A/HRC/44/47/Add.3 Despite the fact that the issue of bringing judges to disciplinary liability is regulated by the laws of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Courts” and “On the Supreme Judicial Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan”, as well as the Regulation on the “Qualification Collegiums of Judges”, approved by the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. LRU-Z68 dated April 22, 2014, which also has the status of law, the Government of Uzbekistan, in accordance with the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur, plans to take measures aimed at strengthening the status of judges, strengthening guarantees to ensure genuine court independence. Particularly, in accordance with the State Program 2020, adoption of the law “On courts” in a new version by October 1, 2020 is planned, which will review the procedure for initiating disciplinary proceedings against judges, improve the mechanism for appealing decisions on bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility, and review the procedure for evaluating the performance of judges by court chairpersons. In addition, the law will define the procedure for suspending and terminating the powers of judges in accordance with international standards, and strengthen the legal status of current and retired judges. These measures are aimed at abolishing the practice of regulating these issues via bylaws. 17. Concerning paragraph 27 of the report, Uzbekistan reports that for judges who have violated the oath and the Code of Ethical Conduct, the powers of 16 judges were prematurely terminated in 2017, 17 judges in 2018, 16 judges in 2019, and in 2017, 4 judges were terminated for criminal prosecution, in 2018 - 2 judges, in 2019 - 3 judges. In addition, on the grounds of application submitted by judges themselves, 7 judges self-terminated their powers in 2017, 3 judges in 2018, and 14 judges in 2019. At the same time, “refusal to support the opinion of the prosecutor during the court hearing” cannot serve as a reason for terminating of the powers of judges. 18. Supporting the Special Rapporteur’s concern on the excessive power of prosecutors in criminal proceedings (paragraph 27 of the report), the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan in his Address to the Parliament noted the need to limit the legacy of the old system and the ongoing practice of prosecutors studying court decisions and introducing an order when the prosecutor will be able to request a court decision only upon receipt of a complaint in the case. In this regard, in accordance with the State Program 2020, it is planned, by 1 April 2020, to develop a draft law aimed at harmonizing the activities of prosecution bodies with international standards and best foreign practices; determination of the legal and procedural grounds on which the prosecutor can refuse charges; review of the appeal procedure by the prosecutor of judicial decisions; the exclusion of the participation of the prosecutor in the consideration of civil and economic cases brought by other persons in the courts, except as otherwise provided by law, as well as the abolition of the mandatory participation of the Attorney General at plenary sessions of the Supreme Court. 19. Paragraph 29 of the report notes the additional threat to the independence of judges posed by the “pyramidal structure of the justice system and the extremely broad powers of court chairpersons with respect to the selection, promotion, evaluation of judges, as well as the imposition of disciplinary sanctions on them”. In order to further improve the procedure for the appointment of judges (paragraph 26 of the report), in accordance with the State Program 2020, further reform of the judicial system is expected: • development of the draft law “On the bodies of judicial community”, which defines the legal basis of activity, the main tasks, functions and powers of the judicial community, the procedure for forming judicial community bodies, including the procedure for nominating candidates to these bodies, as well as the role of the judicial community in ensuring the independence of the judiciary; • adoption of a law providing for a set of measures to organize the activities of qualified judicial boards on a democratic basis, ensuring their objectivity and impartiality. The draft law to provide for the authority to the bodies of judicial community to form the highest qualification collegium of judges; the formation of the current composition of the qualification collegiums of the courts at the expense of existing judges and members acting on a voluntary basis (former judges, veterans of the judiciary); the introduction of the procedure for the selection by secret ballot for a maximum of two 5