This book is based upon a recognition, myths to the contrary notwithstanding, that judical processes do not take place in a social void; that judges are men, not gods; that strict observance of legal forms does not necessary assure the accused of a fair trial; and that judges and court systems are themselves judged by the society they are designed to serve.
I would like to ask about the phrase "to the myths contrary notwithstanding". Is this a form of the concession? Is not the usage "the contrary" and "notwithstanding" a little bit redundant. The boths terms mean the same after all. Os is it because the phrase shall emphasize the contrast of facts in a statement?