A/HRC/44/47/Add.1 IV. Challenges to an independent and impartial justice system A. Judges 20. The principle of judicial independence refers to both the individual and the institutional independence required for decision-making. It is both a state of mind and a set of institutional and operational arrangements aimed at ensuring that individual judges, and the judiciary as an institution, are able to exercise their professional responsibilities without being influenced by the executive or legislative branches or other external sources. 21. In its general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, the Human Rights Committee observed that the requirement of independence and impartiality of a tribunal refers, in particular, to the procedure for the appointment of judges; the guarantees relating to their security of tenure; the conditions governing the promotion, transfer, suspension and cessation of their functions; and the actual independence of the judiciary from political interference by the executive branch and the legislature. The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary provide that the status of judges, including their term of office, independence, security, adequate remuneration, conditions of service, pensions and age of retirement must be regulated by law. 1. Threats to judicial independence 22. The Constitution enshrines both the principle of separation of powers (art. 11) and the independence of the judiciary from the legislative and executive authorities, political parties and public associations (art. 106). It also provides that in the exercise of their functions, judges are independent and only subject to the law; that any interference with their activities is deemed inadmissible and is punishable in accordance with the law; and that judges can only be removed from office before the completion of their terms in the cases provided by law (art. 112). The Supreme Judicial Council was established in 2017 as a new constitutional body in charge of safeguarding the independence of the judicial system and the independence of individual judges (art. 111). 23. According to the Law on Courts, the independence of judges is ensured by: (a) Statutory procedures for their election, appointment and termination of (b) Their immunity; (c) Strict procedures for the administration of justice; office; (d) Secrecy of the judges’ conference before the delivery of a judgment and restraint of disclosure of the respective confidential information; (e) Liability for contempt of court or interfering with judicial proceedings, or violation of judicial immunity; (f) An adequate level of material and social security provided to judges by the State in accordance with their high social status (art. 67). 24. In general terms, the Constitution and ordinary legislation are drafted in line with international standards on the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. In practice, however, a number of interferences continue to undermine both the independence of the judiciary from other branches of Government (institutional independence) and the independence of individual judges to adjudicate the cases before them impartially and autonomously (personal independence). 25. Institutional independence – that is, independence with respect to matters of administration that relate directly to the exercise of the judicial function – remains weak. Major issues concerning the administration of justice, including the establishment of judicial bodies, the organization and functioning of courts or the remuneration of judges and court employees, are regulated by presidential decrees. The Special Rapporteur is aware of the fact that legislation has been enacted pursuant to some executive decrees in 6