Chapter 4 • Independence and Impartiality of Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 4.2 Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, 1985 In 1985, the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders adopted the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, which were subsequently unanimously endorsed by the General Assembly.8 These principles can therefore be described as being declaratory of universally accepted views on this matter by the States Members of the United Nations, and they have become an important yardstick in assessing the independence of the Judiciary in the work of international monitoring organs and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These principles deal with the following subjects: (i) independence of the Judiciary; (ii) freedom of expression and association; (iii) qualifications, selection and training; (iv) conditions of service and tenure; (v) professional secrecy and immunity; and (vi) discipline, suspension and removal. Without seeking to be in any sense exhaustive, the present chapter will deal with some of the significant issues relating to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. 4.3 The notions of independence and impartiality: links and basic differences The notions of “independence” and “impartiality” are closely linked, and in some instances the international control organs have dealt with them jointly. Yet each has its specific meaning and requirements, which will be further explained in more detail below. Suffice it to indicate at this juncture that the concept of “independence” is an expression of the constitutional value of judicial independence and, as stated by the Canadian Supreme Court in the case of Valiente v. The Queen, in a passage that conveys well the general understanding of the notion of independence of the Judiciary not only under Canadian constitutional law but also under international human rights law, this notion “connotes not only a state of mind but also a status or relationship to others – particularly to the executive branch of government – that rests on objective conditions or guarantees”.9 This status or relationship of independence of the Judiciary “involves both individual and institutional relationships: the individual independence of a judge as reflected in such matters as security of tenure and the institutional independence of the court as reflected in its institutional or administrative relationships to the executive and legislative branches of government”.10 By contrast, the Supreme Court of Canada described the concept of judicial “impartiality” as referring to “a state of mind or attitude of the tribunal in relation to the issues and the parties in a particular case”.11 This view has also been confirmed at the international level, where, for instance, the Human Rights Committee has held that the 8 See General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985. 9 See (1985) 2.S.C.R Valiente v. The Queen 673, to be found at http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1985/vol2/html/1985scr2_0673.html, at p. 2. 10 Ibid., loc. cit. 11 Ibid. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 119