A/HRC/23/52 judiciary, other provisions in the law, specifically those on disciplining and the removal of judges, their appointment and tenure, undermine these provisions. 41 62. The dependence of the judiciary on the executive branch is conditioned by the imbalance of the branches of power vested in the amendments to the Constitution of 1996. The President continues to appoint, dismiss and determine the tenure of judges. 63. The lack of independence of lawyers is particularly worrying and has not been addressed by the authorities. The reports received by the Special Rapporteur echo the findings by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers following her visit to Belarus in 2001, when she spoke of “a pattern of intimidation and interference in the discharge of the professional functions of lawyers”. 42 64. Reports indicate that lawyers face interference, harassment, intimidation or other consequences for proper defence of the interests of their clients, and overall interference with lawyer-client confidentiality. There are reports of impediments in access to the legal profession and practicing as a lawyer. Lawyers are prevented from forming independent bar associations. 65. Hanna Bakhtina, Daria Lipkina, Aleh Ahejeu, Tatstsiana Ahejeu, Uladzimir Toustsik, Tamara Harajeva and Paval Sapelka are the best-known cases of disbarred lawyers. They have been the subject of retaliation for representing candidates in the presidential elections of December 2010, who were detained afterwards for advocating for the respect of human rights through their work. 66. The Ministry of Justice regulates entry to the legal profession. It controls the operation and governance of bar associations, and considers complaints leading to disciplinary measures.43 67. The Special Rapporteur suggest reforming the Bar to protect the independence of legal professionals, including by guaranteeing in practice the independence of bar associations and their right to decide on their own membership. This would guarantee legal protection for all persons residing in Belarus. F. Fair trial 68. The Human Rights Committee continues to indicate that the right to the presumption of innocence and fair trial standards are violated. 44 The most recent findings of the Committee, in its decision on Mr. Kavalyou (Kovalev), illustrate the systemic concerns in the application of due process and procedural guarantees in Belarus. It found, inter alia, that Mr. Kavalyou had been denied adequate access to his lawyer prior to and during the trial, therefore a breach of fair trial, and that, before the final judgement, he had been branded a terrorist by the State media, thus a denial of the presumption of innocence. 45 69. In the light of the ongoing deficiencies in and violations of the right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, a fair trial and the presumption of innocence, the Belarusian authorities should fully implement the recommendations made in the report of 41 42 43 44 45 14 CAT/C/BLR/CO/4, para. 12 (a). A/HRC/17/30/Add.1, para. 101. Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice in the Republic of Belarus, 6 April 2012. See CCPR/C/86/D/1100/2002, CCPR/C/103/D/1316/2004, CCPR/C/99/D/1502/2006, CCPR/C/104/D/1750/2008, CCPR/C/105/D/1226/2003 and CCPR/C/106/D/2120/2011. CCPR/C/106/D/2120/2011.