Principles also establish that “[t]here shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process.”228 191. Nevertheless, the guarantee of stability and tenure for judges is not absolute. International human rights law admits that judges may be removed for conduct that is clearly unacceptable. In its General Comment No. 32, the Human Rights Committee established that “[j]udges may be dismissed only on serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence.”229 In addition, the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary establish the following concerning disciplinary measures, suspension and removal from office: “17. A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge. 18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.”230 192. In addition, other standards distinguish between applicable sanctions. They insist that the guarantee of tenure means that the removal must be based on fairly serious behavior, while other sanctions may be contemplated to deal with cases such as negligence or incompetence. In this regard, the recommendations of the Council of Europe on the independence, efficiency and role of judges establish:231 “Principle I - General principles on the independence of judges […] 2. […] a.i. decisions of judges should not be the subject of any revision outside any appeals procedures as provided for by law; Principle VI – Failure to carry out responsibilities and disciplinary offences 1. When judges fail to carry out their duties in an efficient and proper manner or in the event of disciplinary offences, all necessary measures which do not prejudice judicial independence should be taken. Depending on the constitutional principles and the legal provisions and traditions of each state, such measures may include, for instance: a. withdrawal of cases from the judge; b. moving the judge to other judicial tasks within the court; c. economic sanctions such as a reduction in salary for a temporary period; d. Suspension. 2. Appointed judges may not be permanently removed from office without valid reasons until mandatory retirement. Such reasons, which should be defined in precise terms by the law, could apply in countries where the judge is elected for a certain period, or may relate to incapacity to perform judicial functions, commission of criminal offences or serious infringements of disciplinary rules. 3. Where measures under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article need to be taken, states should consider setting up, by law, a special competent body which has as its task to apply any disciplinary sanctions and measures, where they are not dealt with by a court, and whose decisions shall be controlled by a superior judicial organ, or which is a superior judicial organ itself. The law should provide for appropriate procedures to ensure that judges in question are given at least all the due process requirements of the Convention, for instance that the case should be heard within a reasonable time and that they should have a right to answer any charges.” 228 Principle 4 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 229 Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007, para. 20. See also, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1376/2005, Soratha Bandaranayake v. Sri Lanka, CCPR/C/93/D/1376/2005, para. 7.3. 230 Principle 17 and 18 of the United Nations Basic Principles. 231 Recommendation No. R (94) 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the independence, efficiency and role of judges, adopted on 13 October 1994 (at the fifty-eighth session of Vice Ministers). 57