A/HRC/26/32 ethics of their profession, and at all times exercise the highest standards of integrity and care (standard 1). 34. The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers stipulate that “lawyers shall always conduct themselves in accordance with the law and the recognized standards and ethics of the legal profession” (principle 23) and that “all disciplinary proceedings shall be determined in accordance with the code of professional conduct and other recognized standards and ethics of the legal profession and in the light of these principles” (principle 29). Furthermore, the International Bar Association adopted an International Code of Ethics in 1956 and revised it in 1988, providing guidelines to lawyers in the exercise of their profession. 35. At the regional level, the Council of Europe drew up the European Charter on the statute for judges, which includes specific provisions on liability and addresses aspects directly related to judicial accountability. In fact, in the Charter liability can be interpreted as a synonym of accountability, most specifically in paragraph 5.1, which states that “the dereliction by a judge of one of the duties expressly defined by the statute, may only give rise to a sanction upon the decision, following the proposal, the recommendation, or with the agreement of a tribunal or authority ... in which the judge proceeded against must be entitled to representation”. 36. In the explanatory memorandum to the Charter, the Council of Europe underscored that the Charter does not necessarily refer to the wrongful or unlawful nature of the conduct or of the exercise of functions, but rather emphasizes the damage sustained as a result of that “wrongful” or “unlawful” nature. The interpretation of liability, as prescribed in the Charter, should therefore be based on the nature of the damage that results from the wrongful conduct, as opposed to the judge’s misconduct itself. That interpretation reflects the primary concern that judicial independence not be hampered by civil, criminal and administrative liability systems. 37. In addition, recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe lists a series of duties and responsibilities of judges, including their liability for judicial and non-judicial functions. Furthermore, the Magna Carta of Judges, established by the Consultative Council of European Judges, also emphasizes that “deontological principles, distinguished from disciplinary rules, shall guide the actions of judges. They shall be drafted by the judges themselves and be included in their training” (para. 18). It further provides that “in each State, the statute or the fundamental charter applicable to judges shall define the misconduct which may lead to disciplinary sanctions as well as the disciplinary procedure” (para. 19) and that “judges shall be criminally liable in ordinary law for offences committed outside their judicial office. Criminal liability shall not be imposed on judges for unintentional failings in the exercise of their functions” (para. 20). 38. The Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Three Branches of Government, adopted by Heads of Government in Abuja in 2003, explicitly use the term “judicial accountability”. They highlight the fact that accountability and independence jointly strengthen public trust in the judiciary and that proper procedures for the removal of judges for reasons of incapacity or misbehaviour, as well as any disciplinary procedures, should be fairly and objectively administered in order to ensure that judicial accountability does not impair judicial independence. 39. Focusing on judicial practice, the Commonwealth Principles clearly link judicial ethics, which should respect and be guided by codes of ethics and conduct, and judicial accountability. The Principles underline that, as a vital element of democracy, an independent judiciary must be built on public trust. It is therefore crucial that accountability, professional ethics and conduct be respected in the exercise of judicial 7