(h) Requested the UNODC to convene an open-ended intergovernmentalexpert group, in cooperation with the Judicial Integrity Group and otherinternational and regional judicial forums, to develop a <strong>commentary</strong> on theBangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, taking into account the viewsexpressed and the revisions suggested by Member States; and(i) Requested the Secretary-General to report to the Commission on CrimePrevention and Criminal Justice at its sixteenth session on theimplementation of the resolution.X. Economic and Social CouncilOn 27 July 2006, the United Nations Economic and Social Council adoptedresolution 2006/23, entitled “Strengthening basic principles of judicial conduct”,without a vote.XI. Intergovernmental Expert Group MeetingIn March 2006, the draft Commentary on the Bangalore Principles ofJudicial Conduct prepared by the Co-ordinator of the Judicial Integrity Group, DrNihal Jayawickrama, was submitted to a joint meeting of the Judicial IntegrityGroup and of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Group convened byUNODC. The meeting was chaired by Judge Weeramantry and Chief Justice PiusLanga of South Africa. Other members of the Judicial Integrity Group who attendedthe meeting were Chief Justice B J Odoki of Uganda, Chief Justice B A Samatta ofthe United Republic of Tanzania, Deputy Chief Justice Dr Adel Omar Sherif ofEgypt, and former Chief Justice M L Uwais of Nigeria. Justice M D Kirby of theHigh Court of Australia, who was unable to attend, submitted his observations inwriting.The Intergovernmental Expert Group Meeting was also attended by thefollowing judges, government officials and individual experts: Magistrate NouraHachani of Algeria; Justice Elena Highton de Nolasco, Vice-President of theSupreme Court of Argentina; Justice Nazim Tagiyev, Rauf Guliyev and GulmirzaCavadov of Azerbaijan; Dr. Octavio Lister of the Dominican Republic; JusticeMohammad Aly Seef and Justice Elham Nguib Nawar, Judges of the SupremeConstitutional Court of Egypt; District Judge Riitta Kiiski of Finland, JusticeChristine Chanet, Conseillere, Cour de Cassation of France and Chairperson of theUnited Nations Human Rights Committee; Justice Hansjörg Scherer, District CourtJudge of Germany; Justice Ursula Vezekényi, Supreme Court of Hungary; Prof.Dr. Paulus Effendie Lotulung, Deputy Chief Justice of Indonesia; JusticeMohamadali Shahheydaripur of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Kaspars Berkis,Deputy State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice of Latvia; Dr. Muftah MohamedKazit, Abdel-Hakim Alfitouri Al-Hamrouni, Nagi Abdel-Salam Burkan and Ahmed19
El Halam of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; Iurii Pricop of Moldova; JusticeAbdellatif Cherqaoui, President de Chambre pres de la Cour d’ Apel de Casablanca,Justice Khadija Ouazzani Touhami, President de Chambre pres de la Cour Supreme,and Conseiller Boutaina Benmoussa of Morocco; Justice Collins Parker, High Courtof Namibia; Justice Ram Kumar Prasad Shah, Judge of the Supreme Court ofNepal; Dennis de Jong, Adviser on Human Rights and Peacebuilding, Ministry ofForeign Affairs, The Netherlands; Justice Timothy Adepoju Oyeyipo,Administrator of the National Judicial Institute, Philomena Chinwe Uwandu,Assistant Chief State Counsel, Federal Ministry of Justice, and Hadiza IbrahimSaeed, Studies Fellow at the National Judicial Institute, Nigeria; Syed Haider Shah,Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pakistan; Xiomara Bulgin De Wilson ofPanama; Cristi Danilet, Counsellor, Ministry of Justice, Romania; Judge Hyong-Won Bae of the Republic of Korea; Jovan Cosic, Ministry of Justice, Serbia;Justice Ignacio Sancho Garagallo, President of the Commercial Division of theCourt of Appeal of Barcelona, Spain; Suhada Gamlath, Permanent Secretary,Ministry of Justice and Law Reforms, Sri Lanka; Bashar Safiey, Permanent Missionof the Syrian Arab Republic; Henry Haduli of Uganda; and Kevin Driscoll, SeniorCounsel, Department of Justice, United States of America.Other participants were Olga Ruda and Simon Conte from the AmericanBar Association’s Rule of Law Initiative; Lord Jonathan Mance from theConsultative Council of European Judges, Council of Europe; Dr. Dedo Geinitz,Johanna Beate Wysluch and Georg Huber-Brabenwarter from the German Agencyfor Technical Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit);Prof. Giuseppe Di Federico and Dr. Francesco Contini from the Research Instituteon Judicial Systems, Bologna, Italy; Giovanni Pasqua and Justice Khaled Ahmedfrom the International Institute for Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences, Siracusa,Italy; Arkan El Seblani from the United Nations Development Programme; KitVolz, Dr. Stuart Gilman, Dr. Oliver Stolpe, Phil Matsheza, Alexandra SouzaMartins, and Ugonnaya Grace Ezekwem from UNODC; Ferdinand L.K. Wambali,Private Secretary to the Chief Justice of the United Republic of Tanzania; andNeshan Gunasekera, Attorney-at-Law, Sri Lanka.The Draft was considered in detail, each of the paragraphs being examinedseparately. Amendments, including certain deletions, were agreed upon. TheCommentary that follows is intended to contribute to a better understanding of theBangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.XII. Resource MaterialIn the preparation of this Commentary, reference has been made to, andinspiration drawn from, numerous sources. These include international instruments,national codes of judicial conduct and commentaries thereon, judgments anddecisions of international, regional and national courts, opinions of judicial ethicsadvisory committees, and learned treatises.20
- 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 14 and 15: IV. The Bangalore Draft Code of Jud
- Page 16 and 17: Davide of the Supreme Court of the
- Page 18 and 19: The Commission has frequently expre
- 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