and Legal Assistance in Africa.110 The Council of Europe has ruled similarly.111 102. Regarding the impossibility of removing judges from office based on the content of decisions issued in exercise of their jurisdiction function, the Universal Charter of the Judge, adopted by the International Association of Judges, indicates that, “[s]ave in case of malice or gross negligence […], no disciplinary action can be instituted against a judge as the consequence of an interpretation of the law or assessment of facts or weighing of evidence, carried out by him/her to determine cases” in exercise of his/her functions.112 103. On this issue, the Council of Europe has indicated that “[t]he interpretation of the law, assessment of facts or weighing of evidence carried out by judges to determine cases should not give rise to civil or disciplinary liability, except in cases of malice and gross negligence,” or “to criminal liability, except in cases of malice.”113 Likewise, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) has considered that judges, as a measure of protection against undue external influence, “should enjoy functional – but only functional – immunity (immunity from prosecution for acts performed in the exercise of their functions, with the exception of intentional crimes, e.g. taking bribes).”114 104. The Human Rights Committee has expressed its particular concern at situations that undermine the independence of the judiciary by imposing sanctions or declaring the responsibility of judges for the content of their decisions and, in general, for the exercise or performance of their jurisdictional functions.115 review or to mitigation or commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary, in accordance with the law.” 110 Cf. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, adopted as part of the Commission’s annual report at its second Summit and Meeting of Heads of State of the African Union, held in Maputo from July 4 to 12, 2003, Principle A.4.f.: “[t]here shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process nor shall decisions by judicial bodies be subject to revision except through judicial review, or the mitigation or commutation of sentence by competent authorities, in accordance with the law.” Meanwhile, Principle A.4.n.2. indicates that “[j]udicial officials shall not be: […] removed from office or subject to other disciplinary or administrative procedures by reason only that their decision has been overturned on appeal or review by a higher judicial body.” 111 Cf. Council of Europe, Recommendation No. R (94) 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Members States on the independence, efficiency and role of judges, adopted on October 13, 1994, Principle I.2.a.i.: “decisions of judges should not be the subject of any revision outside any appeals procedures as provided for by law.” Similarly, Recommendation CM / Rec (2010) 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Members States on Judges: independence, efficiency and responsibility, adopted on November 17, 2010, para. 16. 112 International Charter of the Judge, adopted by the Central Council of the International Association of Judges in Taipei (Taiwan) on November 17, 1999, and updated in Santiago de Chile on November 14, 2017, article 7-1. Meanwhile, the Latin American Federation of Judges has stated that: “[j]udges shall receive the guarantee that, due to their jurisdictional activity and the way in which they decide the cases entrusted to them, they shall not be rewarded or punished and that those decision will only be subject to the review of higher courts as indicated by the respective domestic law,” and that judicial authorities shall not “be disciplinarily prosecuted or held responsible for the content or the sense in which they adopt their judicial decisions.” Declaration of Minimal Principles abut Judiciaries and Judges’ Independence in Latin America, Campeche Declaration, adopted in 2008, by the General Assembly of the Latin American Federation of Judges. 113 Council of Europe, Recommendation CM / Rec (2010) 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Members States on Judges: independence, efficiency and responsibility, adopted on November 17, 2010,, paras. 66 and 68. 114 European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). Report on the Independence of the Judicial System – Part I: The Independence of Judges, adopted at its 82nd plenary meeting (Venice, March 12 and 13, 2010), para. 61. 115 Cf. Inter alia, Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Venezuela, April 26, 2001, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/71/VE, para. 13; Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, August 14, 2015, UN Doc. CCPR/C/VEN/CO/4, para. 15; Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Costa Rica, April 21, 2016, Doc. CCPR/C/CRI/CO/6, para. 31; Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Ecuador, August 11, 2016, Doc. CCPR/C/ECU/CO/6, para. 25, and Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Mexico, December 4, 2019, Doc. CCPR/C/MEX/CO/6, para. 40. 28