IV. The Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial ConductThe second meeting of the Judicial Integrity Group was held in Bangalore,India, from 24 to 26 February 2001. It was facilitated by the Department forInternational Development, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,hosted by the High Court and the Government of Karnataka State, India, andsupported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for HumanRights. At this meeting the Group, proceeding by way of examination of the draftplaced before it, identified the core values, formulated the relevant principles, andagreed on the Bangalore Draft Code of Judicial Conduct (the Bangalore Draft). TheGroup recognized, however, that since the Bangalore Draft had been developed byjudges drawn principally from common law countries, it was essential that it bescrutinized by judges of other legal traditions to enable it to assume the status of aduly authenticated international code of judicial conduct.This meeting was attended by Chief Justice Mainur Reza Chowdhury ofBangladesh, Chief Justice P.V. Reddi of Karnataka State in India, Chief JusticeKeshav Prasad Upadhyay of Nepal, Chief Justice M.L. Uwais of Nigeria, DeputyChief Justice Pius Langa of South Africa, Chief Justice S.N. Silva of Sri Lanka,Chief Justice B.A. Samatta of the United Republic of Tanzania, and Chief JusticeB.J. Odoki of Uganda. Justice Claire L'Heureux Dube of the Supreme Court ofCanada, President of the International Commission of Jurists, was a special invitee.Judge Weeramantry served as chairperson, and Justice Kirby as rapporteur. Inaddition, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges andLawyers, Dato Param Cumaraswamy, and the Chairman of the United NationsHuman Rights Committee, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, participated as observers, thelatter representing the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.V. Consultation ProcessOver the following twenty months, the Bangalore Draft was disseminatedwidely among judges of both common law and civil law systems. It was presentedto, and discussed at, several judicial conferences and meetings attended by ChiefJustices and senior judges from over 75 countries of both common law and civil lawsystems. On the initiative of the American Bar Association’s offices in Central andEastern Europe, the Bangalore Draft was translated into the national languages ofBosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Slovakia, and thenreviewed by judges, judges’ associations, and Constitutional and Supreme Courts ofthe sub-region, including those of Kosovo. Their comments provided a usefulperspective.In June 2002, at a meeting in Strasbourg, France, the Bangalore Draft wasreviewed by the Working Party of the Consultative Council of European Judges(CCJE-GT) which engaged in a full and frank discussion from the perspective of thecivil law system. The participants at that meeting included Vice-President Gerhard13
Reissner of the Austrian Association of Judges, Judge Robert Fremr of the HighCourt in the Czech Republic, President Alain Lacabarats of the Cour d'Appel deParis in France, Judge Otto Mallmann of the Federal Administrative Court ofGermany, Magistrate Raffaele Sabato of Italy, Judge Virgilijus of the LithuanianCourt of Appeal, Premier Conseiller Jean-Claude Wiwinius of the Cour d'Appel ofLuxembourg, Judge Conseiller Orlando Afonso of the Court of Appeal of Portugal,Justice Dusan Ogrizek of the Supreme Court of Slovenia, President JohanHirschfeldt of the Svea Court of Appeal in Sweden, and Lord Justice Mance of theUnited Kingdom (Chairman). The published comments of CCJE-GT on theBangalore Draft, together with other relevant Opinions of the Consultative Councilof European Judges (CCJE) – in particular, Opinion No.1 on standards concerningthe independence of the judiciary – made a significant contribution to the evolvingform of the Bangalore Draft.The Bangalore Draft was further revised in the light of the draft Opinion ofthe CCJE on the principles and rules governing judges' professional conduct, inparticular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality; and by reference to morerecent codes of judicial conduct including the Guide to Judicial Conduct publishedby the Council of Chief Justices of Australia in June 2002, the Model Rules ofConduct for Judges of the Baltic States, the Code of Judicial Ethics for Judges of thePeople's Republic of China, and the Code of Judicial Ethics of the MacedonianJudges Association.VI. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial ConductA revised version of the Bangalore Draft was next placed before a Round-Table Meeting of Chief Justices (or their representatives) from civil law countriesheld in the Japanese Room of the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands - the seatof the International Court of Justice - on 25 and 26 November 2002. The meetingwas facilitated by the Department for International Development of the UnitedKingdom, supported by the United Nations Centre for International CrimePrevention, Vienna, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,Geneva; and organized with the assistance of the Director-General of the CarnegieFoundation at The Hague.Judge Weeramantry, former Vice-President and Judge Ad-Hoc of theInternational Court of Justice, presided at the meeting at which the participantsincluded Judge Vladimir de Freitas of the Federal Court of Appeal of Brazil, ChiefJustice Iva Brozova of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, Chief JusticeMohammad Fathy Naguib of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt (assistedby Justice Dr Adel Omar Sherif), Conseillere Christine Chanet of the Cour deCassation of France, President Genaro David Gongora Pimentel of the SupremaCorte de Justicia de la Nacion of Mexico, President Mario Mangaze of the SupremeCourt of Mozambique, President Pim Haak of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden,Justice Trond Dolva of the Supreme Court of Norway, and Chief Justice Hilario14
- Page 2 and 3: United NationsOffice on Drugs and C
- Page 4: CONTENTSPreface… ................
- Page 10 and 11: DRAFTING HISTORYI. BackgroundIn Apr
- Page 12 and 13: g. The Iowa Code of Judicial Conduc
- Page 16 and 17: Davide of the Supreme Court of the
- Page 18 and 19: The Commission has frequently expre
- Page 20 and 21: (h) Requested the UNODC to convene
- Page 22: Where citations have been used, the
- Page 25 and 26: WHEREAS the International Covenant
- Page 27 and 28: WHEREAS the foregoing fundamental p
- Page 29 and 30: esponsibility, it is essential that
- Page 31 and 32: WHEREAS it is essential that judges
- Page 33 and 34: WHEREAS the primary responsibility
- Page 35 and 36: 5. Everyone shall have the right to
- Page 37 and 38: THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES are intend
- Page 40 and 41: Value 1INDEPENDENCEPrinciple:Judici
- Page 42 and 43: Conditions for judicial independenc
- Page 44 and 45: A judge must act irrespective of po
- Page 46 and 47: finding, an important part of a jud
- Page 48 and 49: 1.3 A judge shall not only be free
- Page 50 and 51: or her. No such gatherings should b
- Page 52 and 53: that very remote instance the judge
- Page 54 and 55: 1.6 A judge shall exhibit and promo
- Page 56 and 57: (d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)(l)(m)(n)(o
- Page 58 and 59: Value 2IMPARTIALITYPrinciple:Impart
- Page 60 and 61: Application:2.1 A judge shall perfo
- Page 62 and 63: 2.2 A judge shall ensure that his o
- Page 64 and 65:
2.3 A judge shall, so far as is rea
- Page 66 and 67:
2.4 A judge shall not knowingly, wh
- Page 68 and 69:
(b) The second aspect relates to a
- Page 70 and 71:
informed, will remove the objection
- Page 72 and 73:
countenances the possibility that j
- Page 74 and 75:
Other things being equal, the more
- Page 76 and 77:
2.5.2 the judge previously served a
- Page 78:
Provided that disqualification of a
- Page 81 and 82:
Application3.1 A judge shall ensure
- Page 83 and 84:
It has been argued that the use of
- Page 86 and 87:
Value 4PROPRIETYPrinciple:Propriety
- Page 88 and 89:
4.2. As a subject of constant publi
- Page 90 and 91:
4.3 A judge shall, in his or her pe
- Page 92 and 93:
Special care should be taken where
- Page 94 and 95:
not hold a supervisory or administr
- Page 96 and 97:
4.6 A judge, like any other citizen
- Page 98 and 99:
such judicial commentary should be
- Page 100 and 101:
4.8 A judge shall not allow the jud
- Page 102 and 103:
performance of their lawful duties
- Page 104 and 105:
Former judges153. Depending on loca
- Page 106 and 107:
4.11 Subject to the proper performa
- Page 108 and 109:
4.11.3 serve as a member of an offi
- Page 110 and 111:
ii. Does it essentially involve an
- Page 112 and 113:
4.11.4 engage in other activities i
- Page 114 and 115:
should not give legal advice. This
- Page 116 and 117:
Protecting the judge’s own intere
- Page 118 and 119:
4.14 A judge and members of the jud
- Page 120 and 121:
4.16 Subject to law and to any lega
- Page 122 and 123:
Value 5EQUALITYPrinciple:Ensuring e
- Page 124 and 125:
Application5.1 A judge shall be awa
- Page 126 and 127:
5.3 A judge shall carry out judicia
- Page 128 and 129:
5.5 A judge shall require lawyers i
- Page 130 and 131:
Value 6COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCEPrin
- Page 132 and 133:
Application6.1 The judicial duties
- Page 134 and 135:
judgment, the expedition of cases,
- Page 136 and 137:
The quality of judgment and demeano
- Page 138 and 139:
6.4 A judge shall keep himself or h
- Page 140 and 141:
about decisions that appear to them
- Page 142 and 143:
impossible, to suggest a uniform st
- Page 144 and 145:
IMPLEMENTATIONBy reason of the natu
- Page 146 and 147:
DEFINITIONSIn this statement of pri
- Page 148 and 149:
AnnexCULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS TRADITI
- Page 150 and 151:
When a judge does not inquire into
- Page 152 and 153:
. . . deal impartially with the sui
- Page 154 and 155:
Jewish LawThe following is an extra
- Page 156 and 157:
Sanity: A person whose judgment is
- Page 158 and 159:
9. A judge must be prompt in delive
- Page 160 and 161:
8. He must not permit a litigant to
- Page 162 and 163:
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHYBooks and Monogr
- Page 164 and 165:
Delaware Judicial Ethics Advisory C
- Page 166 and 167:
INDEX 80accused personrights, 49app
- Page 168 and 169:
prompt disposal of matters, 207rese
- Page 170 and 171:
apprehension of bias, 56abuse of co
- Page 172 and 173:
family members, activities of, 69fo
- Page 174 and 175:
personal knowledge of disputed fact
- Page 176:
sentencing, rights relating to, 50s