Chapter iii  Right to a Hearing by a Competent, Independent and Impartial Tribunal Established by Law 67 sufficient. In Sander v the United Kingdom, the European Court treated racist comments made by jurors to be very serious given that, in today’s multicultural European societies, the eradication of racism had become a common priority goal for all Contracting States.255 It was alleged in Sander v United Kingdom that two jurors had been making openly racist remarks and jokes combined with a stated fear by another juror that the jurors concerned would convict the defendants not on the evidence but because they were Asian.256 The Court considered that this could not been taken lightly, since jokes of this nature, when made by jurors in the context of judicial proceedings, take on a different hue and assume a different significance from jokes made in the context of a more intimate and informal atmosphere.257 Moreover, the European Court considered that, generally speaking, an admonition or direction by a judge, however clear, detailed and forceful, would not be sufficient to change racist views overnight.258 The Court, therefore, considered that the allegations contained in the note were capable of causing the applicant and any objective observer legitimate doubts as to the impartiality of the court.259 It also considered that the judge should have reacted in a more robust manner than merely seeking vague assurances that the jurors could set aside their prejudices and try the case solely on the evidence. 260 These cases illustrate that the European Court of Human Rights will, when presented with allegations of impartiality, consider the factual issues at stake in order to determine: • Whether objectively justified or legitimate doubts existed as to the impartiality of the jury; • Whether there were sufficient guarantees to remedy and redress potential threats to the impartiality of the jury, including by way of firmly warning the jurors; and • Whether stronger measures, including the disqualification of jurors, were required in the specific circumstances of the case. Allegations of attempted jury tampering by an investigating officer were made in Collins v Jamaica. The Human Rights Committee commented that in a trial by jury the necessity to evaluate facts and evidence independently and impartially applied to the jury and that, therefore, it was important that all the jurors be placed in a position in which they could assess the facts and the evidence in an objective manner, so as to be able to return a just verdict. On the other hand, the Committee also observed that, where alleged improprieties in the behaviour of jurors or attempts at jury tampering come to the knowledge of the defence, these alleged improprieties should be challenged before the court.261 255 Sander v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR, para 23. 256 Sander v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR, para 29. 257 Sander v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR, para 26. Z 258 Sander v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR, para 30. 259 Sander v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR, para 32. 260 Sander v the United Kingdom [2000] ECHR, paras 34, 35. 261 Collins v Jamaica, HRC Communication 240/1987, UN Doc CCPR/C/43/D/240/1987 (1991), para 8.4. See also Mulai v Guyana, HRC Communication 811/1998, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/811/1998 (2004), paras 6.1–6.2.