A/HRC/29/43 on 12 communications with regard to Belarus, most of which regarding the freedoms of association, assembly and expression. 7 31. Belarus has continued to challenge the registration of cases filed under the Optional Protocol on procedural grounds. To date, the Human Rights Committee has not been satisfied by the measures taken by the State party to give effect to its recommendations. 32. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the adoption by Belarus of the optional reporting procedure of the Human Rights Committee. 33. The Special Rapporteur encourages Belarus to respond positively to the requests by special procedures to visit the country, including the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. IV. Human rights concerns A. Independence of the judiciary 34. Although Presidential Decree No. 6 of November 2013, aimed at reforming the judicial system of Belarus, was a welcome step, It was reported that, as at the end of 2014, none of the changes removing the powers established in the Code of Judicial System and Status of Judges had been effectively introduced.8 35. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned at the extensive powers of the General Directorate for Relations with Legislative and Judicial Bodies and Issues of Citizenship and Pardon, included within the Presidential Administration, which submits proposals regarding the appointment and dismissal of judges and other related judicial functions for the President’s consideration.9 The Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers has recommended that a body similar to models found in other countries under the title of Judicial Council, Council of Judges or Supreme/High Council of Judges be established in Belarus (see E/CN.4/2001/65/Add. 1). The Special Rapporteur encourages the implementation of that recommendation and the establishment of such a body, which would be composed mainly of judges and perform the functions currently carried out by the General Directorate. 36. The Special Rapporteur notes the positive development represented by the adoption on 20 December 2013 of Order No. 11, which is aimed at increasing transparency in the 7 8 9 See CCPR/C/112/D/1773/2008 (Kozulina v Belarus), CCPR/C/112/D/1906/2009 (Yuzepchuk v Belarus), CCPR/C/112/D/1929/2010 (Lozenko v Belarus), CCPR/C/112/D/1952/2010 (Symonik v Belarus), CCPR/C/112/D/1987/2010 (Stambrovsky v Belarus); CCPR/C/112/D/1989/2010 (E.V v Belarus), CCPR/C/112/D/1999/2010 (Evrezov, Nepomnyaschikh, Polyakov and Rybchenko v Belarus), CCPR/C/112/D/2029/2011 (Praded v Belarus), CCPR/C/112/D/2114/2011 (Sudalenko v Belarus), CCPR/C/112/D/2153/2012 (Kalyakin v Belarus), CCPR/C/112/D/2156/2012 (Nepomnyaschikh v Belarus) and CCPR/C/112/D/2165/2012 (Pinchuk v Belarus). Belarusian Helsinki Committee, Independence of the Judiciary in the Republic of Belarus, 2014, pp. 4-5. Coalition report (see footnote 4), p. 7. 7