A/HRC/26/32 III. Judicial accountability A. Introduction, concepts and definitions 18. Accountability is generally defined as an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.1 That means that the professionals or institutions being held accountable accept responsibility for acting or functioning in ways that are consistent with accepted standards of behaviour and conduct, and face sanctions for failures to do so. 19. In that regard, accountability is a concept inherent to the rule of law, which is at the heart of the principles promoted by the United Nations. The rule of law, as defined in the report of the Secretary-General on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies, requires that accountability mechanisms and procedures be clearly established by law to enhance the transparency, fairness, integrity and predictability of public and private institutions and entities (S/2004/616, para. 6). 20. During her mandate, the Special Rapporteur has observed that the issue of judicial accountability has received renewed attention, especially in the context of democratic and/or judicial reforms. Governments, institutions, human rights defenders, civil society and international organizations have been increasingly calling for concrete action to address the issue of judicial accountability. 21. In many countries, there is dissatisfaction with the way the judiciary is performing the tasks with which it has been entrusted. That may be the result of a variety of factors, including the perception that the judicial system is not operating efficiently, that it is not responding to societies’ needs, or that there is widespread corruption in the judiciary. 22. The Special Rapporteur has also noted with concern that, under certain circumstances, failures to improve accountability or to address the issue of judicial corruption or misconduct are often used as a pretext for launching large-scale attacks on the independence of the judiciary. 23. Yet, both independence and accountability are essential elements of an efficient judiciary. They must therefore operate in conjunction with each other. The central question is then how to approach demands for more judicial accountability while safeguarding the fundamental principle of judicial independence. Calls for accountability can often be mistakenly interpreted as a threat to judicial independence, but in democratic systems the approach has to be less absolute and more nuanced and leave room for the development of accountability mechanisms for the justice system. The requirement of independence and impartiality does not exist for the benefit of the judges and prosecutors themselves, but rather for court users as a part of their inalienable right to a fair trial. Thus, if guarantees of independence and impartiality are privileges granted to judges and prosecutors in order to benefit the public, it is logical that mechanisms should be put in place to verify that those privileges are used properly and that their purpose is not perverted. 24. For the purposes of the present report, the term “judicial accountability” will be used to refer to the accountability of the three main operators in the justice system: judges, prosecutors and lawyers. 1 Merriam-Webster dictionary online. Available from www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/accountability. 5