Judicial independence versus judicial impartiality: A comparative approach

This thesis focuses on the relationship between the principles of judicial independence and judicial impartiality and how these concepts have been channelled and applied in the Egyptian judiciary. It approaches the subject, using a comparative methodology, by discussing how the essence, elements, institutional mechanisms, threats, and aspects of independence and impartiality have been channelled and interpreted in some designated international, regional, and national judicial courts and tribunals, as well as in the literature and textbooks. While judicial independence and judicial impartiality are familiar concepts as cornerstones of ‘good’ judicial administration, the precise range, distinguishing features, and inter-relationship between the two principles are not entirely clear. It is worthy of exploration whether an independent yet partial bench can be sufficient to secure a fair trial and public confidence in the judicial system and also whether an impartial bench without independence can do the same. Therefore, this thesis aims to answer the question of how different these two principles are from each other. A second question subsequently arises of whether independence is an indispensable condition for impartiality. The present study seeks to find a clear distinction between judicial independence and judicial impartiality and, if such a distinction exists, to determine, as a third question, what is truly needed – independence, impartiality, or both – and which principle should be prioritised over the other. With Egypt as a case study, one of the first ancient civilisations to incorporate both principles into its judicial system, this study draws attention to the historical roots of the application of independence and impartiality in the ancient Egyptian judiciary. This historical background enriches the study with a solid basis to examine and compare how the principles have been channelled, applied, and interpreted in the modern Egyptian judicial system and the stumbling blocks that they face and also what possible solutions and recommendations could be to have an efficient independent and impartial judiciary in Egypt that secures a fair trial and public confidence in the judicial system

Antistreptolysin O titer in health and disease: levels and significance

Over diagnosis of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) based on a raised antistreptolysin O titer (ASOT) is not uncommon in endemic areas. In this study, 660 children (aged 9.2 ±1.7 years) were recruited consecutively and classified as: G1 (control group, n=200 healthy children), G2 (n=20 with ARF 1st attack), G3 (n=40 with recurrent ARF), G4 (n=100 with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) on long acting penicillin (LAP)), G5 (n=100 with acute follicular tonsillitis), and G6 (n=200 healthy children with history of repeated follicular tonsillitis more than three times a year). Serum ASOT was measured by latex agglutination. Upper limit of normal (ULN) ASOT (80th percentile) was 400 IU in G1, 200 IU in G4, and 1600 IU in G6. Significantly high levels were seen in ARF 1st attack when compared to groups 1 and 5 (P<0.001 and P<0.05, respectively). ASOT was significantly high in children over ten years of age, during winter and in those with acute rheumatic carditis. ASOT showed significant direct correlation with the number of attacks of tonsillitis (P<0.05). Egyptian children have high ULN ASOT reaching 400 IU. This has to be taken into consideration when interpreting its values in suspected ARF. A rise in ASOT is less prominent in recurrent ARF compared to 1st attack, and acute and recurrent tonsillitis. Basal levels of ASOT increase with age but the pattern of increase during infection is not age dependent