A/HRC/26/32 independence of justice operators; total immunity would only nourish distrust among the public towards the justice system as a whole. 53. The Special Rapporteur encourages States to establish specific norms related to judicial immunity in order to avoid abuses. She further recommends that States develop international guidelines on the scope and application of judicial immunity, as it varies from country to country, which sometimes results in impunity. 54. In order to ensure a proper balance between independence and accountability, justice operators should act in accordance with predefined ethical standards and the duties and responsibilities intrinsic to their functions. In addition, in order for judicial accountability to be adequately implemented, accountability mechanisms must themselves function with independence so as to prevent external interferences that may impair the transparency, objectivity and impartiality of the processes. 55. When it comes to establishing judicial accountability mechanisms, it is important to define the concept of judicial accountability and clearly establish the actions for which justice operators should be accountable, to whom they should be accountable and through which processes. Generally, the judiciary, like other public institutions, must be accountable to the public it serves; that can be defined as an external form of accountability. The exercise of external accountability can, nevertheless, raise serious concerns regarding the misuse of accountability mechanisms to hinder judicial independence. The Special Rapporteur therefore believes that external judicial accountability should take the form of: public hearings and the publication of court decisions, allowing public scrutiny of and comment on the work of judges through the media, civil society and other commentators; an annual report to parliament, allowing parliament to take informed initiatives to reverse the effect of a judicial decision by introducing new legislation; and information on the judiciary made available on the judiciary’s website. Codes of conduct and ethics, clear disciplinary proceedings established by law, and independent bodies for the self-government of the judiciary, the public prosecutor’s office and the legal profession also provide a form of accountability to the public by ensuring the effective implementation of individual accountability mechanisms. 56. The Special Rapporteur is also of the view that, if independence can be interpreted from both an individual and an institutional perspective, so can accountability. Indeed, judicial accountability should not be interpreted exclusively in relation to the conduct of the individual justice operator; rather, it should be further analysed from an institutional perspective. 1. Individual accountability 57. Individual accountability is directly related to the responsibility incumbent on justice operators to uphold high standards of conduct. Accountability mechanisms specific to judges include, but are not limited to, the requirements to write reasoned individual judgments in a language that is understandable to the beneficiaries of justice, explain personal views on the law and the constitution to the general public, and comply with a registration system of pecuniary and other interests. 58. Individual accountability should also encompass extrajudicial conduct, other permitted professional activities and the private lives of justice operators. While those individuals also enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms and are free to engage in nonjudicial activities, certain activities such as membership of a political party or public engagement in political activities may jeopardize the impartiality and independence of their 10