Public statements by judges and public confidence in judiciary

Surely, there is no one more qualified to comment issues relating to judiciary than judges themselves. On the other hand, inappropriate or even just unfortunate statements can severely undermine public trust in judiciary. Certain restrains as well as education and policies can help in order to reduce this risk.

Freedom of expression of judges in the Inter-American Human Rights System

First of all I will speak about the right of judges to defend democracy, from the exercise of freedom of expression in “The case of Lopez Lone and Others vs. Honduras”.
Before I will figure out the new developments in public statements on pending proceedings seen in “The case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay”, we will have a closer look on the right of judges to criticize the functioning of the justice system in “The case of Daniel Urrutia vs. Chile”.

Activity of judges in social networks

The use of social networks offers opportunities and risks for judges. The use of social networks enables communication with the public, can demystify the judicial process and the persons of the judges, and promote understanding for the judicial work. However, there are also a number of judgments that show that the use of social media by judges can be problematic.

practical experience in implementing Code of Judicial Ethics for judges regarding their public expression

Main topic would be the practical experiences in implementing Code of Judicial Ethics for judges regarding their public expression, including social media use. Freedom of expression has its limitations for public officials. Code of Ethics are as strong as willingness or disciplinary bodies to implement it. Disciplinary bodies should have consistent decisions which would show the way for future appearance or judicial officials. Prevention, dialogue and education should prevail over punitive actions. Perhaps short examples from Bosnian perspective.