A/HRC/26/32 B. Legal framework 25. At the international level, the focus until now has been primarily on defining and developing safeguards that States have to put in place to ensure the independence of their judiciaries. Specific and detailed references to judicial accountability have yet to appear in international human rights instruments. 26. Indirect reference to judicial accountability is, however, found in many binding and non-binding international instruments where terms such as “liability”, “accountability” and “responsibility” are used interchangeably in connection with the notion of the proper exercise of the functions of justice operators, who must act with decorum and in accordance with their codes of ethics or conduct. 27. The United Nations Convention against Corruption refers to the promotion of “integrity, accountability and proper management of public affairs and public property” as one of it purposes (art. 1, para. c). It further states that “in order to fight corruption, each State Party shall promote, inter alia, integrity, honesty and responsibility among its public officials, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal system” (art. 8, para. 1), and that “each State Party shall endeavour to apply, within its own institutional and legal systems, codes or standards of conduct for the correct, honourable and proper performance of public functions” (art. 8, para. 2). 28. In turn, the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary establish that “judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary” (principle 8). Principle 18 further states that judges should be suspended or removed only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties. 29. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (E/CN.4/2003/65, annex) were developed in order to establish an international standard for the ethical conduct of judges, to provide guidance on universal judicial ethics and to strengthen judicial integrity. As such, they represent an important attempt to fill the gap in the international legal framework regarding judicial accountability. 30. The preamble to the Bangalore Principles explicitly states that the Principles “presuppose that judges are accountable for their conduct to appropriate institutions established to maintain judicial standards, which are themselves independent and impartial, and are intended to supplement and not to derogate from existing rules of law and conduct which bind the judge”. The Bangalore Principles further provide that judges should devote their professional activity to judicial duties and that their conduct should not be incompatible with those duties (value 6). 31. The Universal Charter of the Judge, approved by the International Association of Judges, makes clear reference to the civil and criminal responsibility of judges. In particular, it states that civil action, in countries where it is permissible, and criminal action against a judge, including arrest, must only be allowed under circumstances ensuring that his or her independence cannot be influenced (art. 10). 32. Regarding prosecution services, the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors indicate that States shall ensure that prosecutors are able to perform their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, improper interference or unjustified exposure to civil, penal or other liability (guideline 4). 33. The Standards of Professional Responsibility and Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors, adopted by the International Association of Prosecutors in 1999, state that prosecutors shall at all times maintain the honour and dignity of their profession, always conduct themselves professionally, in accordance with the law and the rules and 6