Principle 4: independent and Impartial Investigators The former Commissioner of Canada Elections highlights the importance of this practice in the preface to the Special Investigators’ Manual. Describing the objective of the manual, he writes: This manual also discloses to the public how electoral investigations are carried out. It is important that the role of the Commissioner of Canada Elections and that of Special Investigators be clear and bear the scrutiny of all those interested in electoral matters. This openness and transparency should help to maintain and promote the confidence and trust of all Canadians in the integrity of the electoral process. Through openness and transparency in their work, investigative bodies can enhance their credibility, demonstrate their impartiality, and entrench their institutional independence. Objectivity of the Investigator The United Nations General Assembly’s Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary stress that impartial decision-makers should act “without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”468 The Human Rights Committee has echoed this standard, emphasizing 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.”469 The standards that apply to the judiciary can be extrapolated to investigators, who have a similar duty to protect the integrity of the investigation and dispute resolution process. To act objectively, “without bias or prejudice,” investigators must not allow their personal opinions and, in particular, their political views to impact their actions in investigation proceedings.470 Like civil 468 Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, supra note 112; accord Inter-American Comm’n on Human Rights, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1996, O.A.S. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95, Doc. 7 rev. at 761 (Mar. 14, 1997) (recommending to OAS Member States that “judges must be free to decide matters before them without any influence, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, for any reason or from any quarter”). 469 H.R.C. Communication No. 387/1989, Karttunen v. Finland, ¶ 7.2, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/46/D/387/1989 (Nov. 5, 1992). 470 Objective, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009); cf. Int’l Civil Serv. Comm’n (ICSC), Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service ¶ 9 (2001), http://www.un.org‌/en/ethics/pdf/StandConIntCivSE.pdf [hereinafter Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service], (“Impartiality implies tolerance and restraint, particularly in dealing with political . . . convictions.”). 131