Rejection of an Investigating Judge due to Bias

Facts

In 1991, an investigation was opened against X. in the Canton of Fribourg for the circulation of counterfeit money. In 1992, the authorities of the Canton of Zurich opened an investigation against him for fraud, which was transferred to the Canton of Fribourg and continued by Investigating Judge C. During an interrogation on 23 October 2000, Investigating Judge [C.] allegedly said to X.: "You were always good, not only as a fraudster, but also as a dental technician". Thereupon, on 10 November 2000, X. filed a request for recusal against [C.] with the President of the Investigating Judges' Office of the Canton of Fribourg. The request was rejected, whereupon X. unsuccessfully filed a complaint with the Criminal Chamber of the Cantonal Court of Fribourg. Against the decision of the Criminal Chamber, X. now brings a constitutional appeal due to a violation of the right to an independent and impartial judge.

Considerations

The Federal Court states that in the rejection of an Investigating Judge or a representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office, not Art. 30 para. 1 Cst. and Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR, but Art. 29 para. 1 Cst. applies. According to this provision, the individual has the right to have his case decided by an impartial, unbiased and unprejudiced judge without the influence of irrelevant circumstances. Statements by the Investigating Judge that may give the appearance of bias can constitute grounds for recusal.…