A/HRC/45/CRP.9 67. While the frequency of attacks against lawyers dealing with conflict-related criminal cases has decreased since 2018, OHCHR notes that failure of the authorities to investigate these attacks remains of concern at the date of this report. Furthermore, the authorities’ failure to prevent, intervene in, investigate and prosecute these attacks may contribute to a chilling effect for lawyers to take up such cases. This in turn may reduce the pool of defence counsel available for defendants in conflict-related cases, thus affecting their right to defend themselves. D. Right to an independent tribunal 68. OHCHR observed that in conflict-related criminal cases, in particular between 2017 and 2018, the independence of judges was undermined by pressure from prosecutors and certain members of groups that promote violence, such as extreme right-wing groups. Further, police failed to prevent and to duly investigate attempts to interfere with justice in these cases. 69. The right to an independent tribunal is enshrined in article 14.1 of the ICCPR, in international humanitarian law as well as in Ukrainian criminal law and the Constitution. 86 1. Interference by Government actors 70. The independence of tribunals is an important element of the right to a fair trial. States should take specific measures to protect judges from any form of influence or interference into their decision-making, including via specific guarantees in relation to their dismissal, and disciplinary, civil and criminal liability.87 Judges should enjoy a certain level of immunity in respect of their judicial functions.88 Provisions setting out criminal liability of judges must be formulated precisely enough to guarantee the independence and functional immunity of judges in the interpretation of the law, assessment of facts or weighing of evidence. 89 71. The Constitution of Ukraine contains guarantees of independence and immunity of judges.90 According to the Criminal Procedure Code the guarantees of immunity only concern arrest, detention and the bringing of charges, while there are no restrictions on launching investigations against judges.91 72. OHCHR documented seven cases between 2015 and 2018 where the independence of judges was jeopardized when judges found themselves under criminal investigation after issuing decisions in favour of defendants, for instance, by rejecting prosecutors’ motions to 86 87 88 89 90 91 16 Criminal Code, article 377; Constitution of Ukraine, article 126. Criminal action, including arrest, against a judge must only be allowed under circumstances ensuring that his or her independence cannot be influenced. Universal Charter of Judges, International Association of Judges, article 7-2, available at www.unodc.org/res/ji/import/international_standards/the_universal_charter_of_the_judge/universal_c harter_2017_english.pdf. Reports of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, A/HRC/26/32, paras. 48-50, 52, 55, (available at undocs.org/en/A/HRC/26/32) and A/HRC/4/25/Add.2, paras. 30 and 82 (available at undocs.org/A/HRC/4/25/Add.2). Republic of Moldova – Amicus Curiae Brief for the Constitutional Court on the Criminal liability of judges, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 110th Plenary Session (Venice, 10-11 March 2017), paras 47-48, available at www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2017)002-e. Article 126. These guarantees include prohibition of any influence over a judge, prohibition of arrest and detention of a judge without approval of the High Council of Justice pending trial, functional immunity limited to the crime or disciplinary offence. According to CPC, article 482 a judge cannot be arrested or detained without consent of the High Council of Justice, except if arrested while or immediately after committing a grave crime. By virtue of article 481 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only the Prosecutor General, their deputy or head of the regional prosecutor’s office can authorize pressing charges against a judge.