A/HRC/44/47/Add.1 their judicial decision-making activity, amounts to a breach of the principle of judicial independence.15 6. Disciplinary proceedings 56. International standards recognize that individual judges may be subject to disciplinary proceedings and penalties, up to and including removal from office, for sufficiently serious misconduct that renders them unfit to discharge their duties. The responsibility for handling disciplinary proceedings against judges should be vested in an independent authority (such as a judicial council) or a court. International human rights mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur, have stressed that the involvement of members of the executive branch of power in the disciplinary body is de facto incompatible with the principle of the independence of the judiciary. 16 57. The current regime for disciplinary measures against judges is scattered through a number of regulations that do not meet the minimum requirements set out, inter alia, in principles 17 to 20 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 58. The grounds for disciplinary liability set out in article 73 of the Law on Courts are too vague and ambiguous. In particular, there seems to be an overlap between the offences to the dignity of their profession that could compromise the independence and authority of the judiciary and violations of rules of ethical conduct. Furthermore, not all violations of ethical rules could amount to misconduct. Whether disciplinary action is appropriate or not may depend on other factors, such as the seriousness of the transgression, whether or not there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of any improper activity on others and on the judicial system as a whole. 59. The authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against judges is vested in the Chair of the Supreme Court – who may act on the basis of a request from the Chair of the respective court – and in the Supreme Judicial Council. Disciplinary cases involving judges of higher courts are handled by the Higher Judicial Qualification Board, while cases concerning ordinary judges are considered by lower-level judicial qualification boards (article 74 of the Law on Courts). 60. The disciplinary procedure is set out in the Regulation on Judicial Qualification Boards.17 If the judicial qualification board finds the case to have merit, it may issue a reprimand or impose a fine amounting up to 30 per cent of the judge’s average monthly wage. In the most serious cases, the board may refer the case to the Supreme Judicial Council, which is the sole authority competent to remove judges from office or, in the case of judges appointed by the President or elected by the Senate, to recommend early termination to the President (article 7 of the Law establishing the Supreme Judicial Council). 7. Women in the judiciary 61. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the recent adoption of two important laws on gender equality and violence against women,18 and wishes to underline that a more representative and gender-sensitive judiciary could play a determining role in empowering women to gain access to justice, claim their rights and break patterns of gender discrimination and impunity in cases of violence against women. 15 16 17 18 Universal Charter of the Judge, approved by the Central Council of the International Association of Judges in Taipei, Taiwan Province of China, on 17 November 1999, and updated in Santiago on 14 November 2017, art. 3-1. A/HRC/38/38, paras. 60 ff. Adopted by Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. ZRU-368 of 22 April 2014. Law on Protecting Women from Harassment and Violence (Law No. ZRU-561), and Law on Guarantees of Equal Rights and Opportunities for Women and Men (Law No. ZRU-562), both adopted on 2 September 2019. 11