A/HRC/4/25 page 9 22. Reforms affecting the judiciary, the judicial service commission or its equivalent, or the status of judges and lawyers are often a real setback, since instead of reinforcing judicial independence, they undermine it. This is particularly common in cases where there are significant institutional weaknesses, as is often the case in transitional periods, or where legislation is rushed through by an executive authority responding to prevailing political imperatives, without the benefit of effective parliamentary scrutiny, and bypassing statutory prior consultations with the judiciary. Reform of the Supreme Court is undoubtedly one of the most sensitive topics, and in this area transparency in judicial appointments is key to building citizens’ confidence in the judicial system as a whole. Serious interference by the executive branch in the composition and functioning of the Supreme Court and corruption within the Court itself are recurrent themes in the complaints received, and constitute one of the worst “ailments” of the rule of law. While reforms to establish specialized jurisdictions, for example courts to hear cases on land ownership or juvenile courts, are generally well regarded, they are not immune from risk. The allegations received show that such jurisdictions are frequently prey to particular political interests, and in addition, do not always meet the requirements set out in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 23. As regards judges, it is often the case that aspects of the statutes governing the judiciary or legal safeguards on conditions of practice in fact impair judicial independence, one example being when judicial appointments are non-permanent and are within the direct gift of the head of State. Short of this extreme, practices involving discrimination on grounds such as political allegiance, religion, beliefs about human rights, sex, sexual orientation, physical disability or ethnic origin can leave judges in a precarious position, affecting their employment and promotion prospects. 24. In some cases, moreover, the prosecutor’s office and the executive are so closely identified that the role of judges and lawyers in a trial is reduced to a mere formality. For example, in many Central Asian countries, the prosecution, representing the State in civil and criminal cases, has a decisive influence on the content of sentences, which rarely depart from what the prosecution requests. 25. The Special Rapporteur received many complaints of various kinds from lawyers regarding inadequate, inexistent or disregarded safeguards on the freedom to practise their profession. Prominent concerns included lack of access to clients, which was refused outright or restricted to settings where confidentiality could not be assured; denied, partial or delayed disclosure of documentation; and inequality of arms throughout the case. In addition, lawyers are often confronted with practices which undermine their ability to defend their clients, such as changes of hearing dates without prior notice, decisions to hold hearings in camera, the court’s refusal to admit key evidence or witnesses, or designation of a court-appointed lawyer. Such practices seriously violate the rights of the defence and thus the rights of the accused. Judges and lawyers are often subjected to prosecution, threats, or economic or professional sanctions in response to actions that in no way conflict with professional ethics. 26. In some countries, disputes have arisen between the executive and lawyers’ professional associations. In others, lawyers’ freedom of association and freedom of expression are directly curtailed by measures such as the closure of professional bodies or restrictions on the exercise