A/HRC/26/32 should also follow procedures established by law and respect due process and fair trial guarantees. 76. Thus, in general terms, when institutional accountability fails, the responsibility of the State and the possible recognition of the right to effective remedy might be triggered. As highlighted in the Magna Carta of Judges, “the remedy for judicial errors should lie in an appropriate system of appeals. Any remedy for other failings in the administration of justice lies only against the State” (para. 21). D. Judicial accountability mechanisms and proceedings 77. Accountability mechanisms and proceedings are justified because justice operators must behave with integrity and in line with their code of ethics and conduct. Indeed, international principles state that violations of established standards of judicial conduct or ethics may trigger disciplinary, civil or criminal liability. 78. In that context, regardless of the institutional structure implemented by States, accountability mechanisms and proceedings should respect general principles. To avoid being used as a means to interfere with the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession, accountability mechanisms should follow clear procedures and objective criteria provided for by law and established standards of professional conduct. More specifically, national legislation should clearly distinguish between disciplinary, civil and criminal liability and prescribe the types of sanctions to be applied. Disciplinary liability ensues when an administrative rule or regulation connected to the code of conduct or ethics is violated. Civil liability relates to the possibility of demanding that a justice operator who has caused injury by a particular course action or improper conduct repair the personal, property or financial damage he or she has caused. Criminal liability arises when a justice operator commits an illicit action or omission of a criminal nature. In that case, the individual should be submitted to a criminal investigation and possibly to prosecution, conviction and punishment. 79. All complaints made against justice operators should be processed expeditiously and fairly and the determination as to whether particular behaviour or conduct constitutes a cause for sanction must be carried out by an independent and impartial body pursuant to fair proceedings, in accordance with article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That includes the principle of the presumption of innocence, the right to be tried without undue delay, and the right to defend oneself in person or with legal counsel of one’s own choosing. In addition, in the case of judges, the investigation and proceedings against them should be kept confidential as, even if found innocent, the damage to their reputation could prove irreversible. 80. International and regional jurisprudence has confirmed how important it is that any accountability mechanism and proceedings respect the aforementioned general principles of a fair trial. For instance, in Cedeño v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (communication No. 1940/2010), the Human Rights Committee recalled that States should establish clear procedures and objective criteria for the suspension and dismissal of the members of the judiciary and for disciplinary sanctions against them. 81. In Harabin v. Slovakia, the European Court of Human Rights underlined that the existence of national procedures for ensuring impartiality, namely rules regulating the withdrawal of judges, was a relevant factor for the internal organization of the State. The Court emphasized that the mission of the judiciary in a democratic State was to guarantee the very existence of the rule of law. It therefore interpreted it as a matter of major 14