This section contains opinion pieces written by Global Judicial Integrity Network participants, who are members of judiciaries worldwide. The pieces focus on the personal opinions and experiences of these external experts on issues related to judicial integrity. All opinion pieces written in 2018-2019 have been compiled in one review journal, available here. To read a selection of the articles in other UN languages, please select the language from the navigation bar at the top of the page. Please click here for Portuguese and Korean.

Please note that all opinions expressed in this section of the website are the opinions of the authors, who are external experts, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of UNODC. 


Judicial guarantees for the protection of the rights of people in vulnerable situations in a state of health emergency
June 15, 2020

Judicial guarantees for the protection of the rights of people in vulnerable situations in a state of health emergency

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the spread of COVID-19 an international health emergency. All countries have also taken action against the emergence and spread of the pandemic and the subsequent health emergency. Most countries have declared states of emergency and adopted restrictive measures for human movement, such as closing air, land and sea borders, as well as in some cases, compulsory social isolation.

These measures include the restriction of some fundamental rights recognized by the states in their respective constitutions.

The Judiciary is Not Immune from Bullying and Sexual Harassment
June 11, 2020

The Judiciary is Not Immune from Bullying and Sexual Harassment

On 6 January 2020, Harvey Weinstein walked into a New York courtroom to face five charges of rape and sexual assault. Three years since the #MeToo movement began, more and more people are speaking out about harassment and abuse. The legal profession is at the forefront of this evolving movement, inherently tasked with determining the scope of the law as it relates to bullying and sexual harassment. 

Yet the legal profession itself is not immune from these concerns. In May 2019, the International Bar Association (IBA) published its landmark report "Us Too? Bullying and Sexual Harassment in the Legal Profession". The largest survey of its kind conducted by the legal profession, the report details the responses of almost 7,000 respondents from 135 countries.

Defence Rights in Remote Justice Procedures
June 8, 2020

Defence Rights in Remote Justice Procedures 

The global COVID-19 pandemic is bringing to the forefront the weaknesses of criminal justice systems across the globe to ensure access to justice. Many states have resorted to closing courthouses and delaying proceedings as social distancing measures to prevent the spread of the virus. A key common feature of these measures is to keep defendants away from courthouses and even away from their lawyers. However, a defendant's right to be tried in person in an open court is a fundamental component of the right to a fair trial enshrined in  Article 14 of the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  

'The Court' as a Service and not a Place
May 21, 2020

'The Court' as a Service and Not a Place

The  Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)  is an international court headquartered in Trinidad and Tobago. The CCJ has both a Community treaty jurisdiction (much like the European Court of Justice does for Europe), and a final appellate jurisdiction to which four Caribbean states currently subscribe. Its complement extends to 80 staff members, including seven judges. In response to COVID-19, the court adopted special measures to protect the health and safety of staff and judges, while continuing to guarantee access for court users.



Justice during—and after—a Time of Pandemic
May 18, 2020

Justice during, and after, a Time of Pandemic

The justice sectors in Council of Europe member states have been deeply affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Special arrangements have been introduced in most systems in order to respect the need for social distancing, while at the same time delivering a minimum level of service in cases where postponement would have particularly harmful implications. This is the case notably as regards proceedings involving children, custody, domestic violence and detention. This responsiveness is to be welcomed.