The effective implementation of a fair trial notably recommends that each individual be designated an opportunity to be heard by an impartial and independent tribunal initiated by the constitution in determining their civil obligations and rights or any criminal charges against them. The impartiality and independence principles are closely linked, thus requiring a joint examination by courts. The rule of law and democracy mainly depends on these institutional guarantees. The independence and impartiality of tribunals imply that all judgments and decisions made by courts should be respected and abided by obligations of the executive, legislative, or any other government authority regardless of its level (Fiss, 2019). Independence is an aspect of the rule of law and justice that governs judges to be able to form a decision of considerations, free from favor or fear from any interests that are irrelevant to the case. Impartiality refers to the absence of bias or prejudice in delivering a verdict. This article explores the importance of fair trials and threats associated with judges’ independence and impartiality of tribunals.
According to article fourteen, any individual found with an unlawful offense shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. The fundamental protection of civil liberties is the presumption of innocence, which guarantees no inference of guilt until the accusation has been verified to have surpassed a reasonable doubt. This act ensures a fair trial by providing the defendant with the merit of the doubt and which must be treated according to the presumption of innocence principle (Fiss, 2019). Therefore, all judges must refrain from prejudging the trial outcome by abstaining from affirming the accused’s guilt when making public statements. On the other hand, for fair trials to be practical, the accused should not be confined in cages or shackled. No one should be taken to the court of law showcasing that they may be dangerous criminals until proven guilty. Moreover, the media should refrain from news coverage that undermines the presumption of innocence in any way possible. The law guarantees that the idea of innocence is not affected by the denial of findings or bail of liability in civil proceedings. The pre-trial detention period should not be taken as an indication of guilt and its degree.
The law guarantees the right of all individuals pledged with any criminal offense to be advised in detail in an understandable dialect of the nature and criminal charges brought against them. It implies that the accused persons have the right to be notified of the proceeding and know the nature and criminal charges arrived at by judges in a simple language they can understand in a fair trial (Geyh, 2013). For instance, under domestic law, the accused right to know their charges promptly demands the information to be delivered as soon as possible when the person concerned is formally charged with a criminal offense. In so doing, establishing the truth of everyone involved in a case will be enhanced.
Furthermore, the law guarantees that any accused person should be given enough time and facilities to prepare their proof and to convey with counsel of their own choice who will fully respect the confidentiality of their communications without any interference or hindrance (Selbst et al., 2019). A crucial element of a fair trial guarantee is portrayed in this provision, where the application of the equality of arms principle is enhanced. Adequate facilities such as documents and other pieces of evidence that the prosecution plans to present before a court should be accessed and understood as including not only innocence materials but other shreds of evidence that could assist in defense before a judgment is reached. Moreover, the law guarantees that all the documents with information evidence should be made available to counsel if the accused doesn’t understand or speak the language in which proceedings are held. This activity will give the accused person a fair trial representation before the court of law by a counsel who understands and speaks the language in which proceedings are held.
According to article fourteen, the law guarantees the right to have legal assistance assigned to accused individuals without payment whenever the justice interest is required. This is determined by the gravity of the offense on whether the accused should have a lawyer or not, who will be visiting the accused person in private for communication. Any lawyer the competent authorities provides must be effective in accused representation based on this provision. It also guarantees the right of the accused to examine the witnesses against them (Selbst et al., 2019). The equity of arms application principle guarantees the importance of ensuring the accused and their lawyer of an effective defense by assuring them the same legal powers of cross-examining and compelling the witnesses’ attendance available to the prosecution. However, it not only provides an unlimited right to have witnesses admitting to their defense but also a reasonable opportunity to challenge and question the witnesses against them at some stages of the court proceedings.
Threats to the Judge’s Independence and Impartiality
Lack of secure tenure: it usually arises whenever judges are employed on temporary contracts, making them more susceptible to inappropriate outside pressure of various kinds to assess their ability to undertake their tasks (Selbst et al., 2019).
Inadequate remuneration: judges can become more amenable to corruption due to low income, which constitutes a significant threat to court independence in the current world (Selbst et al., 2019). For instance, if the accused person has more money to bribe the judge than the defiant of the case, the judge rules in favor of the accused, and the defiant sometimes may end up paying the accused person for the time spent in court trials.
Refusal of the executive: the independence of judges is frequently threatened by executive refusal to allow them to organize freely in professional associations (Selbst et al., 2019). For example, they cannot carry out their work independently since the administrative issues the licenses. This act obliges them to exercise their profession as judges or lawyers fully.
Conclusion
The independence and impartiality tribunals imply that all judgments and decisions made by courts should be respected and abided by obligations of the executive, legislative, or any other government authority regardless of its level. The rule of law guarantees numerous rights to the accused, such as the right to a fair hearing until proven guilty right to have legal assistance assigned to them, among others. Moreover, the judges’ independence and impartiality are faced with threats such as inadequate remuneration, refusal of the executive to allow them to act freely in their profession, and lack of secure tenure. Therefore, it is recommended that everyone be given the right of expression and defense in any proceedings before the verdict is reached. In so doing, establishing the truth of everyone involved in a case will be enhanced.
References
Fiss, O. M. (2019). The right degree of independence. In Transition to Democracy in Latin America: The Role of the Judiciary (pp. 55-72). Routledge.
Geyh, C. G. (2013). The dimensions of judicial impartiality. Fla. L. Rev., 65, 493.
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019, January). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 59-68).
write