A/HRC/44/47/Add.2 3. Disciplinary proceedings against judges and magistrates 42. The procedure applicable to disciplinary proceedings against judges and magistrates is scattered among a number of legislative and regulatory sources, including the Law on the Judicial Career and the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts. 43. According to article 78 (10) of the latter, the Supreme Court has the authority to suspend and dismiss any member of the judiciary on the basis of misconduct or serious offense in the exercise of official duties. Following the amendment of article 313 of the Constitution, the disciplinary competence of the Supreme Court is now limited to the hearing of first-instance disciplinary proceedings against magistrates of courts of appeal. Disciplinary proceedings against all other judges and magistrates are regulated by the Law on the Judicial Career, which identifies various kinds of disciplinary offences and the corresponding sanctions. The law does not contain any information as to the procedure for handling disciplinary cases or imposing disciplinary sanctions on judges. The grounds for disciplinary liability set out in the Law are too vague and ambiguous and do not comply with the principle of strict liability. Furthermore, there seems to be no clarity as to the body or authority responsible for imposing such sanctions or as to the roles and responsibilities of the Judicial Career Council and the Directorate of Personnel Management, which in both cases are subject to the power of the President of the Supreme Court. 44. In López Lone et al v. Honduras,5 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that there was “a total lack of clarity” as regards the applicable procedure and the authorities that should hear and adjudicate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. The Court also found that, as an auxiliary body of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Career Council lacked due independence to review the dismissal decisions issued by the Court. The conclusions reached by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with regard to the disciplinary regime applicable to ordinary judges could apply, mutatis mutandis, to the disciplinary procedures against Supreme Court magistrates. The Constitution contains no provisions as to the body in charge or the procedure for handling disciplinary cases against Supreme Court judges. 45. The Law on the Judicial Career provides that its provisions do not apply to Supreme Court magistrates (art. 5). On the basis of the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts, it could be concluded that it is for the Supreme Court to handle disciplinary cases against its magistrates, but the procedure to be followed does not appear to be regulated by law. 46. The Special Rapporteur has serious concerns about the loopholes existing in the current disciplinary regime. The lack of clarity ascertained by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as to the competent bodies to conduct disciplinary proceedings and the procedure to be followed persists and has indeed been exacerbated by the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Decree No. 219-2011, which brought an end to the disciplinary regime established by the Law of the Judiciary Council and the Judicial Career. As a result, Honduran judges continue to be exposed to the risk of disciplinary sanctions for behaviours that do not constitute a breach of any disciplinary rule. B. Threats to judicial independence 47. As a consequence of the weak legislative and institutional framework, the judiciary of Honduras continues to be exposed to various forms of interference or pressure from other sources, including not only other State institutions but also the judicial hierarchy. The most serious form of interference with judicial independence is the dismissal of judges outside of the cases, namely, incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties, and/or without the procedures provided for by law. 1. Dismissal of judges 48. In 2009, three judges and one magistrate were subject to disciplinary proceedings and later dismissed by the Supreme Court, as a result of their actions in favour of the re5 8 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, López Lone et al v. Honduras, judgment of 5 October 2015 (preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs).