A/HRC/44/47/Add.1 47. To date, changes in the regulation on the duration of tenure have not had a positive impact on the security of tenure of Uzbek judges. As of October 2018, only 38 judges (about 3 per cent of all judges) had obtained a permanent appointment. Most of these judges sit in the Supreme Court. A total of 164 judges (about 12 per cent) had been reappointed for a 10-year term, while the remaining judges were on an initial 5-year appointment. 48. One way of strengthening judicial independence in cases of fixed-term appointments is by establishing a clear procedure ensuring objective and transparent assessment and reappointment of judges after expiration of the initial 5-year term. 49. The main criteria for the selection of judges for a new term and other judicial positions are impeccable reputation, honesty, impartiality, fairness and professional competence shown during their career. Furthermore, three additional criteria are taken into account while considering a candidate for reappointment: the “stability” of the judge’s judicial decisions; experience in judicial decision-making and the application of legal norms; and public opinion about the judge’s professional abilities. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, these criteria are highly problematic. 14 50. With regard to the stability of the judge’s judicial decisions, the fact that a judicial decision may be overturned on appeal or after review by a higher judicial body does not entail that the decision is wrong, and the overturning of such a decision cannot be used to assess the judge’s performance negatively. Such an assessment would have the effect of increasing the dependency of lower courts on higher courts. 51. The second criterion is unclear, since the judge’s experience in judicial decisionmaking cannot be tested solely on the basis of the time that he or she has been in office. On this basis, any judge applying for initial reappointment should be considered to meet the requirement, let alone those applying for reappointment after 15 years of service. 52. The third criterion, which is aimed at assessing public opinion on the judge’s performance, may pose a serious threat to judicial independence, since judges may be prone to adjudicate cases attracting wide media coverage in accordance with public opinion so as to increase the chance of being reappointed at the end of their term of office. 5. Role of Chairs 53. In Uzbekistan, court Chairs are entrusted with wide discretionary powers in relation to several aspects of judicial careers. They evaluate the performances of judges in their court, and participate, in their capacity as head of the judicial qualification board, in assessing the professional qualifications and personal qualities of the judges who apply for reappointment. Chairs have wide-ranging powers in determining the salary and bonuses of judges in their court, including the authority to provide salary increases up to 100 per cent to judges and staff who perform their professional duties in an efficient and diligent way. They also have the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against judges (see para. 58). 54. The broad powers entrusted to court Chairs allow them to exert influence over individual judges and undermine, in practice, their independence to adjudicate the cases before them impartially and autonomously. In view of the extensive powers the Chair of the court has in relation to judicial careers, judges may be tempted to ask the advice of their court Chair before adjudicating politically sensitive cases or to follow the instructions received by the court hierarchy. 55. International standards provide that a hierarchical organization of the judiciary, intended as the subordination of the judges to the court presidents or to higher instances in 14 10 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, “Opinion on the Law on the High Judicial Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan”, OpinionNr.: JUD-UZB/327/2018, 1 October 2018, paras. 48–52.