A/HRC/14/34 administration systems, including recent cases involving: individuals whose names were placed on the Consolidated List of the United Nations Sanctions Committee, resulting in a freezing of their assets and limitations on their freedom of movement;22 ethnic profiling by police in stop and search;23 failure to adequately investigate a killing;24 judicial procedures for extradition of individuals involving a risk of the death penalty;25 house arrest as arbitrary detention;26 failure to establish procedures on the arrest of juveniles that take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation;27 lack of reasons for dismissal of an appeal as a violation of article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant;28 and procedural fairness in the dismissal of a judge.29 C. Developments in the work of the special procedures of the Human Rights Council 20. The special procedures of the Human Rights Council address human rights and administration of justice issues from the perspective of their thematic or geographic mandates. This significant work is provided to the Council in the reports of the individual mandate holders and working groups, such as mission reports. Some developments of particular interest are set out below. 21. In 2009 the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances adopted a general comment in which it expressed its view that the definition of “crime against humanity” set out in article 7 (1) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court now reflects customary international law and can thus be used to interpret and apply the provisions of the Declaration for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. Thus enforced disappearance may amount to a crime against humanity where the criteria listed in article 7 (1) of the Statute are met, namely where it is committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. 22. In his final report to the Human Rights Council submitted in 2009, the former Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers explored guarantees of judicial independence (A/HRC/11/41), setting out a number of recommendations on judges’ appointment, tenure, conditions of service, freedom of expression and association, and the national budget allocated to the judiciary. He also called for the adoption of a comprehensive set of principles on the independence of the judiciary to further the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary endorsed by the General Assembly in 1985 (A/RES/40/146). The Special Rapporteur’s 2009 report to the General Assembly similarly addressed safeguards for the independence of lawyers and the legal profession (A/64/181). 23. A number of the special procedures have continued to draw attention to issues which they identify as current challenges to the protection of human rights within the context of the administration of justice. Thus the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has recently explored the phenomenon of mob justice (A/64/187), and 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 8 Communication No. 1472/2006, Sayadi v. Belgium, Views adopted 22 October 2008. Communication No. 1493/2006, Le Craft v. Spain, Views adopted 27 July 2009. Communication No. 1447/2006, Amirov v. Russian Federation, Views adopted 2 April 2009. Communication No. 1461/ 2006, Maksudov, et al. v. Krygystan, Views adopted 16 July 2008. See also Communication No. 1442/2005, Kwok v. Australia, Views adopted 23 October 2009. Communication No. 1460/2006, Yklymova v. Turkmenistan, Views adopted 20 July 2009. Communication No. 1241/2004, Sharifova and others v. Tadjikistan, Views adopted 1 April 2008. Communication No. 1542/2007, Aboushanif v. Norway, Views adopted 17 July 2008. Communication No. 1376/2005, Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted 24 July 2008. GE.10-13137