A/HRC/26/32 professional functions.3 In some instances, national jurisprudence has considered that political activities are incompatible with judges’ duties;4 such incompatibility is included in the codes of conduct of some States. The Special Rapporteur strongly believes that justice operators should refrain from taking part in any activity which could compromise the dignity of their office or cause conflicts of interest that could hamper public confidence in the justice system.5 Judges 59. The principle of the independence of the judiciary is not aimed at benefitting judges themselves, but at protecting individuals from abuses of power and ensuring that court users are given a fair and impartial hearing. As a consequence, judges cannot act arbitrarily by deciding cases according to their own personal preferences. Their duty is the fair and impartial application of the law. Judges must therefore be accountable for their actions and conduct, so that the public can have full confidence in the ability of the judiciary to carry out its functions independently and impartially. 60. Clear rules of conduct and ethics must be established for judges so that they can behave according to standards that are appropriate to their judicial functions. The Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct provide useful guidelines for appropriate and adequate judicial behaviour and indicate conduct and activities that should be avoided by judges if they are to preserve their propriety as an essential element of their activities (Bangalore Principles, value 4). Judges, however, should also be provided with some privileges that can guarantee their independence and impartiality, such as personal immunity from civil suits for monetary damages for improper acts or omissions in the exercise of their judicial functions, which aim to prevent sanctions in relation to the content of decisions (Basic Principles, principle 16). 61. In its jurisprudence, the Human Rights Committee has expressed concern about a judicial reform that would enable the removal of judges as a result of the performance of their duties (CCPR/CO/71/VEN, para. 13). The Committee has also stated that appointing judges for a limited term of five years and the possibility, provided by law, of subjecting judges to disciplinary measures because of “incompetent rulings” (CCPR/CO/71/UZB, para. 14) or “errors in judicial decisions” (CCPR/CO/75/VNM, para. 10) expose them to pressure and endanger their independence and impartiality. In addition, the Committee has expressed concern in cases in which judges are subject to criminal liability for handing down unjust judgements, recommending that States parties ensure that judges may not be removed from their posts unless they are found guilty of inappropriate conduct by an independent tribunal (CCPR/CO/75/VNM, para.10). According to the Committee, “judges should be removed only in accordance with an objective, independent procedure prescribed by law” (CCPR/CO/75/MDA, para. 12). 62. In turn, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights considered that a State violated principles 18 and 19 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary by failing to give any legal reasons to justify the retention of the punishment 3 4 5 Opinion No. 3 of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the principles and rules governing judges’ professional conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality, paras. 27–28. See, for instance, Caso sobre la inconstitucionalidad del Presidente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, Supreme Court of El Salvador, 14 October 2013. Opinion No. 3 of CCJE, para. 39. 11