A/HRC/32/34 34. The scope and requirements of an independent and impartial justice system have also been addressed in quite some detail and in a variety of situations in the jurisprudence of regional human rights courts. For example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has stressed the applicability of article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights — the provision on the right to a fair trial — to the decisions taken by any public authority that exercises jurisdictional functions.9 In another case, the Court ruled that requirements of independence and impartiality must also be enforced in cases relating to decisions taken by adjudicatory bodies in the context of electoral matters. 10 For its part, the European Court of Human Rights has determined that it is particularly important for the institution in charge of electoral administration to function in a transparent manner and to maintain impartiality and independence from political manipulation.11 In turn, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has recommended that if disciplinary measures need to be taken relating to judges, the law should provide for appropriate procedures to ensure that they are given at least all the due process requirements of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), particularly that the case should be heard within a reasonable time frame and that they should have a right to answer any charges.12 Many more decisions of the regional courts clarify the scope of application of the principles of judicial independence and impartiality. 35. Despite such a comprehensive legal framework and body of jurisprudence and interpretation, the independence of judges, lawyers and prosecutors is still extremely vulnerable, is under attack or is merely non-existent, in many parts of the world. That is why revisiting the principles of an independent and impartial justice system with a view to recommending concrete ways to render such independence more effective seems timely to the Special Rapporteur. In order to do so, the Special Rapporteur will not only need to take existing international norms and standards into account, but also pay attention to the context in which independence has to be assured and preserved and address the commitments, or lack thereof, of all stakeholders, in particular States. C. Need for a democratic context 36. In light of this legal framework, it is evident that the natural context for the realization of the independence of judges, lawyers and prosecutors is that of a democracy. All human rights treaties refer to a democratic society as the natural environment for the protection and promotion of human rights. What is necessary in a democratic society is also the measure against which restrictions to human rights and fundamental freedoms will be assessed to determine if they are acceptable or not. A functioning democracy ensures the separation of powers and, as noted by the first Special Rapporteur, “the principle of the separation of powers… is the bedrock upon which the requirements of judicial 13 independence and impartiality are founded”. 9 10 11 12 13 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Constitutional Court v. Peru, Judgment of 31 January 2001, Series C No. 55. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Yatama v. Nicaragua, Judgment of 23 June 2005, Series C No. 127. European Court of Human Rights, Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, Judgment of 8 October 2008; and European Court of Human Rights, Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, Judgment of 8 July 2010. Recommendation No. R (94) 12 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the independence, efficiency and role of judges. See E/CN.4/1995/39, para. 55. 9