E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.2 page 74 between the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Tashkent City Bar, was not approved by the Ministry of Justice, and therefore is not binding on institutions. The resolution was adopted for the reason that the procedures regulating meetings between defence lawyers and their clients in Tashkent Prison were revoked and advocates were practically deprived of the possibility to meet with the their clients without the permission of the investigator or the judge. According to a survey conducted by the Association of Advocates, 353 persons, 85% of those surveyed, stated that meetings of defence lawyers with their clients can only be carried out after numerous complaints to various bodies (as legislation does not provide for the issuance of the permission for lawyers to meet with their clients). Moreover, 95 lawyers, 23% of those surveyed, reported that the judges are not acquainted with the resolution. Lawyers’ experience shows that paragraph 11 of the resolution considerably limits the right to legal defense as guaranteed by the Constitution (i.e. which provides for as many meetings as needed without time limits). Despite this constitutional provision, law enforcement officials frequently hinder the enjoyment of the right to legal defence. 349. The Government informed that on 8 August 2005 the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan issued a Decree “On Transferring the Right to Sanction Preliminary Detention”, which provides, “In order to further liberalise the judicial system […], starting from 1 January 2008, the right to sanction the preliminary detention of suspects or accused persons should be transferred to the authority of courts. Preliminary detention should be used in exceptional cases, when other measures of restriction foreseen by the law are not effective, and only after a decision of a criminal court or a military court in accordance with their competencies.” 350. Recommendation (d) stated: The Government should take the necessary measures to establish and ensure the independence of the judiciary in the performance of their duties in conformity with international standards, notably the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Measures should also be taken to ensure respect for the principle of the equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence in criminal proceedings. 351. According to NGOs, no such measures were taken. 352. The Government informed that in order to guarantee real independence of the judiciary, the further democratisation of the principles relating to the selection and placement of judges, and to process proposals about the promotional system, the President, on 30 July 1999, established a Commission under the President for dealing with questions related to the appointment and dismissal of judges. With the aim of further improvements, this Commission was transformed into the “Main Qualification Commission on the Selection and Recommendation of Judges under the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan” by Presidential Decree of 4 May 2000. The Commission is composed of representatives of the judiciary, Parliament, qualification collegiums, NGOs, and highly qualified legal specialists. The selection and management of judicial issues was transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the judges. The question about the tenure of judges is under consideration. 353. Recommendation (e) stated: The Government should ensure that all allegations of torture and similar ill-treatment are promptly, independently and thoroughly investigated by a body, outside the procuracy, capable of prosecuting perpetrators.