A/HRC/26/32 68. The Special Rapporteur has expressed concern at cases in which lawyers have been sanctioned because of political activities, advocacy work, confusion between the lawyer’s cause and his/her client’s cause, and involvement in the legal representation of clients in sensitive cases. In that context, she has urged States to refrain from criminally convicting or disbarring lawyers for the purposes of silencing them, preventing them from criticizing public policies or obstructing them in their legal representation of specific clients. 2. Institutional accountability 69. State institutions should be as accountable as they are independent in order to play the role of respecting the rule of law. Institutional judicial accountability must, therefore, embrace the entire institutional organization of the justice system in a way that enables it to be monitored and held to account without being subject to improper influence, pressure or threats from the other branches of the State. 70. It is important to highlight that both the judiciary and the public prosecutor’s office are State institutions. Therefore, their actions or omissions directly engage the responsibility of the State. The accountability of the institutions of the justice system involves internal and external aspects. 71. Internal institutional accountability exists to allow an internal body within the judiciary and the public prosecutor’s office to monitor the independence, competence, objectivity and impartiality of their respective operators through permanent monitoring proceedings aimed at controlling their proper functioning. Those monitoring proceedings can also be initiated by complaint. The Special Rapporteur has observed several challenges to the effective implementation of internal accountability mechanisms, including corporatism and the use of accountability proceedings as an instrument of reprisal or internal pressure. 72. In order to avoid the improper use of accountability mechanisms, it is crucial that the following elements are in place: clear grounds for a removal, suspension or sanction; an independent, internal body in charge of disciplinary proceedings; and the right to have disciplinary decisions reviewed by a higher judicial tribunal. In that context, the adoption of a code of ethics and conduct is essential to contribute to the establishment and regulation of accountability proceedings and mechanisms. 73. External institutional accountability, in turn, should encompass activities whereby the public, through the media, civil society, human rights commissions and parliament, can scrutinize the functioning of the judiciary and prosecution services. Such activities can include: institutional dialogues with parliament and other State institutions, such as human rights commissions; all hearings being public; the availability and transparency of information about courts and the judiciary; and the creation of a judiciary website and the use of social media and television programmes to explain important judicial decisions and laws. A system of justice that is independent should not retreat behind closed doors. 74. The institutional accountability of lawyers’ activities depends, in practice, on how the legal profession is regulated and controlled and by which body. The Special Rapporteur has observed that, depending on the country, that role is exercised by the executive, the judiciary, independent bar associations, or bodies whose members come from the different branches of the State and the legal profession. 75. The Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that the accountability mechanisms put in place for the legal profession should be independent from all branches of the State, including the judiciary. The Special Rapporteur has always strongly recommended the establishment of independent bar associations to deal with all matters pertaining to the legal profession, including disciplinary proceedings. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers 13