A/HRC/26/32 economically assessable damage, as appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case, such as: physical or mental harm; lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits; moral damage; and costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicine and medical services, and psychological and social services. Satisfaction could include judicial and administrative sanctions against the persons liable for the violation, and guarantees of non-repetition, which involve, for instance, strengthening the independence of the judiciary as a means of prevention. 102. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms includes the right to access to court (art. 6) as an important element in remedying violations, and the rights to an effective remedy (art. 13) and reparation (art. 41). In addition, Protocol No. 7 to the Convention explicitly refers to the right to compensation for wrongful conviction (art. 3). 103. In the African system, the right to compensation for a miscarriage of justice is also enunciated in the Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (N, 10 (c)). More specifically, the Principles list a series of measures to be implemented, including the guarantee that anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention is able to claim compensation (M, 1 (h)). 104. In the Inter-American system, the American Convention on Human Rights enshrines, in its article 10, the right to be compensated in the event of a miscarriage of justice and, in its article 25, the right to judicial protection. 105. The Special Rapporteur wishes to call upon States to adopt and implement a definition of remedy for a miscarriage of justice that is comprehensive and not limited to criminal cases, in order to provide effective remedies to persons whose human rights have been violated. V. Conclusions 106. Accountability, as a component of the rule of law, implies that nobody is above the law, including judges, prosecutors and lawyers. Judicial accountability exists to avoid the improper, inadequate or unethical behaviour of justice operators and, as such, it is closely related to judicial independence. Judicial independence is not absolute, but limited by the framework set by judicial accountability which, in turn, must respect the fundamental principles of the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, and its proceedings must be in line with international standards of due process and fair trial. 107. Judicial accountability can take many forms. Its mechanisms and proceedings should encompass not only justice operators, but also the justice system as a whole. Embracing both an individual and institutional perspective, judicial accountability should respect fundamental human rights principles, guarantee fair proceedings and follow clear procedures and objective criteria provided for by the law, and be grounded on established standards of professional conduct in order to avoid it being used as a means of interfering with the work of members of the judiciary and hampering their independence and that of the legal profession. 108. Important challenges remain for the implementation of judicial accountability, such as corporatism, the use of such accountability as an instrument of reprisal or external and internal pressure against justice operators and the lack of international standards to help States overcome those difficulties. The Special Rapporteur believes it is time for States to develop and adopt international standards of judicial 19