A/HRC/20/19 69. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that transfer should not be based exclusively on the exigencies of service but should also take into account the views, aspirations and specializations of the prosecutor and his/her family situation. 70. Given their important role and function, the dismissal of prosecutors should be subject to strict requirements, which should not undermine the independent and impartial performance of their activities.44 There should be a framework for dealing with internal disciplinary matters and complaints against prosecutors, who should in any case have the right to challenge – including in court – all decisions concerning their career, including those resulting from disciplinary proceedings. 71. Remuneration for prosecutors in line with the importance of the task is an element of independence and impartiality that should not be overlooked.45 Dissatisfaction regarding level of remuneration has been expressed on different occasions to the Special Rapporteur. She notes that the appropriate remuneration of prosecutors also implies recognition of their important function and role and can also reduce the risk of corruption. 72. The Special Rapporteur also observes that self-management of the resources/budget of the prosecution service can be an important aspect of autonomy and independence. Instructions and guidelines 73. In order to ensure a fair and consistent approach in criminal justice policy, general guidelines can be issued by the prosecution service itself (internally) and by nonprosecutorial authorities (externally). The issue of policy guidelines and other general instructions for the prosecution service may be of importance to create consistency in the actions of the prosecution service. In this vein, the United Nations Guidelines state that States shall ensure that prosecutors are made aware of the ideals and ethical duties attributable to their public office (para. 2 (b)). 74. Prosecutors should also have the right to request that instructions be issued in writing.46 In any case, all instructions should be substantiated and open to scrutiny. IAP Standards of professional responsibility stress that the issue of instructions by nonprosecutorial authorities should be: transparent, consistent with lawful authority and subject to established guidelines to safeguard the actuality and the perception of prosecutorial independence (art. 2.2). They further underline that prosecutors are entitled to relief from compliance with an unlawful order or an order that is contrary to professional standards or ethics (art. 6). It is of vital importance for the independence of prosecutors that allegations of improper interference be duly investigated. 75. In most countries where the prosecution service is hierarchical, case-specific instructions may also be given by the Prosecutor General or the Head of the Prosecution Service or on his behalf to individual prosecutors, including instructions as to whether to initiate or discontinue prosecution in a specific case or to transfer the case to another prosecutor. It would be an abuse of authority if the motive for such an instruction is politically motivated. The Special Rapporteur further emphasizes that case-specific instructions to prosecutors from external organs are not desirable and that they should be formally recorded and carefully circumscribed to avoid undue interference or pressure. 44 45 46 A/HRC/20/33/Add.6, paras. 89-90. United Nations Guidelines, para. 6. See also Venice Commission, Report on European standards, para. 87.21. Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec (2000) 19, para. 10. 15