A/HRC/44/47/Add.2 adequate remuneration, conditions of service, pensions and age of retirement must be regulated by law. 28. Both the principle of the separation and balance of powers (art. 4) and the independence of the judiciary (art. 303) are enshrined in the Constitution of Honduras. In the exercise of their functions, judges are independent and only subject to the Constitution and the laws (art. 303). Other constitutional provisions set out additional safeguards, including the exclusive authority of the judiciary over all issues of a judicial nature (art. 304), the general prohibition to establish special courts (art. 304) and the financial and administrative autonomy of the judiciary (art. 318). 29. The Constitution provides that the organization and functioning of the judiciary will be regulated by law (art. 307) and that judges and magistrates may be suspended, transferred or removed only in the cases provided for by the law and with the guarantees provided therein (art. 317 (2)). Similarly, the Constitution provides that the law will regulate the organization and functioning of the Council of the Judiciary (art. 317 (1)). 1. Law on the Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Career 30. By Decree No. 282-2010 of 19 January 2011, a number of amendments to articles 313 and 317 of the Constitution were introduced, with a view to providing a constitutional basis for the eventual enactment of a law on the Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Career. Those amendments were aimed at shifting some powers related to the administration of the justice system from the Supreme Court to the soon-to-be-established Council of the Judiciary. Article 3 of the decree also contained a transitional provision, according to which, prior to the creation of the Council, the President of the Supreme Court would retain the power to select, appoint and dismiss judges, magistrates and administrative personnel, as well as the power to direct and supervise the administration of the judicial branch. 31. On 17 November 2011, the National Congress enacted Decree No. 219-2011, which gave effect to the new Law on the Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Career. Article 2 of the Law established the Council as the constitutional governing body of the judicial branch, with autonomy and functional and administrative independence, subject only to the Constitution and the law. In March 2016, however, Decree No. 219-2011 was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, according to which the law undermined the exclusive attribution of the Supreme Court to organize and direct the judicial branch and thereby violated the principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers. 32. As a result of the decision of the Constitutional Chamber, the organization and functioning of the Honduran justice system are at present regulated by the Law on the Judicial Career of 1980 and its regulations of 1987, the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts (1906, as amended through 1988), the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council (1988) and the rules of procedure of the General Inspectorate of Courts (1995). 33. The most worrying aspect of the declaration of unconstitutionality is that, in addition to creating a serious legal vacuum, it also “revived” the transitional provision in Decree No. 282-2010 concerning the powers of the President of the Supreme Court to select, appoint and dismiss judges, magistrates and administrative personnel and to direct and supervise the judiciary as a whole. As a result, the highest judicial authority in Honduras has added to its judicial functions the administrative functions that had been transferred to the Council of the Judiciary pursuant to the Law on the Council of the Judiciary and Judicial Career. 34. The concentration of administrative functions in the hands of the Supreme Court is problematic. Not only does it add to the already large workload of the Supreme Court, with the risk of undermining its jurisdictional functions, it also exposes the judiciary to the risk of interference from other State institutions, in particular the National Congress, which elects the Supreme Court judges. In cases in which administrative functions are the responsibility of the highest judicial body, the Special Rapporteur has advocated the separation of administrative and jurisdictional functions, so as to enable the judiciary to concentrate fully on the latter (A/HRC/23/43/Add.1, para. 106). 6