A/HRC/20/19 VII. Accountability of prosecutors 82. The fair, independent and impartial administration of justice also requires prosecutors to be held to account should they not fulfil their functions in accordance with their professional duties. In this vein, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes that autonomy should not exist to the detriment of accountability (A/HRC/17/30/Add.3, para. 18). 83. The accountability of prosecutors can be organized in several different ways: through monitoring by the executive; accountability before a prosecutorial council, prosecution inspectorates or similar independent body; or parliamentary accountability, although this form of accountability should not be used to scrutinize individual cases. 84. The issue of accountability of prosecution services is especially important where the office of the prosecutor is fully independent and there is no scrutiny of prosecutorial actions from the executive or the legislative. Accountability in these cases could be sought through the submission of public reports by the Prosecutor General. Moreover, prosecutors may be accountable to public auditors for financial or organizational issues. 85. The work of a prosecutor is subject to judicial scrutiny where cases are brought before the courts, even though this scrutiny would not normally include the decision not to prosecute. The Special Rapporteur underlines that there should always be an effective oversight mechanism to ensure increased transparency and accountability. This is particularly important in systems where prosecutors traditionally have had and, in some instances, continue to have, very broad powers. 86. The Special Rapporteur has already stated that human rights principles and standards relating to judges, lawyers and prosecutors recognize that they should be accountable in the discharge of their functions and subject to disciplinary proceedings, as necessary (A/65/274, para. 60). Disciplinary and other proceedings against prosecutors, however, should be carried out in full conformity with existing international norms and standards. For instance, paragraph 21 of the United Nations Guidelines states that “complaints against prosecutors which allege that they acted in a manner clearly out of the range of professional standards shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under appropriate procedures. Prosecutors shall have the right to a fair hearing. The decision shall be subject to independent review.” The Special Rapporteur stresses that disciplinary measures must be proportional to the gravity of the infraction, and recalls the recommendation formulated by the previous mandate holder with regard to judges, that the law should give guidance on infractions by judges and the disciplinary measures that they trigger (A/HRC/11/41/Add.2, para. 99), which should also be applied to prosecutors. To maintain public confidence in the prosecution system, prosecutors should be directly or indirectly accountable to the public. In this respect, in order to create a system of public accountability, a number of regional standards recommend the possibility of interested parties challenging the decision of prosecutors not to prosecute.51 87. The Special Rapporteur would also like to highlight the need to adopt specific measures to combat corruption in prosecution services. She recommends, as a matter of priority, the adoption of effective measures in this respect. A code of ethics for prosecutors is also an important tool for enhancing professionalism and integrity. 51 Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec (2000) 19, para. 34; Venice Commission, Report on European standards, para. 87.10. 17