A/HRC/26/32 C. Forms of judicial accountability 47. The notion of accountability is intrinsic to the rule of law and is often used in international and regional instruments to encompass the concepts of responsiveness, responsibility, liability, controllability and transparency in the justice system. Owing to its comprehensiveness, the term “accountability” is used generically in the title of any mechanism that aims to make institutions responsive to their respective public. In its practical sense, accountability is, in essence, a mechanism to secure the control of public power. 48. Based on that understanding, the implementation of judicial accountability mechanisms implies that certain parties can and should exercise power of supervision and control over others. Thus, in order to prevent abuses of power and improper influence by the supervising parties, a clear set of standards must be established so that justice operators and institutions are not held to account in an arbitrary way. Accountability presupposes the recognition of the legitimacy of established standards, clear mechanisms and procedures established by law, and clear rules on the authority of the supervising parties. 49. In order for judicial accountability mechanisms to be put into practice, the relationship between the justice operator to be held accountable and the forum, body or institution to which he or she must respond also needs to be clearly defined. The justice operator to be held accountable must have the means to properly explain and justify any conduct or action deemed inadequate, inappropriate or illegal through due process. The forum, body or institution exercising judicial accountability must be entitled to pose questions and assess whether the justice operator should face sanctions or not. There is therefore a close connection between accountability, which involves the possibility of imposing sanctions, and the concept of answerability, which entails non-committal provision of information. 50. In that regard, it is paramount that States undertake efforts to enact specific legislation establishing a comprehensive system of judicial accountability that is effective, objective and transparent with a view to strengthening the rule of law and improving the administration of justice. 51. While the Special Rapporteur supports the view that judicial independence and accountability are two complementary dimensions of an effective justice system, she also observes that tensions exist between the two principles. The tensions result mainly from the lack of an established, but widely needed, concept of judicial accountability. Indeed, in general, priority has been given to developing and strengthening the independence of the judiciary to the detriment of the establishment and proper functioning of accountability mechanisms, as it was thought that reinforcing independence would have more direct influence on ensuring the protection of human rights and the rule of law.2 52. Against that background, it is important to balance the concepts of judicial immunity, one of the guarantees of judicial independence, and accountability. Judicial immunity aims at protecting justice operators from the harassment of personal litigation against them in respect of their judicial functions, allowing them to be sued or prosecuted only with the authorization of an appropriate judicial authority. While it is important that justice operators be granted some degree of criminal immunity in relation to the exercise of their professional functions in order to protect them from unwarranted prosecution, immunity should never be applied to cases of serious crime, including accusations of corruption. Judicial immunity needs to be limited and serve its purpose of protecting the 2 Transparency International, Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption and Judicial Systems, p. 41. 9