A/HRC/26/32 corruption is established, the officials concerned should face criminal, not only disciplinary, sanctions.17 86. Regarding the legal profession, international standards indicate that disciplinary proceedings should be based on codes of professional conduct.18 In that regard, lawyers should be subject to disciplinary, civil and criminal sanctions concerning their professional duties and responsibilities as agents of the administration of justice. 87. The Special Rapporteur supports the view that justice operators should be held accountable for instances of professional misconduct that are gross and inexcusable and that also bring the judiciary into disrepute.19 However, in order to ensure the independent exercise of their functions, they should not be subject to disciplinary proceedings or sanctions relating to the content of their rulings, verdicts, or judicial opinions, judicial mistakes or criticism of the courts.20 The Special Rapporteur also emphasizes the importance of a code of ethics or conduct, which should be established with the participation of associations and representatives of justice operator and should be applied in a consistent and transparent manner, with full respect for the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial and due process. Furthermore, training on the duties and responsibilities of each justice operator should be made available to all of them. Education is an important instrument to strengthen accountability by raising awareness of codes of ethics and conduct, rules of procedure and the possible consequences of breaches of those norms. With proper training and education, justice operators can more easily acknowledge the importance of acting with dignity and integrity and are appropriately guided to behave in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of their functions. Institutions and bodies in charge of overseeing the accountability of the justice system 88. The independence of justice operators and of the judiciary itself exists in order to guarantee equality and fairness to court users. For that reason, the accountability of the justice system’s operators must be ensured by the State and specific and clear accountability mechanisms and proceedings must be established to deal with formal complaints or even public criticism of justice operators’ actions and conduct. Such instruments should also enable judges, prosecutors and lawyers to explain their actions. The proceedings should be transparent, impartial, fair, objective, and should not undermine the credibility of the justice system as a whole; justice operators should not fear arbitrary removal from office or sanctions. 89. Precisely because the judiciary exists to answer to public interest, it must be subject to public scrutiny. It is imperative that the beneficiaries of the justice system can assess whether judges, prosecutors and lawyers are duly exercising their functions and responsibilities and whether the system itself is functioning independently and impartially. In that context, civil society has an invaluable role to play. By monitoring the proper functioning of the justice system, it encourages engagement through a substantive and transparent dialogue between justice operators, the other powers of the State and the general public. 90. Besides public scrutiny, there should be an independent body in charge of holding judges and prosecutors accountable at the same time as it protects their independence. That body should foster transparency in all disciplinary proceedings and provide defendants with 17 18 19 20 16 See CCPR/C/YEM/CO/5, para. 17. Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, principle 26. Kyiv Recommendations on Judicial Independence in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia, para. 25. Ibid.