A/HRC/20/19 executive avoids intervening in individual cases or operational decisions, even though it is entitled to do so. Nonetheless, the fundamental problem remains as long as there are no formal safeguards against such interventions. The existence of an entitlement to such interventions can, in terms of public perception, be as damaging as an act of interference. 28. In this context, it is important to develop clear and adequate policy guidelines as well as codes of conduct and ethics, so that the parameters for action and the authority of the respective actors are clearly defined, so as to detect, challenge and remedy any violation or abuse of authority that may arise. V. Status and role of prosecutors A. Diversity of prosecution service structures 29. Prosecution services are constructed in a wide variety of ways. First, the prosecution service can be an integral part of the executive power. The service may be organized as an ordinary civil service department, under the authority of the Minister of Justice or an Attorney General who may also have ministerial responsibility and operate outside the Ministry of Justice. Appointments, career and disciplinary proceedings may be organized by the Ministry of Justice, and/or a prosecutorial council or similar body may approve or advise on these matters. 30. Second, the prosecution service may be organized as an autonomous agency, but may be linked to the executive power to a greater or lesser extent. In this case, a prosecutorial council or a similar independent body may regulate the career of prosecutors. The Minister of Justice or another other organ of the executive power often retains a certain degree of control over the appointment of prosecutors, and can decide on appointments autonomously or on the advice of the prosecutorial council. In this structure, the Minister of Justice may also remain in charge of organizational matters and budget management. In other jurisdictions, all policy, operational and administrative matters reside with the operational head of the prosecution service, though some budgetary control may remain with the responsible minister, which may have an impact on the independence of the service. It should be added that nomenclatures can be misleading as there is no consistency between jurisdictions. 31. Third, the prosecution service forms part of the judiciary, which is mostly the case for a number of civil law countries. In this structure, there is usually a higher judicial council or a similar independent body that regulates the careers of both prosecutors and judges. Judges and prosecutors may have the possibility of switching between the respective careers, which in some cases is limited by law. 32. Finally, the prosecution service may be totally independent from both the executive and the judiciary branches. 33. Not only may prosecution services be institutionalized in different ways, their internal structure may also differ. Within prosecution services, prosecutors are either independent of one another within a horizontal structure, or the service is structured in a hierarchical manner. Within a horizontal structure, prosecutors generally enjoy more autonomy, while within a hierarchical structure, it is easier to align the application and interpretation of the law as well as a common approach to criminal justice policy, since there will be an objective, in the name of consistency, to ensure that common practices, procedures and policies are followed. Arguably, the likelihood for an abuse of authority increases with a more hierarchical structure; therefore an adequate system of checks and balances must be in place as a safeguard against this risk. This may occur through internal 7