A/HRC/38/38 tool to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. The rationale behind the transfer of managerial functions from the Ministry of Justice or the Supreme Court to the judicial council is to reduce external interference, especially from the executive branch, in judicial affairs. The management and administration of the budget allocated to the court system should be entrusted directly to the judiciary or an independent body responsible for the judiciary, such as a judicial council (see A/HRC/11/41, paras. 43 and 101). The Venice Commission considered that decisions on the allocation of funds to courts “must be taken with the strictest respect for the principle of judicial independence” and recommended that the judiciary be provided with “an opportunity to express its views about the proposed budget to parliament, possibly through the judicial council”.54 57. In some of the countries that responded to the questionnaire, judicial councils have been entrusted with general responsibilities regarding court administration and budget control. In Latvia, for example, the judicial council participates in the development of the policies and strategies of the judicial system, as well as the improvement of the organization of work of the judiciary. 58. In cases in which administrative functions are the responsibility of the highest judicial body, the Special Rapporteur has advocated the separation of administrative and jurisdictional functions, so as to enable the judiciary to concentrate fully on the latter. In a report on El Salvador, for example, the Special Rapporteur recommended that the Supreme Court of Justice relinquish some of the administrative functions currently entrusted to it in favour of another institution, such as the judicial council (see A/HRC/23/43/Add.1, para. 106). 59. Judicial councils should operate in a transparent way, and should be accountable for their activities in the field of court administration and budget control. Transparency is an essential factor in the trust that citizens have in the functioning of the judicial system and a guarantee against the danger of political influence or the perception of self-interest, selfprotection and cronyism within the judiciary. Extended financial powers for a council imply its accountability not only vis-à-vis the executive and the legislature, but also vis-à-vis the courts and the public.55 When judicial councils are endowed with budgetary powers, they must be accountable for the use of the funds to the allocating body by presenting periodical reports to fiscal authorities in which they detail the use of their budgetary resources. C. Disciplinary proceedings and accountability 60. International and regional standards recognize that individual judges may be subject to disciplinary proceedings and penalties, up to and including removal from office, for sufficiently serious misconduct, for example “incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties”.56 61. The responsibility for disciplinary proceedings against judges should be vested in an independent authority (such as a judicial council) or a court. Some standards explicitly provide that the independent authority competent to hear disciplinary cases and to take a decision on disciplinary measures should be composed primarily of judges.57 In order to prevent allegations of corporatism and guarantee a fair disciplinary procedure, this authority should also include members from outside the judicial profession, but in no case should such persons be members of the legislative or executive branches of the State. Both the Special Rapporteur (see A/HRC/11/41, paras. 60–61; and A/HRC/26/32, paras. 91–93) and the Human Rights Committee (see general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 20) have stressed that the 54 55 56 57 12 See Venice Commission, “Report on the independence of the judicial system, part I: the independence of judges” (Strasbourg, Council of Europe, March 2010), para. 55. See opinion No. 10 of the Consultative Council of European Judges, para. 75. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, principle 18. Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region, principle 36; opinion No. 10 of the Consultative Council of European Judges, para. 64; and the revised Universal Charter of the Judge, art. 7-1.