Define clear criteria for candidates' integrity as well as the standard of proof for candidates' compliance or failure to comply with these criteria.
Currently, the HQCJ is promoting a subjective definition of integrity for the potential judges, which leaves a lot of room for manipulation. Unfortunately, because of this approach, Supreme Court candidates with negative verdicts from the Public Integrity Council received high scores for integrity, while whistleblower judges received much lower scores.
The HQCJ must develop and publish integrity criteria that should be based on the Bangalore Princioles
on Judicial Conduct approved by the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
That being said, the HQCJ also believes that a candidate can be considered dishonest only if his or her fault is proven, which means that criminal standards are applied where an individual is entitled to the presumption of innocence., This approach, however, is unacceptable when it comes to the selection of candidates for positions where public trust is crucial.
Instead, it should be established that reasonable doubt regarding a candidate's integrity should constitute sufficient reason to reject the candidate from the Anti-Corruption Court, and the burden to prove the opposite should be placed on the candidate himself or herself.