The judicial robe is much more than an adornment and article o f clothing; it is a powerful symbol o f the values and principles inherent in the judi-cial function. Its significance transcends the practical and ceremonial, serving as a visual and cultural marker o f the judiciary' s independence, impartiality, integrity and dignity. By wearing the robe, judges set aside personal bias and affiliations reinforcing the principle that justice is blind to individual differences, and that the law applies equally to all, regardless o f race, gender or social status. It serves as a reminder to both judges and the public o f the separation o f powers and the profound significance o f the judicial process and the decisions being rendered. By creating a visual distinction between the individual and the institution they represent, it reinforces the idea that the judge' s authority derives from rule o f law and other fundamental legal and ethical principles. Finally, the robe is a symbol o f public trust. For the community, it inspires confidence in the fairness and objectivity o f the judicial process, thereby reinfor-cing the legitimacy o f the courts as institutions ofjustice. Advocating the introduction o f official robes in the Serbian judiciary as part o f the comprehensive judicial reform is driven by more than just the need for a neat and uniform wardrobe. Rather, it is a powerful allegory with a much deeper content about the judicial metamorphosis, signifying true transformation through the adoption o f core values and principles that underlie the judicial system in democratic society. Judicial robes are not a value in themselves if we do not understand them as one o f the elements in the construction o f a new social pattern about the judiciary system and the holders ofjudicial functions. According to the author, in the Serbian judiciary, it is essential to promote an independent and impartial administration o fjustice, personified by the iudex novus - the new holder o f the judicial function - who is accepted by social consensus as the guardian o f the public interest, the dignity and the integrity o f the judiciary.
Nenad Tešić (Wed,) studied this question.