A/HRC/41/48 maximum discretion with regard to the cases with which they deal”, and should refrain “from making use of the press, even when provoked”.36 In these cases, the Court concluded that the expressions used by the judges implied that they had already formed an unfavourable view of the applicant’s case, in violation of the right to a fair trial of the applicant. 51. In most countries that responded to the questionnaire, the Constitution includes general provisions on the right to freedom of expression but not specific provisions on the exercise of freedom of expression by judges and prosecutors. 52. National legislation or codes of ethics developed by professional associations of judges and prosecutors provide more guidance. In most cases, national legislation only contains general provisions concerning the conduct and behaviour of the judge or the prosecutor within and outside the courtroom. When legal or ethical provisions refer directly to freedom of expression, they generally recognize that the right to freedom of expression may be subject to such restrictions as may be necessary to safeguard the honour and dignity of the office of judges and prosecutors and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. 53. The most common restriction on the exercise of freedom of expression derives from the principle of confidentiality, according to which judges and prosecutors are bound by professional secrecy with regard to their deliberations and to confidential information acquired in the course of their duties other than in public proceedings. 37 In order to maintain the perception of independence and impartiality, judges and prosecutors must also refrain from expressing their views or opinions in relation to cases currently or previously before the court, especially through the media. 38 54. In some countries, national legislation and ethical codes contain express provisions that judges and prosecutors may participate in public discussions concerning the law, the judiciary or the administration of justice, or express their views on these issues in the media. In these cases, they must endeavour to ensure that their views and their overall conduct are in conformity with their duties and responsibilities as civil servants, and show restraint in exercising their freedom of expression in all cases where the authority and impartiality of the judiciary are likely to be called into question. 39 55. States’ submissions to the Special Rapporteur provide limited information on cases where judges and prosecutors have been subjected to legal or disciplinary proceedings in relation to the exercise of their right to freedom of expression. 40 Submissions from civil society organizations, on the other hand, refer to several cases from Bulgaria, Egypt, Morocco, the Philippines, Poland and the Republic of Moldova. V. Freedom of assembly and association 56. In international and regional treaties it is recognized that everyone has the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly, and that no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 41 36 37 38 39 40 41 Buscemi v. Italy, para. 67. Submissions from Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bulgaria, Burundi, Colombia, Croatia, Guatemala, Montenegro, Slovenia and Sweden. Submissions from Croatia, Guatemala, Hungary, Lithuania, Montenegro, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom (Scotland only). Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro and Slovenia. Lithuania, Netherlands, Republic of Korea and Slovenia. See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (arts. 21–22); European Convention on Human Rights (art. 11); American Convention on Human Rights (arts. 15–16); and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (arts. 10–11). 11