A/HRC/4/33/Add.2 Page 48 paragraph 4 of article 8 of CPC on supremacy and independence of the judiciary, states that the judiciary controls the legality and validity of activities and decisions of investigators and prosecutors. In addition, article 84 of the Constitution of Georgia secures the independence of the judge. It shall be noted that the Constitutional norms prevail over any other law within the country (the latter being regarded as null and void if it contradicts the former), thus safeguarding the judiciary’s independence. 244. With respect to Presidential authority to dismiss and appoint judges, it should be noted that the authority of the President to dismiss and appoint judges has not increased in 2004 as a consequence of constitutional amendments. In fact, amendments introduced a provision analogous to one already contained in the law on “Common Courts of Georgia.” Additional constitutional amendments have already been introduced to minimize the authority of the President in the judicial system. In particular, the President is not the chairman of the High Council of Justice any more, nor has he the right to appoint or dismiss judges. The Chairman of the Supreme Court of Georgia chairs the meetings of High Council of Justice and judges are appointed or dismissed by the latter upon the recommendation of the Council, the majority of which is composed of judges (10 of 19 members of the Council are judges of common courts of Georgia). Therefore, the court system became fully independent from either legislative or executive power. 245. As to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against judges, it must be noted that, because of a lack of reforms, before the Rose Revolution, the judicial system was highly corrupt and composed of a number of dishonest and unqualified judges. According to the official data, since 2004, thirteen judges faced criminal liability, nine of them for corruption (most of them were detained at a crime scene). The violations committed by such judges were the very foundation of a number of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them and the reason of the voluntary resign of a number of other judges. The decisions of the Disciplinary Panel were thoroughly examined by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court and were considered to be in full conformity with Georgian legislation. The violations committed by the suspended judges mainly concerned infringements of procedural norms. Notably, Georgian legislation used to forbid the initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the ground of “gross and repeated violation of law”, which the international community interpreted as giving the Disciplinary Panel authority to punish a judge for the interpretation of the law. Subsequently, in order to eliminate all doubts, the relevant governmental authorities, taking into consideration the suggested recommendations, introduced appropriate amendments to the Law on disciplinary administration of justice and disciplinary responsibilities of judges of common courts of Georgia, excluding the provision which made it possible to pursue disciplinary charges based on “gross violation of law.” Thus, the ambiguity in the law, which gave the impression that decisions can be reviewed on substantive grounds - a prerogative of the Appeals Court and Court of Cassation, not of the Disciplinary Panel of the High Council of Justice, has been eliminated. Conditions of detention 246. Recommendation (i) stated: Non-violent offenders be removed from confinement in pre-trial detention facilities, subject to non-custodial measures (i.e. guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceeding and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement);