publications_unodc_commentary-e

focus in such cases should not be on prohibiting the relationship, buton the judge’s need to withdraw in any case in which the other party tothe relationship was involved.(d)questioned whether it was wise to have a list of “permitted” non-legalactivities, and did not believe that prohibitions on fund-raisingactivities on behalf of a charitable organization, on serving as anexecutor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary, onaccepting appointment to a commission of inquiry, or on testifying as acharacter witness, should be generally accepted as an internationalstandard.The main divergence, however, was in respect of political activity. In oneEuropean country, judges were elected on the basis of their party membership. Insome other European countries, judges had the right to engage in politics and beelected as members of local councils (even while remaining as judges) or ofparliament (their judicial status being in this case suspended). Civil law judges,therefore, argued that at present there was no general international consensus onwhether judges should be free to participate in politics or not. They suggested thateach country should strike its own balance between judges’ freedom of opinion andexpression on matters of social significance, and the requirement of neutrality. Theyconceded, however, that even though membership of a political party orparticipation in public debate on the major social problems might not be prohibited,judges must at least refrain from any political activity liable to compromise theirindependence or jeopardize the appearance of impartiality.The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct emerged from that meeting.The core values recognized in that document are independence, impartiality,integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence. These values are followedby the relevant principles and more detailed statements on their application.VII. Commission on Human RightsThe Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct were annexed to the reportpresented to the fifty-ninth session of the United Nations Commission on HumanRights in April 2003 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independenceof Judges and Lawyers, Dato Param Cumaraswamy. On 29 April 2003, theCommission unanimously adopted resolution 2003/43 which noted the BangalorePrinciples of Judicial Conduct and brought those Principles "to the attention ofMember States, the relevant United Nations organs and intergovernmental and nongovernmentalorganizations for their consideration".In April 2004, in his report to the sixtieth session of the Commission onHuman Rights, the new United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence ofJudges and Lawyers, Dr Leandro Despouy, noted that:16