A/HRC/19/65 concerned that such provisions have an adverse impact on the protection of human rights guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and endanger the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, he believes that the need to maintain the separation of powers, as required by article 14.1 of the Covenant,9 is also compromised, seriously jeopardizing the rendering of independent and impartial justice. It is important to protect judges against conflicts of interests and intimidations in order to safeguard their independence. 33. In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, both open court and closed court trials are practised. In general, there seems to be a lack of understanding among the people of why the open court principle is essential for the fairness of trails. In 2004, when the State revised its Criminal Procedure Code, it introduced a new provision requiring court trials to be open to the public (art. 271, sect. 1). The revised law contains, however, an exception, allowing certain trials to be conducted behind closed doors, if necessary to protect State secrets or if opening the trial to the public could have an adverse impact on society at large (art. 271, sect. 2). In practice, this means that ordinary citizens are tried in open courts and officials and party cadres are tried in closed ones. The Special Rapporteur recalls that article 14, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proclaims that courts have the power to exclude all of part of the public for reasons of morals, public order or national security, or when the interest of the lives of the parties so required, or in special circumstances where publicity would be prejudicial to the interest of justice.10 Any other form of exception limiting open trials to a particular category of persons, such as in the case of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, where officials and party cadres are tried in closed courts, is unacceptable. The Special Rapporteur furthermore points out that, even in cases where the public is excluded from the trial, the judgement, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning must be made public, except where the interest of juvenile persons requires otherwise, or when the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.11 34. A number of other provisions in the Criminal Code fall below the standard required to ensure that due process of law is maintained and the rights of people are respected; for instance, the definition of “labour training” and “training detention facilities” remains unclear; the possibility of a broad interpretation of the category of “political crime” remains; and elements such as “crimes by association” are maintained in several parts of the Criminal Code. Similar vague terms, such as “extremely grave crime” and “reform through labour”, are contained in an addendum to the Criminal Code, which was adopted on 19 December 2007 (see paragraphs 36 and 37 below). D. Laws on the death penalty 35. In February 1987, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea made significant revisions to its Criminal Code, when it reduced the number of crimes punishable by death from 33 to five.12 Additional partial revisions have since been made on at least seven occasions: in March 1995, on 19 April and 26 July 2005, on 4 April and 18 October 2006, and 26 June and 16 October 2007. In April 2009, the State made another important 9 10 11 12 See also CCPR/CO/72/PRK, paras. 8 and 14. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 13. Ibid. CCPR/C/PRK/2000/2. 9