A/HRC/41/48 83. Only a few countries have developed specific legislation or ethical standards to regulate the conduct of judges and prosecutors on social media. 62 In some countries, professional associations of judges and prosecutors have carried out a number of activities to raise awareness of the risks associated with the exercise of their freedom of expression online, particularly on social media. 63 Other countries have started updating their legal codes and forming ethical bodies to flesh out the issue of the participation of members of the judiciary on social media. 84. Relevant groups, such as the Global Judicial Integrity Network, have published valuable guidelines and are working on training programmes on the nature of social media and the ethical responsibilities that apply to judges and prosecutors. 64 85. 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 online. In the Netherlands and Slovenia, judges were subjected to disciplinary measures for making improper comments on their Twitter accounts. In the Republic of Korea, a number of judges were suspended from office for making critical remarks on the judiciary’s internal communication network regarding appointment processes or decisions adopted by other courts. VIII. Conclusions 86. In the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, among other international standards, it is recognized that, like other citizens, judges and prosecutors are entitled to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly on an equal basis with others. The exercise of these freedoms, however, carries special responsibilities and duties. As civil servants, judges and prosecutors should show restraint in exercising these rights, and always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary. 87. Regional human rights courts and mechanisms in Europe and the InterAmerican system have contributed to clarifying the limits to which judges and prosecutors may be subject in the exercise of these freedoms. This jurisprudence focuses on the exercise of freedom of expression by judges but can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the exercise of other fundamental freedoms and to prosecutors. 88. Codes of professional conduct produced by professional associations have also contributed to the development of detailed self-regulatory standards that help judges and prosecutors to make their own decisions when confronted with ethical choices in their professional and personal lives. However, only a limited number of ethical codes address issues related to the use of social media. The lack of appropriate guidance has led to an increase in the number of “accidental” breaches of professional standards of conduct by judges and prosecutors. At the national level, a growing number of professional associations are developing guidelines and providing training opportunities to their constituencies on issues relating to the use of social media. 89. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur shows that, as public officials, judges and prosecutors have special duties and responsibilities that justify the introduction of specific restrictions on their fundamental freedoms. However, such restrictions are only legitimate when provided by law and when they are necessary in a democratic society to pursue a legitimate aim, such as the protection of the independence, impartiality and authority of their institutions. 62 63 64 16 Australia, Albania, Hungary, Montenegro, Slovenia and United Kingdom (Northern Ireland and Scotland only). Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Lithuania and Republic of Korea. See UNODC, “Social media, a new platform for judges around the world”.