a whole year with adequate anticipation, the Court deemed it impossible to re-schedule the



deliberations in the Ituango case, and therefore the Court decided to continue trying the case without the participation of the ad hoc judge, pursuant to Article 19(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

Colombia “Case of La Rochela Massacre” (05/11/07)

No. Note: Together with the service of the complaint, the State was notified of its right to appoint an ad hoc judge to hear the case as part of the Court. On May 9, 2006 the State appointed Juan Carlos Esguerra- Portocarrero as ad hoc judge. On November 28, 2006 the ad hoc Judge Juan Carlos Esguerra-Portocarrero submitted a writing [to the President of the Court] where he “disqualif[ied] himself from participating as ad hoc Judge in the case of “La Rochela Massacre” and stated the reasons for his decision. Through a communication dated December 1, 2006, Esguerra-



Portocarrero and the Parties were informed that said filing had been delivered to the President of the Court who, upon consulting the other members of the Court, had decided to accept the self-disqualification filed by the ad hoc judge in this case, under Articles 19 of the Rules of Procedure and of the Statute of the Court and pursuant to the analysis made of the reasons given by Esguerra- Portocarrero to ground his self-disqualification.

Colombia “Case of Escué- Zapata” (07/04/07)

Diego Eduardo López-Medina.

Colombia “Case of Valle- Jaramillo et al.” (11/27/08)

No. Note: When serving the complaint upon the State, the Court asked the latter on the appointment of an ad hoc judge to participate in the deliberation and adjudication of the case. On April 2, 2007, the State communicated that it “waive[d] its right to appoint an ad hoc judge” to hear this case.



Costa Rica “Herrera-Ulloa” (02/07/04)

Marco Antonio Mata-Coto (Costa Rica)

-

Ecuador “Suarez-Rosero” (12/11/97)


Ecuador “Benavides Ceballos” (06/19/98)


Ecuador “Tibi” (09/14/04)

Hernán Salgado- Pesantes. (Ecuador)

Unanimous opinion on operative paragraphs. Note: A Separate Opinion is submitted.

Ecuador “Acosta Calderon”” (06/24/05)

Hernán Salgado- Pesantes. (Ecuador)


Ecuador “Zambrano Velez”. (07/04/07)

The State exercised its right after the legal deadline.

Ecuador

“Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez”. (11/21/07)

Diego - Pinzón (Colombia) Note: The I/A Court HR rejected the appointment as it was made after the legal deadline.

Ecuador “Alban Cornejo et al.” (11/22/07)

The State exercised its right after the legal deadline.

Ecuador “Salvador Diego Rodríguez- Partially Dissenting



Chiriboga” (06/05/08)

Pinzón (Colombia)

Opinion.

El Salvador “Serrano-Cruz Sisters” (03/01/05)

Alejandro Montiel- Argüello. (Nicaragua)

Dissenting Opinion.

El Salvador “García-Prieto” (11/24/08)

Alejandro Montiel-Argüello. (Nicaragua) Note: He resigned invoking force majeure reasons.

Guatemala “Blake” (24/01/98) Alfonso Novales-Aguirre. (Guatemalan) Note: he made a question to Mr. Blake during the hearing.

Concurring Opinion Note: he also issued a Separate Concurring Opinion with the Judgment on Preliminary Objections and a Separate Concurring Opinion with the Judgment on Reparations and Indemnities.

Guatemala “Paniagua-Morales et al.”( the case of the White Panel) (03/08/93)

Edgar Enrique Larraondo-Salguero.(Guatemalan) Note: The State had requested the replacement with Alfonso Novales, but the Court dismissed the request on the grounds of Articles 52 and 55 (4) of the ACHR.

No. Unanimous opinion on operative paragraphs. . Note: A Concurring Opinion was rendered with the Judgment on Preliminary Objections.

Guatemala “Villagran-Morales et al.” (case of the Street Boys) (11/19/99)

No ad hoc judge was appointed although the Court sent the corresponding invitation.

Guatemala “Bámaca- No ad hoc judge



Velazquez” (11/25/00)

was appointed.

Guatemala “Mirna Mack Chang”. (11/25/03)

Arturo Martínez -Gálvez. (Guatemalan) Note: Villagrán- Kramer was appointed first, but the Representatives of the Victims requested that said judge be challenged; the Court sustained the challenge filed and replaced him with Martinez-Gálvez, appointed by the State.

Concurring Opinion and partially Dissenting Opinion. Note: dissenting opinion regarding the amount of the damages the State was ordered to pay.

Guatemala

“Maritza Urrutia”. (27/11/03)

Arturo Martínez Gálvez. (Guatemalan)

Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion. Note: the opinion showed his dissent with respect to the amount of damages the State was ordered to pay.

Guatemala “Plan de Sánchez Massacre”

Alejandro Sánchez- Garrido. (Guatemalan) Note: The State had appointed Martínez-Galvez, but he resigned.

No. Unanimous opinion regarding operative paragraphs.

Guatemala “Molina-Theissen” (05/04/04)

No ad hoc judge was appointed although the Court sent the corresponding invitation. Note: The State had appointed Luján Fappiano as ad hoc judge, but the legal



term to exercise such right had already expired by the time of the appointment, and upon the Commission´s request, the Court rejected the appointment made after the legal deadline.

Guatemala “Carpio Nicolle et al”. (11/22/04)

Lujan Fappiano. (Argentinean) Note: The State requested that the ad hoc judge be substituted with Sánchez-Garrido, but the Court dismissed the request since Fappiano had already been incorporated to the Court and he had been taken oath.

No. Unanimous Opinion on the operative paragraphs.

Guatemala “Fermín Ramírez”. (06/20/05)

Arturo Alfredo Herrador-Sandoval. (Guatemalan) Note: Alejandro Sánchez-Garrido was appointed in the first place, but he disqualified himself from participating in the Court.

Concurring Opinion. Unanimous Opinion on operative paragraphs.

Guatemala “Raxcaco Reyes”. (09/15/05)

Alejandro Sánchez-Garrido. (Guatemalan) Note: However, the State tried to appoint other person as ad hoc judge.

No. Unanimous Opinion on operative paragraphs.

Guatemala “Tiu Tojín” Álvaro Castellanos- Separate



11/26/08 Howell. (Guatemalan)

Concurring Opinion. Unanimous opinion on operative paragraphs.

Haití “Yvone Neptune” (05/06/08)

No ad hoc judge was appointed, although the Court sent the corresponding invitation.

-

Honduras “Velásquez-Rodríguez” (07/29/88)

Rigoberto Espinal-Irías (Honduras)

No. Unanimous opinion on operative paragraphs.

Honduras “Godinez Cruz” (01/20/89)



Honduras “Fairen Garbi and Solis-Corrales” (03/15/89)


No. No. Unanimous opinion on operative paragraphs.

Honduras “Juan Humberto Sánchez” (06/07/03)

No ad hoc judge was appointed although the Court invited the State to appoint an Ad Hoc Judge.

Honduras “López-Álvarez” (02/01/06)


Honduras

“Servellón-García” (09/21/06)

No ad hoc judge was appointed although the Court



invited the State to appoint an Ad Hoc Judge.

México “Martín del Campo-Dodd” Note: only Preliminary Objections (09/03/04)

No. Note: In the instant case, Judge Sergio García-Ramírez, Mexican, assigned the Presidency of the Court to the Vice-President, Judge Alirio Abreu-Burelli, under Article 4(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court.

México “Castañeda-Gutman” (08/06/08)

Claus Werner von Wobeser Hoepfner. (Mexican) Note: 1) Judge Sergio García-Ramírez, Mexican, disqualified himself from hearing this case under the provisions of Article 19(2) of the Statute of the Court and Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and such self-disqualification was accepted by the Court. 2) The Court notified the State that it could appoint an ad hoc judge who would participate in the deliberation and



adjudication of the case. But the Inter-American Commission objected such invitation pointing out that “the institution of ad hoc judge does not apply to cases arising from claims for violation of human rights filed through individual petitions.” However, the State appointed Claus Werner von Wobeser Hoepfner as ad hoc judge, who accepted the appointment.

Nicaragua “Genie Lacayo” (01/29/97)


Nicaragua “Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community” (08/31/01)

Alejandro Montiel-Argüello. (Nicaraguan)

Unanimity in the decision on preliminary objections, but a strong dissenting opinion regarding the merits of the case. Note: A Dissenting Opinion was issued regarding the ruling on Preliminary Objections and Merits.

Nicaragua “Yatama” (06/23/05)

Alejandro Montiel-Argüello. (Nicaraguan)

Unanimity in the decision on preliminary



objections, but a strong dissenting opinion regarding the merits of the case. Note: A Dissenting Opinion was issued regarding the ruling on Preliminary Objections and Merits.

Panamá “Baena Ricardo et al.” (02/02/01)

Rolando Adolfo Reyna-Rodríguez (Panamanian) Note: The Court issued a ruling whereby it annulled the appointment of the ad hoc judge on the grounds that the latter had participated in labor law proceedings related to Act 25. No substitute judge was appointed.

Panamá “Heliodoro Portugal” (12/08/08)

Juan Antonio Tejada-Espino (Panamanian) Note: The representatives of the victims filed an opposition to the appointment of the above-referred judge as he had participated in the investigations conducted in connection with this case. However, the I/A Court HR decided to admit the



appointment, although, afterwards, Mr. Tejada-Espino disqualified himself from hearing the case.

Paraguay “Ricardo Canese” (08/31/04)

Emilio Camacho-Paredes. (Paraguayan)

Unanimous opinion on operative paragraphs. Note: Yes, a Concurring Opinion was rendered on the Judgment on the Merits.

Paraguay “Case of Juvenile Correction Facility” (09/02/04)

Víctor Manuel Núñez-Rodríguez (Paraguayan)


Paraguay “Indigenous Community Yakie Axa” (06/17/05)

Ramón Fogel-Pedroso. (Paraguayan)

A dissenting opinion on a great portion of the issues discussed. Note: Yes, there was a Dissenting Opinion.

Paraguay “Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa” (03/29/06)

Ramón Fogel-Pedroso. (Paraguayan) Note: It was dismissed by the I/A Court HR as the appointment was made after the legal deadline.

Paraguay “Goiburu et al.” (09/22/06)




Paraguay

“Vargas-Areco”. (09/26/06)


Perú Case of Neira Alegria et al. January 1995

Jorge Eduardo Orihuela-Iberico, Peruvian. Note: He voted in favor of one of the preliminary objections filed by the State, requiring the Court not to try the merits of the case.

Dissenting Opinion Note: He issued a Dissenting Opinion where he objected the criterion applied by the Court to determine the amount of the damages the State was ordered to pay.

Perú Case of Loayza-Tamayo. September 1997.

No Ad Hoc Judge was appointed.

Perú Case of Castillo-Paez. November 1997.

No Ad Hoc Judge was appointed

Perú Case Castillo-Petruzi et al. May 1999

The State was invited to appoint an ad hoc judge. Fernando Vidal-Ramirez, of Peruvian nationality, was appointed.

Partially Concurring and Partially Dissenting Opinion: Dissenting opinion regarding the allocation of liability to the State pursuant to Articles 9, 8(2)(h), 8(5) and 5 of the Convention.

Perú Case Cesti-Hurtado. September 1999

David Pezúa-Vivanco, of Peruvian nationality, was appointed ad hoc judge. Note: He resigned due to the incompatibility of this function with his position as Executive Secretary



of the Executive Commission of the Judicial Power of Peru. The State nominated Jose Alberto Bustamante- Belaúnde, a Peruvian lawyer, as ad hoc judge. But the latter resigned due to the irreversible incompatibility existing, according to his criterion, between the exercise of such office and his favorable, and publicly known, position regarding the decision of the Peruvian Government not to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court. The State did not appoint any other ad hoc judge to hear this case.

Perú

Case of Durand and Ugarte. August 2000

Fernando Vidal- Ramirez, Peruvian, was appointed ad hoc judge. Note: He voted in favor of one of the preliminary objections filed by the State where the latter requested the Court not to decide on the merits of the case.

Concurring Opinion: Unanimous opinion on operative paragraphs. Note: In his Separate Opinion he made clear which are, at his own criterion, the functions of an ad hoc judge, and emphasized the independence and



impartiality features.

Perú Case of Cantoral Benavidez. August 2000

Fernando Vidal- Ramirez was appointed ad hoc judge. Note: He voted in favor of the sixth preliminary objection out of the seven objections filed by the State against the Court hearing on the merits of the case.

Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion. Note: Dissenting opinion regarding the allocation of liability to the State pursuant to Articles 8(5) and 9 of the American Convention.

Perú Case of the Constitutional Court. January 2001

The State alleged the lack of jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case due to Perú´s withdrawal from the contentious jurisdiction of the –Court. No ad hoc judge was appointed. The State did not participate in the case at any time.

Perú Case of Ivcher Bronstein. February 2001

No ad hoc judge was appointed. The State did not participate in the case at any time either.

Perú Case of Barrios-Altos. March 2001

No ad hoc judge was appointed. While this case was pending before the Court, the Government of Peru revoked the resolution whereby Peru had withdrawn from the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.

The State admitted the application of all articles invoked by the Inter-American Commission.



Perú Case of the Five Pensioneers. February 2003

The Court invited the State to appoint an ad hoc judge. The State appointed Javier Belaúnde-Lopez de Romaña, a national of Peru.


Perú Case of the Gomez- Paquiyauri Brothers. July 2004

Francisco Jose Eguiguren-Praeli, a national of Peru, was appointed ad hoc judge. Note: There was a Peruvian judge in the composition of the Court, consequently judge Diego García-Sayan disqualified himself from hearing the case. The appointment of the ad hoc judge was objected by the representative of the victims, who requested the self-disqualification of the ad hoc judge as she considered there existed impediments that prevented him from exercising his functions as judge in this case. But the Court denied the existence of any impediment, and the judge appointed participated in the deliberations of the case.

Separate Opinion.

Perú Case of De la Cruz-Flores. November 2004

Judge Diego García-Sayan disqualified himself from hearing the case.



The State appointed Cesar Rodrigo Landa- Arroyo, a national of Peru, as ad hoc judge. But Mr. Landa-Arroyo was appointed Vice-Minister of Justice of Peru and consequently he resigned to his position as ad hoc judge. The State requested the temporary suspension of the ad hoc judge functions until the appointed judge could end his functions as government officer. The Court rejected the request. The State did not appoint another ad hoc judge.

Perú Case of Lory Berenson-Mejía. November 2004

Judge Diego García-Sayan disqualified himself from hearing the case. The State appointed Juan Federico D. Monroy-Gálvez, a national of Peru, as ad hoc judge.

No.

Perú Case of Huilca Tecse. March 2005

Judge Diego García-Sayan did not disqualify himself from hearing the case and therefore, the State did not appoint an ad hoc judge.

Perú Case of Gomez -Palomino. November 2005

Judge Diego García-Sayan did not disqualify himself



from hearing the case and therefore, the State did not appoint an ad hoc judge.

Perú Case of Garcia-Asto and Ramirez-Rojas. November 2005

Judge Diego García-Sayan submitted a self-disqualification some time after taking part in the prosecution of the case. The State is notified of its right to appoint an ad hoc judge. Jorge Santistevan de Noriega, a national of Peru, is appointed ad hoc judge.

Dissenting Opinion. Note: Dissenting opinion regarding the liability attributed to the Peruvian State under Article 7(3) of the American Convention.

Perú Case of Acevedo- Jaramillo et al. February 2006

Judge Diego García-Sayan disqualified himself from hearing the case. Javier de Belaunde-Lopez- Montaña, a national of Peru, was appointed ad hoc judge by the State.

He adhered to the unanimous opinion whereby the Peruvian State was attributed liability.

Perú Case of Baldeón García. April 2006


Perú Case of Employees Dismissed from Congress. November 2006




Perú Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. November 2006

Judge Diego García-Sayan did not disqualify himself from hearing the case and therefore, the State did not appoint an ad hoc judge. The common intervener of the victims requested that Judge Diego García-Sayan be challenged as she considered the latter had political responsibility since he was serving as Minister of Justice and Foreign Affairs of Peru by the time the events subject matter of the case took place. The Court issued a ruling stating that no impediment existed and dismissed the challenge. One day before the Court hearing, Judge García-Sayan disqualified himself from participating in the deliberations of the case in order to avoid any conflict within the Court and to prevent discussions from deviating from the merits of the case to the matter of his participation in the Court deliberations.

Perú Case of La Cantuta. November 2006

Judge Diego García-Sayan disqualified

Concurring Opinion.



himself from hearing the case on the ground of his participation in the case before the Inter-American Commission in representation of the State and as Minister of Justice at the time the events subject matter of the case occurred. The State appointed Fernando Vidal-Ramirez, of Peruvian nationality, as ad hoc judge.

He adhered to the unanimous attribution of liability to the State, but pointed out his dissenting opinion regarding Article 3 of the Convention.

República Dominicana

“Yean and Bosico Girls” (09/08/05)

Rhadys Abreu de Polanco (Dominican) Note: As she was ambassador, the representative of the victims challenged her appointment. The I/A Court HR deemed a conflict of interests existed. The State did not appoint a substitute.

Surinam “Aloeboetoe et al.” (12/04/91)

Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil)

He submitted his dissent regarding only one issue.

Surinam “Gandaram Panday” (01/21/94)

Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil)

He submitted his dissent regarding only one issue. Note: Yes, a Dissenting Opinion was issued.



Surinam “Moiwana” (06/15/05)

Freddy Kruisland. Note: He resigned since he had participated in proceedings directly related to this case. No substitute judge was appointed.

Surinam “Pueblo Saramaka” (11/28/07)

Alwin Rene Baarh Note: Due to force majeure reasons, he could neither participate in the deliberations nor sign the judgment.

Trinidad y Tobago “Hillarie, Constantine, Benjamín et al.” (06/21/02)


Trinidad y Tobago “Caesar” (03/11/05)


Venezuela Case of El Amparo. January 1995

It cannot be inferred, from the text of the judgment, that the State had been invited to nominate an Ad Hoc Judge. No ad hoc judge was appointed.

Venezuela Case of El Caracazo. November 1999

It cannot be inferred, from the text of the judgment, that the State had been invited to nominate an Ad Hoc Judge. No ad hoc judge



was appointed. Venezuela Case of Blanco

Romero et al. November 2005

No Ad Hoc judge was appointed. It cannot be inferred, from the text of the judgment, that the State was invited to nominate an Ad Hoc Judge.

Venezuela “Case of Montero Aranguren et al.” (Reten de Catia). July 2006

It cannot be inferred, from the text of the judgment, that the State was invited to nominate an Ad Hoc Judge. No ad hoc judge was appointed.

Venezuela “Case of Apitz Barbera et al. “(Corte 1º en lo Contencioso Administrativo). August 2008

Peruvian judge Diego García-Sayan disqualified himself from hearing the case since he was a member of the Andean Commission and he considered that the Court impartiality could be impaired. It cannot be inferred from the text of the judgment that the State was invited to appoint an ad hoc judge. No ad hoc judge was appointed.

comparative table of court decisions regarding ad … table of court decisions regarding ad hoc...

Documents