A/HRC/35/31 Role of the justice sector in conflict situations 104. In its resolution 9/10, the Human Rights Council outlined the need to promote the rule of law and to implement transitional justice mechanisms in conflict and post-conflict societies. The Justice and Security Programme of the United Nations Development Programme in Liberia has emphasized that these goals can be achieved by strengthening the judiciary as well as by empowering and developing the capacities of judges, lawyers and prosecutors to hold perpetrators to account, establish justice and combat impunity. 105. Judicial independence in conflict situations allows for a stronger separation between the judiciary and the State and ensures that trial proceedings are conducted in a fair and impartial manner. An independent judiciary will be better positioned to produce legal frameworks that adhere to and respect international human rights standards. 106. In a report to the Security-Council, the Secretary-General highlighted the key issues and lessons affecting the promotion of justice in post-conflict societies. Prevention, legitimate structures for the peaceful settlement of disputes and the fair administration of justice are some of the key elements that should be taken into consideration when addressing this difficult situation. At this point, transitional justice, which aims at coping with the legacy of large-scale past abuses, in order to ensure accountability, serve justice and achieve reconciliation, is essential to overcome the situations created by conflicts (see S/2004/616, para. 8). Justice, reasons of State and protection of national security 107. The role of the justice sector in times of war — including when the central power is fighting local insurgencies — must take into consideration a basic set of rights that should be guaranteed, whatever the situation. It is for judges to interpret the law and safeguard the constitution without any improper influences or pressures. However, in armed conflicts the threat to judicial independence is heightened, with threats both internal and external. 108. The fundamental question is whether the role of the judiciary should change during armed conflicts, especially when national security interests are concerned. Courts may need to give State authorities special consideration during an armed conflict, when the State’s interest in protecting the nation’s security is highest. However, this does not change the core function of the judiciary. When balancing the interests of the Government against those of individuals, even if judges have to give greater weight to governmental interests that may be legitimate during times of war or severe internal strife, it is imperative for courts to control governmental power to guarantee the respect for the rule of law and the rights of citizens. III. Conclusions and recommendations 109. The present report establishes the main topics that the Special Rapporteur intends to address during the course of his tenure. He will pay special attention to issues of judicial independence, corruption and organized crime within the judiciary, the protection of the legal profession and the restrictions to the right to a fair trial and due process of law. A. 1. Conclusions Overview of the thematic work accomplished since the establishment of the mandate 110. The approach of the successive mandate holders went much beyond analysing the judiciary from the standpoint of legislation; they looked into how the justice system actually functions, and strove to identify factors, whether social, economic or cultural, hindering genuine equal access to justice for all. The Special Rapporteur will follow this approach. 17