A/HRC/45/CRP.9 keep defendants in pre-trial detention.92 Judges felt under pressure because these investigations were initiated by the prosecution rather than individual claimants. 93 73. These investigations were launched under article 375 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes a “deliberately unjust verdict, decision, ruling or resolution” by a judge. However, it does not define the notion of “unjust decision”, leaving room for an overly broad interpretation by the prosecution.94 OHCHR notes that the vague wording of the article was used by prosecutors to exert undue pressure on judges in contravention to the independence of the judiciary. 74. In one case, three judges were hearing a case against the former mayor of Sloviansk for allegedly assisting the armed groups to gain control over the city in April 2014. On 4 October 2017, after the judges released the former mayor under house arrest following over three years in pre-trial detention,95 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office launched a criminal case under article 375 against the judges for taking this decision. In March 2018, the same office launched a criminal case against another judge who released a member of the city council in another conflict-related case. 75. No formal charges were brought against the judges in either case, nor in the other five cases monitored by OHCHR. However, as of April 2020, all the investigations remained open, some for more than two years, adding pressure and creating a general chilling effect on the work of judges. This was compounded by pending obligatory qualification assessments for judges carried out as a part of ongoing judicial reform processes. In addition to evaluating judges’ competencies, the assessment reviews their performance record. Open criminal investigations against them may negatively affect the assessment results. 96 Several judges confirmed to OHCHR that the ongoing assessments acted as a deterrent for them to rule against the requests of the prosecution in favour of defendants. 76. OHCHR is concerned that existing guarantees of judicial immunity only protect judges from the moment of arrest or the pressing of charges. The existing legislation does not protect judges from possible attempts by prosecutors to interfere with their independence through the launching of investigations against judges.97 2. Interference by members of groups that promote violence 77. OHCHR documented twelve cases where groups that promote violence, such as extreme right-wing groups, attacked, threatened and intimidated judges and other trial participants in conflict-related cases, attempting to unduly influence the outcome of the judicial process. OHCHR observed that the law enforcement bodies failed to prevent or stop the threats or attacks, which they often witnessed, and also failed to effectively investigate them. 92 93 94 95 96 97 Criminal Code, article 375 criminalises the rendering by a judge of a “deliberately unjust verdict, decision, ruling or resolution”. OHCHR interviews, 7 March 2018, 16 April 2018, and 1 August 2018. After the close of the reporting period, on 11 June 2020, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled article 375 unconstitutional and concluded that court decisions shall only be reviewed within appeal procedures. This would exclude assessment of a ruling as “unjust” under a separate proceeding brought under article 375. The Constitutional Court further ruled that the vagueness of the term “unjust” failed to meet the requirement of legal certainty and thus infringed on the independence of judges. Despite these findings, the Constitutional Court, in the same decision, postponed repeal of the article for six months, which will allow prosecutors to complete ongoing investigations and open new ones during this period. The full text of the decision is available at www.ccu.gov.ua/docs/3127. The ruling of Leninskyi district court of Kharkiv of 20 September 2017, available at reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/69076525. Laws “On the restoration of trust in the judicial system in Ukraine”, 1188-VII, 8 April 2014, “On ensuring the right to a fair trial”, 192-VIII, 12 February 2015, “On judicial system and status of judges”, 2 June 2016, 1402-VIII. The guarantees of judicial immunity include special procedures for pressing charges, arrest and bail for judges. See, CPC, articles 481 and 482. OHCHR notes that investigations against judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court can only be launched by the Prosecutor General, whereas investigations can be launched against other judges by any investigator or prosecutor. CPC, article 480. 17