{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"40707513","dateCreated":"1310053393","smartDate":"Jul 7, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"martinbohnstedt","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/martinbohnstedt","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/ohchrglossary.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/40707513"},"dateDigested":1532174841,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"\"Independence\", tribunal vs. court","description":"I suggest to start the discussion of the "independence" element with the general essence that the tribunal must be independent from (1) the executive (separation of powers) and (2) from the parties. Following that we can move to the finer details as they are currently listed.
\n
\n"Tribunal" and "court" are not synonyms. I believe a court is an institution whose members (at least some of them) are lawyers, though case law seems a bit unclear on this. A tribunal is an independent, impartial institution that delivers a binding decision.
\n
\nAdd to subjective impartiality that nobody can be a judge in his own case (probably a sub-version of personal bias?).","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"40254392","dateCreated":"1308169486","smartDate":"Jun 15, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"Katefox1","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Katefox1","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/ohchrglossary.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/40254392"},"dateDigested":1532174842,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Trial by a competent, indep......","description":"Hi,
\n
\nThere is an unnecessary "to" in the first line on "competent tribunals" and an unnecessary space after independent.
\n
\nYou may wish to add something here on the "faceless judges" issue I know it is raised further down in the context of a public hearing but for me it would be more appropriate here or at least a cross reference. I would also add something on tribunals set up under customary law or religious courts.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"39756552","dateCreated":"1306861080","smartDate":"May 31, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"madeleinep1","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/madeleinep1","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/ohchrglossary.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/39756552"},"dateDigested":1532174842,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"General comments on Post 3.2.1","description":"Dear colleagues,
\n
\nI just wanted to say that I have revised the post for 3.1.2 and I think that it is well formatted, accurate and up to date. (Besides the comments\/changes that I have included in the text and my discussion posts).
\n
\nGood luck,
\n
\nMadeleine
\nMexico OHCHR","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"39788220","body":"thank you Madeleine for all your comments, really appreciated! Looking forward to receiving more ;-) Cristina","dateCreated":"1306914187","smartDate":"Jun 1, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"cristinamichels","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/cristinamichels","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":0}]},{"id":"39756484","dateCreated":"1306860962","smartDate":"May 31, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"madeleinep1","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/madeleinep1","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/ohchrglossary.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/39756484"},"dateDigested":1532174842,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary ","description":"Colleagues,
\n
\nI gather from the entries on this glossary that only Human Rights Courts and Treaty Bodies are being used (i.e. binding standards).
\nNevertheless, I thought it may be of use to include other standards here in this post, namely:
\n
\nBasic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary
\nAdopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40\/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40\/146 of 13 December 1985","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]},{"id":"39755812","dateCreated":"1306860003","smartDate":"May 31, 2011","userCreated":{"username":"madeleinep1","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/madeleinep1","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/ohchrglossary.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/39755812"},"dateDigested":1532174842,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"References to add from IACtHR","description":"Dear colleagues,
\n
\nI have added further details on the issue of military justice from the jurisprudence of the Inter American Court on Human Rights. I would like to add these in a foonote (It would be footnote number 5) however I am not sure how to do that.
\n
\nFootnote number 5 would come after this phrase:
\n
\nBy way of contrast, the jurisprudence of the
\n
\nIACtHR has outlined that military courts should be restricted to military personnel and not extend to civilians.
\n
\nAnd this would be the content of
\nFOOTNOTE NUMBER 5:
\n
\nAlmonacid Arellano and others vs. Chile, (IACtHR 2006) para. 131 and 133.
\n
\nPalamara-Iribarne vs Chile, (IACtHR 2005) para. 143
\n
\nLa Cantuta v. Per\u00fa (IACtHR 2006) para 142","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}