DRAGOJEVIĆ v. CROATIA JUDGMENT 33 118. Similarly, the Court does not consider that the reference to the particular circumstances of the charges, indicating the gravity of the offences and the applicant’s previous convictions, could be seen as going beyond what should be regarded as an objective and reasonable evaluation of the situation for the purposes of deciding the question of his pre-trial detention. These elements played a role in the assessment of the grounds for ordering pre-trial detention under the relevant domestic law and, as such, had to be reviewed by Judge Z.Č. from the point of view of justification for the applicant’s continued detention. However, they could not be seen as indicating any preconceived view of the applicant’s guilt or sentence which should be imposed on him (see Jasiński, cited above, § 56). 119. The Court therefore considers that the mere fact that Judge Z.Č. sat as a member of the three-judge panel of the Dubrovnik County Court which extended the applicant’s detention does not raise an issue of lack of impartiality under the Convention. 120. The Court notes, however, that during the proceedings, owing to his previous involvement in the case, Judge Z.Č., of his own motion, sought leave from the President of the Dubrovnik County Court to withdraw from the case as president of the trial bench (see paragraph 38 above). Leave was granted by the President of the Dubrovnik County Court, who, relying on the same grounds, asked the Supreme Court to transfer the proceedings to another court (see paragraph 39 above) because all the judges of the Criminal Division of that court had already taken part in the proceedings. However, leave was refused by the Supreme Court on the grounds that there were no reasons to doubt the impartiality of the Dubrovnik County Court judges. It explained that the mere fact that a judge had presided over the panels extending the applicant’s detention could not raise any issue of his impartiality since the questions to be decided when the detention was extended differed from those which the judge had to decide when examining the case on the merits (see paragraph 40 above). 121. Whereas this situation could have raised certain misgivings on the part of the applicant, the Court notes that, in his request, Judge Z.Č. did not refer to any specific reason for his withdrawal but requested leave to withdraw as a merely precautionary measure (see paragraph 38 above). Moreover, in dismissing the request the Supreme Court gave sufficient and relevant reasons for its decision, which were compatible with the Court’s case-law (see paragraph 120 above, and, by contrast, Rudnichenko v. Ukraine, no. 2775/07, §§ 116-18, 11 July 2013). 122. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the applicant’s misgivings about the impartiality of the judge presiding over his trial cannot be regarded as objectively justified. 123. There has accordingly been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.