Chapter 4 • Independence and Impartiality of Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers for the maintenance of democracy and the rule of law”, the Committee urged the State party “to take all appropriate measures, including review of the Constitution and the laws, in order to ensure that judges and lawyers are independent of any political or other external pressure”.141 In this respect the Committee drew the attention of the State party to the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary as well as the basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.142 The Committee has also expressed “serious doubts” both as to the independence of the Judiciary in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and as to “the liberty of advocates to exercise their profession freely, without being in the employment of the State, and to provide legal services”; it recommended “that measures be taken to ensure full compliance with article 14 of the Covenant as well as with United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and the basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers”.143 ***** It is thus beyond doubt that the obligation in some States for lawyers to be in government employment runs counter to the fair trial guarantees laid down in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 6.4.2 The right to peaceful assembly In the case of Ezelin, the European Court of Human Rights examined the justifiability of an interference with the entitlement of an avocat in France to exercise his right to peaceful assembly. In this particular case, the Court examined the complaint under article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, as a lex specialis in relation to article 10 of the Convention, which secures the right to freedom of expression. The lawyer had been reprimanded for taking part in a demonstration in the course of which some unruly incidents occurred. He was disciplined for having failed to dissociate himself from these incidents, although he had not in any way been violent or unruly himself. This conduct was judged “inconsistent with the obligations of his profession”.144 The Court examined, “in the light of the case as a whole”, whether the reprimand “was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, having regard to the special importance of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, which are closely linked in this instance”.145 It concluded that “the proportionality principle demands that a balance be struck between the requirements of the purposes listed in Article 11 § 2 and those of the free expression of opinions by word, gesture or even silence by persons assembled on the streets or in other public places. The pursuit of a just balance must not result in avocats being discouraged, for fear of disciplinary sanctions, from making clear their beliefs on such occasions”.146 141 UN doc. GAOR, A/53/40, para. 150. 142 Ibid., loc. cit. 143 UN doc. GAOR, A/54/40, para. 134. 144 Eur. Court HR, Ezelin v. France judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A, No. 202, p. 20, para. 38. 145 Ibid., p. 23, para. 51. 146 Ibid., para. 52. 154 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers