Chapter 4 • Independence and Impartiality of Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 4.4.2 Independence as to financial matters As supported by Principle 7 of the Basic Principles, the Judiciary must further be granted sufficient funds to properly perform its functions. Without adequate funds, the Judiciary will not only be unable to perform its functions efficiently, but may also become vulnerable to undue outside pressures and corruption. Moreover, there must logically be some kind of judicial involvement in the preparation of court budgets. However, when it comes to administrative and financial issues, independence may not always be total, given that the three branches of government, although in principle independent of each other, are also by nature in some respects dependent on each other, for instance with respect to the appropriation of resources. While this inherent tension is probably inevitable in a system based on the separation of powers, it is essential that in situations where, for instance, Parliament controls the budget of the Judiciary, this power is not used to undermine the efficient working of the latter.14 4.4.3 Independence as to decision-making Next, as follows from Principle 1 of the Basic Principles, the other branches of government, including “other institutions”, have the duty “to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary”. This means, more importantly, that the Executive, the Legislature, as well as other authorities, such as the police, prison, social and educational authorities, must respect and abide by the judgements and decisions of the Judiciary, even when they do not agree with them. Such respect for the judicial authority is indispensable for the maintenance of the rule of law, including respect for human rights standards, and all branches of Government and all State institutions have a duty to prevent any erosion of this independent decision-making authority of the Judiciary. The condition of the Judiciary’s independence as to decision-making is further supported by Principle 4 of the Basic Principles, according to which: “There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision. This principle is without prejudice to judicial review or to mitigation or commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary, in accordance with the law.”15 It is not clear whether executive amnesties and pardons would be contrary to Principle 4, but Governments must in any event always exercise considerable care in resorting to such measures, so that any measures of clemency do not subvert the independent decision-making power of the Judiciary, thereby undermining the rule of law and true respect for human rights standards. 14 For a discussion of this issue and others, as regards the system in the United States of America, see An Independent Judiciary, Report of the American Bar Association Commission on Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence, published on: http://www.abanet.org/govaffairs/judiciary/report.html. 15 Recommendation No. R (94) 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the independence, efficiency and role of judges provides that “decisions of judges should not be the subject of any revision outside any appeals procedures as provided for by law” (Principle I.2.a.i.), and that “with the exception of decisions on amnesty, pardon or similar, the Government or the administration should not be able to take any decision which invalidates judicial decisions retroactively” (Principle I.2.a.iv.) Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 121