A/HRC/7/3/Add.2 page 47 communication of a judge and thus aims to guarantee even de facto independence and impartiality of the judiciary. The relevant provisions of the law ensure that from the moment of transferring a case to a court until the entering into force of the court’s decision, as well as at the stage of preliminary investigation, any communication linked to a concrete case or issue between the parties to the hearings and other interested persons and a judge, violates the principles of independence and impartiality of the judiciary and is therefore prohibited. In case of such communication, a judge is obliged to immediately inform the chairman of the court in writing. Any infringement of the requirements of the mentioned law by a judge will be considered a violation of the rules of judicial ethics and will lead to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the latter. The law provides also that an investigator, prosecutor or lawyer must face disciplinary proceedings in accordance with relevant professional ethics codes in case any illegal communication is revealed. 203. As for information on balancing accountability and independence, see also the information provided in A/HRC/4/33/Add.2., paras 244-245. A judge can be dismissed only based on a conviction or as a result of disciplinary proceedings. For the latter purpose a Disciplinary Panel is formed at the High Council of Justice. It consists of six members, three of which are judges from common courts and are elected to the Disciplinary Panel by the Conference of Judges upon recommendation of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Thus the procedure is dealt with exclusively by the judiciary. The decision of the Disciplinary Panel can be appealed both on substantive as well as legal grounds to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court (consisting of three Supreme Court judges), which reviews disciplinary cases substance-wise (in the former system it reviewed issues within the cassation framework only, i.e. the case was not investigated) and represents the court of the final instance that hears disciplinary cases of judges. The judges have the opportunity to attend the hearing of their disciplinary cases by the Panel and the Chamber, to express their position and to defend themselves either in person or through legal assistance. Therefore the final decision on disciplinary prosecution of a judge lies in the hands of judges themselves. 204. The former Code of Judicial Ethics was substantially revised. The current Rules of Judicial Ethics are in full compliance with the European Standards of Judges’ Ethical Behaviour. They have been presented to the Association of Judges of Georgia and adopted by the Conference of Judges on 20 October 2007. Conditions of detention 205. 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); 206. Recommendation (j) stated: Recourse to pre-trial detention be restricted in the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly for non-violent, minor or less serious