A/HRC/44/47/Add.1 69. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, these procedures do not provide sufficient guarantees to prevent undue political influence from the legislative and executive branches of power in the process of appointment and dismissal of the Prosecutor-General. They may hamper the institutional independence of the prosecution service as a whole, and raise considerable risk of corruption. The development of clear and objective criteria and a procedure for the selection and appointment of the Prosecutor-General and the involvement of civil society in the procedure could strengthen the transparency of the process and reduce the risk of politicization of the prosecution service. 70. The procedure for admission to the prosecution service is currently regulated by the Order of the Prosecutor-General on increasing the effectiveness of activities in the field of staff selection, placement and education. 21 The selection process is carried out by the personnel department of the Prosecutor-General’s Office, together with the Internal Security Department and other units of the Office. 71. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that the procedure for the review of candidates is carried out on a competitive basis, but regrets that neither the criteria nor the procedure envisaged for the selection of candidates provides sufficient guarantees to minimize the risk of selection for improper motives. Furthermore, the current system, in which all prosecutors are appointed by the Prosecutor-General for a five-year term, cannot be regarded as being consistent with international standards relating to the independence of the prosecution services. An institution of prosecutorial self-government, such as a prosecutorial council, could be established to strengthen the independence of the prosecution service and deal with all issues relating to the prosecutorial career. 2. Supervisory powers 72. The Constitution provides that the prosecution authorities exercise their powers independently of any State bodies, public associations and officials, and are only subject to the law (art. 120). To ensure the independence of the prosecution authorities, the Criminal Code provides a criminal liability for unlawful influence in any form on an investigator or a prosecutor aimed at preventing a full, complete and objective investigation of a case (art. 236). 73. In addition to their far-reaching competences in the field of criminal investigation, prosecutors are vested with wide supervisory powers over the executive and legislative branches, investigative bodies and administrative agencies, as well as over any private institutions, enterprises and organizations (see article 3 of the Law on Public Prosecution). The Law on Combating Corruption provides wide discretionary powers to the prosecution service in relation to the development and implementation of anti-corruption legislation and programmes (art. 9). In the exercise of these powers, they are largely unaccountable to anyone except the Prosecutor-General. 74. According to the Law on Public Prosecution, prosecutors retain the power to verify the conformity of court decisions with the law and the evidence collected, regardless of whether they participated in the proceedings, and may appeal decisions in criminal, civil, economic and administrative cases to a higher court. This power also extends to decisions that have already entered into force, although the right to protest against final decisions only pertains to the Prosecutor-General and his or her deputies. While the supervisory procedure is pending, the Prosecutor-General has the right to suspend the execution of the protested decision (arts. 36–40). 75. The Special Rapporteur considers that these powers, which constitute a rudiment of the former Soviet legal system, violate the principles of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, and pose considerable corruption risks, given the hierarchical structure of the prosecution service and the fact that the Prosecutor-General is appointed by political bodies. The right to protest against final decisions is inconsistent with a number of rule-of-law principles, such as the principles of res judicata and legal certainty. Judicial errors should be dealt with through the appeal or cassation procedure, or 21 Order of the Prosecutor-General No. 131 of 29 August 2016. 13