Judiciary Raport

15 / 56

ENHANCING JUDICIARY`S ABILITY TO CURB CORRUPTION - A PRACTICAL GUIDE 13
IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality of judges and prosecutors refers to their independence to make decisions in cases free
from interferences or considerations such as personal interests, undue influence from peers or political
actors, public pressure, fear of reprisals, concerns about career prospects, political affiliations, bribery
or other corruption-related issues16.
Impartiality requires fair, objective conduct by the judge or prosecutor. A judge or a prosecutor can
be independent, but not impartial, while in most cases the lack of independence leads to lack of
impartiality as well. Impartiality of the court also means the equal treatment of all persons before the
court, without discrimination on grounds such as gender, political affiliation, religion, race, colour,
national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status,
and citizenship.
INTEGRITY
Integrity17 refers to the “behaviours and actions consistent with a set of moral or ethical principles
and standards, embraced by individuals as well as institutions that create a barrier to corruption”18.
It requires judges not to place themselves under any financial or other obligation to individuals or
organizations that might influence them in the performance of their duties. The integrity of a judge
derives from his or her conduct being above reproach and requires that justice is not only done, but
it is also seen to be done”19.
The integrity of the judiciary implies compliance with relevant legal provisions and, more specifically,
is characterized by three conditions: incorruptibility of decisions, abidance by the principles of
transparency and competitiveness, good management of courts with regards to economy, efficiency
and effectiveness20.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability is the concept that individuals, agencies and organizations (public, private and civil
society) are held responsible for exerting their powers properly21. Judges and prosecutors must be
accountable for their conduct to appropriate institutions established to maintain judicial standards,
which are themselves independent and impartial. The judiciary must also be held accountable by the
media and public opinion. Judicial officials are not above the law. Judges’ decisions are subject to
appeal and review by higher courts.
Independence and accountability should be seen as the check and balance system of the judiciary
and considered as inseparable. If there is independence with no accountability, then discretionary
and abusive power can be exerted. But if there is accountability with no independence, there is no
due process. Therefore, the standards for accountability shall always be seen as instruments to
secure a fair independence.
16. See Value 2 of the Bangalore principles of Judicial Conduct
17. See Value 3 of the Bangalore principles of Judicial Conduct
18. Anti-corruption Plain Language Guide, Transparency International, July 2009, page 24
19. Art. 3.2 of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
20. Transparency International Romania, Integrity Guide for the Management of the Judicial System, 2008, p. 19,
21. Anti-corruption Plain Language Guide, Transparency International, July 2009, page 2