A/HRC/44/47/Add.2 political considerations prevailing over the objective criteria set out in international and regional standards. Such politicization generates corruption and nepotism and hampers the institutional independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers. 56. The recent elections of the Prosecutor-General and the Deputy Prosecutor-General offer some elements that should be taken into account for future selection processes of high-ranking officials of the justice system. 57. In April 2018, the nominating committee established by the President of the Supreme Court elaborated its code of ethics and rules of procedure to ensure that candidates are assessed and selected on the basis of clear and objective rules and through a public and transparent process. 58. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the elaboration of more detailed rules to integrate the selection procedure set out in the Constitution and in legislation. According to some interlocutors, the elaboration of those rules represents a good practice that could be followed for future selection processes. Nevertheless, he notes with concern that that selection process fell short of international standards in several aspects. 59. According to international standards, selection processes must follow strict, clear and objective criteria previously established by law to evaluate the integrity, suitability and competencies of candidates. The rules of procedure and the code of ethics elaborated by the nominating committee cannot be regarded as legally binding provisions that future selection boards will be bound to observe. 60. The inclusion of general principles concerning transparency and public participation is laudable, but in practice, civil society participation was limited to the last stages of the process. As a result, civil society organizations did not participate in the elaboration of the general norms and standards that guided the selection of candidates. Furthermore, it appears that the curricula vitae of the candidates were not posted on the websites of the institutions that contributed members to the board. 61. The criteria for the evaluation of candidates were not sufficiently clear and precise as to ensure the selection of candidates based solely on their personal and professional qualities. It left a wide margin of discretion to the selection board in choosing the candidates to include in the list presented to the National Congress. At the end of the debate, the National Congress decided to reappoint the outgoing Prosecutor-General, despite the fact that his name was not included in the list of candidates transmitted to it. 3. National Security and Defence Council 62. Another form of interference brought to the Special Rapporteur’s attention relates to the National Security and Defence Council, established by Decree No. 239-2011 pursuant to article 287 of the Constitution. 63. The National Security and Defence Council is the highest permanent body in charge of guiding, designing and supervising the general policies of the State in matters of security, national defence and intelligence. It is responsible for designing strategies to prevent, combat, investigate and punish relevant crimes and coordinating the action of the various State bodies with competences in those areas. The National Directorate of Investigation and Intelligence is responsible for carrying out, through specialized units of investigation, the public policies established by the Council in the area of defence and security. 64. The National Security and Defence Council brings together the President of the Republic, who presides over it, the President of the National Congress, the President of the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor-General, the Secretary of Security and the Secretary of National Defence. It meets on a monthly basis or whenever the Council President deems necessary. 65. The Special Rapporteur is aware that several State authorities have competence in matters of national defence and security and considers that, in principle, the establishment of a body in which different State authorities and bodies handle issues of national interest is not in question. Nevertheless, concentrating decision-making in a body presided over by the executive may raise serious concerns with regard to the separation of powers and the independence and autonomy of the judicial branch, given that it is under the purview of the prosecution service and the judiciary to investigate and sanction crimes perpetrated in 10