A/HRC/41/48 different points of view. In the first category of cases, the Court considered complaints from judges about alleged violations of their right to freedom of expression and, to a lesser degree, freedom of assembly and association and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The second category of cases includes complaints from parties to a case or defendants in criminal proceedings concerning the alleged lack of independence or impartiality of the judges. 23. The Consultative Council of European Judges adopted an opinion on the standards of conduct applicable to judges that provides useful guidance on legitimate restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. In its opinion, the Council recognizes that, since the exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) may jeopardize the impartiality or even the independence of the judge concerned, “a reasonable balance therefore needs to be struck between the degree to which judges may be involved in society and the need for them to be and to be seen as independent and impartial in the discharge of their duties”. In order to ascertain whether a restriction on the fundamental freedom of a judge is consistent with the requirements of articles 9 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the question to be asked is “whether, in the particular social context and in the eyes of a reasonable, informed observer, the judge has engaged in an activity which could objectively compromise his or her independence or impartiality”.7 24. The Consultative Council of European Prosecutors recognized that prosecutors enjoyed the right to freedom of expression and association in the same manner as other members of society, and pointed out that in exercising these rights, “they must take into account the duty of discretion and be careful not to jeopardise the public image of independence, impartiality and fairness which a prosecutor must always uphold”.8 25. The European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) has dealt with the exercise of fundamental freedoms by judges and prosecutors in a number of reports and opinions relating to individual member States. 9 In a report specifically devoted to this issue, the Commission concluded that the guarantees of freedom of expression extend also to civil servants, including judges, but the specificity of the duties and responsibilities that are incumbent on judges and the need to ensure the impartiality and independence of the judiciary are considered legitimate aims in order to impose specific restrictions on the exercise of their freedoms.10 26. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have reached similar conclusions. The Inter-American Court has established that ownership of the right to freedom of expression cannot be confined to a specific profession or group of persons, or to the realm of freedom of the press. 11 The Court dealt with the exercise of fundamental freedoms by judges in an emblematic case concerning four judges who had been dismissed as a result of their action in favour of the reestablishment of democracy in Honduras following a coup d’état. The Court ruled that the rights of those judges had been violated considering that “in situations where there is a breakdown of institutional order following a coup d’état, the relationship between these rights is even clearer, especially when they are all exercised at the same time in order to protest against actions by the public authorities that are contrary to the constitutional order, 7 8 9 10 11 6 Opinion No. 3 to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality (19 November 2002), para. 28. Opinion No. 9 (2014) on European norms and principles concerning prosecutors (17 December 2014), para. 100. See, for example, Romania – opinion on draft amendments to Law No. 303/2004 on the Statute of Judges and Prosecutors, Law No. 304/2004 on Judicial Organisation, and Law No. 317/2004 on the Superior Council for Magistracy (CDL-AD(2018)017), paras. 123–132; and opinion on legal certainty and the independence of the judiciary in Bosnia and Herzegovina (CDL-AD(2012)014), paras. 80–81. “Report on the freedom of expression of judges” (June 2015), paras. 80–81. Donoso v. Panama, judgment of 27 January 2009, para. 114.