Chapter 4 • Independence and Impartiality of Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers As is made clear in subsequent chapters, and in particular Chapter 7 on The Right to a Fair Trial and Chapter 16 concerning The Administration of Justice during States of Emergency, this means that judges have an obligation to decide the cases before them according to the law, protect individual rights and freedoms, and constantly respect the various procedural rights that exist under domestic and international law. Further, this important task has to be carried out without any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process (Principle 4 of the Basic Principles). ***** The Human Rights Committee expressed concern that the new Judiciary in Cambodia was susceptible to “bribery and political pressure” and that it was seeking “the opinions of the Ministry of Justice in regard to the interpretation of laws and that the Ministry issues circulars which are binding on judges”. Consequently, it recommended that the State party “should take urgent measures to strengthen the judiciary and to guarantee its independence, and to ensure that all allegations of corruption or undue pressure on the judiciary are dealt with promptly”.65 It is further inherent in the notion of a competent, independent and impartial tribunal that it must give reasons for its decisions. With regard to article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court held in this respect, in the case of Higgins and Others, that this obligation “cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument”, but that “the extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case”.66 Where the Court of Cassation had failed in its judgement to give express and specific explanations on a complaint that the Court of Appeal had not been impartial, the Court found a violation of article 6(1).67 ***** The Human Rights Committee has examined numerous cases where Jamaican courts have failed to give reasoned judgements, thereby effectively preventing the convicted persons from exercising their right to appeal. However, rather than examining this issue within the framework of the notion of independence and impartiality in article 14(1) of the Covenant, the Committee has considered it under article 14(3)(c), which guarantees the right to “be tried without undue delay”, and article 14(5), which safeguards the right of appeal in criminal cases.68 65 UN doc. GAOR, A/54/40 (vol. I), para. 299. 66 Eur. Court HR, Case of Higgins and Others v. France, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 60, para. 42. 67 Ibid., p. 61, para. 43. 68 See, for example, Communication No. 283/1988, A. Little. v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 1 November 1991, in UN doc. GAOR, A/47/40, p. 284, para. 9 read in conjunction with p. 283, para. 8.5 (violation of article 14(5) of the Covenant; no reasoned judgement issued by the Court of Appeal for more than five years after dismissal); and Communication No. 377/1988, A. Currie v. Jamaica (Views adopted on 29 March), in UN doc. GAOR, A/49/49 (vol. II), p. 77, para. 13.5 (violation of both article 14(3)(c) and (5) for failure of the Court of Appeal to issue written judgement thirteen years after dismissal of appeal). 134 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers