A/HRC/42/60/Add.2 and law dissemination among law enforcement personnel as well as enforcement against perpetrators. In relation to pre-trial detention and its extension, it is upon the prerogative of the judiciary to decide in accordance with the provisions stipulated in the criminal code. Final court judgments are now shared with the prison authorities. Cambodia became the first ASEAN state to ratify the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) on March 30, 2007 which in turn established an official mechanism for the prevention against torture in 2009, namely the National Mechanism for the Prevention Against Torture and its secretariat in 2010. Since OPCAT was ratified, Cambodia has been visited twice by the Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture (SPT) in 2009 and 2013. In addition to good measures to prove that rights of detainees are being protected the Royal Government has allowed the UN special rapporteur Prof. Rhona Smith to visit places of detention on numerous occasions prior to 2018. Article 38 of the Constitution and Article 321 of the criminal code nullify confessions derived from ill treatments or torture by the authority in the court of law. Articles 210 –215 of the CCKC, Article 25 and Article 81 of the 2011 Law on Prison as well as the prison regulations handbook all prohibit torture on all forms committed by competent officers who have the duty of care for detainees designated to them. The government also pays much attention on the rights of the detainees through the regular inspection and monitoring of the prison situation in all provinces done by the Cambodian Human Right Committee. Through this monitoring mission, the committee has also intervened several cases related with issue of improper treatment and violence against detainees and also disseminated the domestic and international rules and regulations related with the rights of detainees among all stakeholders through the meeting with prison officials, court officials, local authorities, police and detainees. 10. Judicial Reform: Corruption, Integrity and Independence of Judiciary According to the Article 128 (new) and Article 130 (new) of the Constitution, judicial power is an independent power, that no organ of legislative power or executive power can exercise any judicial power. To ensure the independence of judicial power, the Constitution requires to establish three fundamental organic laws namely, (i) the Law on the Organization of the Court, (ii) the Law on the Status of Judges and Prosecutors, and (iii) the Law on the Supreme Council of Magistracy. These three fundamental laws were adopted by the National Assembly and promulgated by the King on July 16, 2014, reflecting Cambodia’s strong commitment to promote the independence and effectiveness of the judicial power. Adjudicative function is the core function of judicial independence and is exercised through Judges. Independence of judiciary means primarily not to influence the process how a judge arrives at the decision and prohibits contesting a judge’s decision other than a formal appeal by the parties. The Constitution, the Law on the Status of Judges and Prosecutors and the Law on Supreme Council of Magistracy safeguard judicial independence and protect judge, in theory, against political interference. Based on the Constitution, the King is the guarantor of the independence of the judiciary, and the Supreme Council of Magistracy (SCM) assists the King in this task. The SCM is presided over by the King and other 11 members, mostly are judges and prosecutors or former judges and prosecutors. This composition of the SCM is similar to the composition of the Supreme Council of Magistrates of France before its reform in 2013 (Referring to French Law related to the Supreme Council of Magistracy, number 0168, dated July 23, 2010.) Members of the SCM, who are judges and prosecutors, are representative of their peers nationwide are mandated to assist the King in ensuring the independence of judicial power, especially for tasks related to the appointment and disciplinary actions against judges and prosecutors. The three fundamental laws and some other substantive laws establishes the mechanism to guarantee the independence of judiciary by regulating case proceeding, decision making process, resources, performance of key actors, organization and functioning of the court. By definition, judicial independence refers to the independent mechanism in case proceeding and decision making. It is not about independence of individual persons or actors in the court, who as mere human beings by nature are not independent and sometimes bias. Therefore, 8