Chapter 4 • Independence and Impartiality of Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers The notion of independence of the Judiciary also means that l individual judges must enjoy independence in the performance of their professional duties; individual judges have a right and a duty to decide cases before them according to law, free from outside interference including the threat of reprisals and personal criticism; l individual judges must be appointed or elected exclusively on the basis of their professional qualifications and personal integrity; l individual judges must enjoy long-term security of tenure; l individual judges must be adequately remunerated; l the promotion of individual judges must be based on objective factors; l the question of accountability of individual judges for unethical professional behaviour must be dealt with by a fully independent and impartial organ ensuring due process of law. 4.6 The notion of impartiality As previously noted, the concept of impartiality is closely linked to that of independence and sometimes the two notions are considered together. The requirement of impartiality is contained in article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 7(1) of the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights, article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights and article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Principle 2 of the Basic Principles also specifies that “The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.” ***** In the case of Arvo O. Karttunen, the Human Rights Committee explained that “the impartiality of the court and the publicity of proceedings are important aspects of the right to a fair trial” within the meaning of article 14(1) of the Covenant, adding that the notion of impartiality “implies that judges must not harbour preconceptions about the matter put before them, and that they must not act in ways that promote the interests of one of the parties”.69 It specified that, “where the grounds for disqualification of a judge are laid down by law, it is incumbent upon the court to 69 Communication No. 387/1989, Arvo O. Karttunen v. Finland (Views adopted on 23 October 1992), in UN doc. GAOR, A/48/40 (vol. II), p. 120, para. 7.2. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 135