A/HRC/44/47/Add.1 order to regulate important aspects of judicial careers. Nevertheless, he remains concerned that important aspects of judicial careers, including the procedure for handling disciplinary proceedings against judges, continue to be regulated by secondary legislation. 26. He welcomes the fact that some competences of the President on issues related to the organization and functioning of the judiciary have been eliminated, including those related to the appointment of ordinary judges (see para. 39). Nevertheless, the President retains important functions in relation to the organization and functioning of the judicial system, such as the power to appoint senior judges and to approve the court structure and the number of staff (article 78 of the Law on Courts). 27. Another important factor affecting judicial independence is the prominent role that prosecutors retain in criminal proceedings. According to several sources, the Prosecutor’s Office exercises excessive prerogative in criminal cases and in its general oversight function (see paras. 71 ff.). In the criminal justice system, the closing indictment, forwarded by the Prosecutor’s Office to the court along with the case materials, is often used as the text of the judge’s decision. According to several sources, the extended and visible presence of the security services in the daily life of Uzbek citizens and in public institutions has a particular influence on the prosecution service. As a result, the autonomy of judges to decide the cases before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, is de facto limited to upholding the requests made by the prosecutor in the indictment. Several judges have allegedly been harassed, subjected to disciplinary proceedings or dismissed in the past for not having followed the prosecution’s instructions. 28. During the course of the mission, several interlocutors referred to the increase in acquittals in criminal proceedings as an indicator of a progressive move towards judicial independence. According to the figures provided by State authorities, the number of acquittals increased from only 6 in 2016 to 263 in 2017, 867 in 2018 and more than 500 in the first nine months of 2019. These numbers, if confirmed, could indeed be regarded as a gradual move from a system where the autonomy of judges was limited to simply confirming the indictment made by the prosecutor to a system in which judges are able to exercise a more independent role. 29. An additional threat to judicial independence comes from the pyramidal structure of the justice system and the extremely broad powers that court Chairs have with regard to the selection, promotion, evaluation and discipline of judges (see paras. 53 ff.). Court Chairs or the head of a superior court can interfere with criminal trials in lower-level courts by giving instructions to the judge concerning the outcome of the trial or demanding progress reports from the judge. State authorities claim that so-called “telephone justice” – that is, the practice of interfering with the judicial decision-making by putting pressure on the judge on how to adjudicate the case – is a remnant of the past. Nonetheless, many interlocutors confirmed that such interference was still entrenched in the system, and that the court Chair often played an intermediary function in this process. 30. Judges who adjudicate the case without taking into account the requests made by the prosecutor in the indictment or the instructions received from the judicial hierarchy may have their decision overturned on appeal. They may also be subject, at the request of the prosecutor, to enquiries into their sentence history, with the aim of ascertaining the percentage of judgments that have been partially or totally reversed by superior courts. The number of acquittal decisions may constitute a decisive factor in proving the “inconsistency of the judge’s decisions”, and may adversely affect the judge concerned during the performance assessment or the reappointment process (see paras. 49 ff.). 2. Supreme Judicial Council 31. The composition and functioning of the Supreme Judicial Council are regulated by the Law on the Supreme Judicial Council. 5 32. The Supreme Judicial Council consists of 21 representatives, including 11 judges. Its representatives are chosen from among judges, representatives of law enforcement 5 Law No. ZRU-427 of 6 April 2017, as amended by Law No. ZRU-566 of 10 September 2019. 7