A/HRC/4/33/Add.2 Page 47 paragraph 4 of article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, even if the accused is not identified, this may not serve as an impediment for filing a civil claim. If the criminal prosecution is terminated, the accused is in hiding, his/her whereabouts are not established or the person to be brought to criminal responsibility is not identified, the claim for compensation of damage may be presented to the state as prescribed by civil procedural legislation. This provision has taken effect from 1 January 2007. 239. As provided for in article 219 of CPC, illegally convicted or accused persons or persons who were unlawfully subjected to compulsory medical treatment must have their rights restored (rehabilitated) if their innocence or the illegality of their compulsory medical treatment is proved. CPC prescribes detailed procedures of rehabilitation, and mechanisms of claiming compensation for damage sustained as a result of illegal or unjustified actions of the bodies conducting criminal proceedings. And lastly, the Government is planning to pay considerable attention to raising public awareness on the compensation procedure. 240. Recommendation (h) stated: Necessary measures be taken to establish and ensure the independence of the judiciary in the performance of their duties in conformity with international standards (e.g. the 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; 241. According to non-governmental sources, article 336 of CPC provides the possibility to the prosecutor’s office to review court judgments, although formally the prerogative of verification of legality of the court decision is given to the Court of Appeal and Court of Cassation. This results in a situation where the prosecutor’s office actually appears as the “forth branch of power”, which is in breach of the principle guaranteed by article 84 of the Constitution of Georgia, according to which nobody is authorized to demand a report from a judge on specific case and all acts, limiting the judge’s independence, are null and void. 242. Furthermore, constitutional amendments in early 2004 increased the President’s authority to dismiss and appoint judges. The government then began an effort to address corruption in the judiciary, but the processes for removing allegedly corrupt judges have lacked transparency and due process. For example, Supreme Court judges were given an ultimatum to either resign with their pensions or face disciplinary hearings; consequently, in 2005, 21 of 37 Supreme Court judges resigned. Nine Supreme Court judges refused to resign, came under disciplinary proceedings in December 2005, were found guilty, and were suspended from office. The proceedings addressed matters related to the judges’ interpretation of law rather than issues of ethics or conduct subject to disciplinary evaluation. A member of parliament maintained that in the absence of direct evidence of corruption, examining how judges ruled was the most effective way of determining whether a judge was unethical or corrupt. On 10 August 2006 the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the decision against the judges. These steps might have had a chilling effect on new and remaining judges, who recognize their positions as tenuous and their decisions subject to executive approval. 243. The Government informed that the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia does not contain any norm authorizing the prosecution service either to review court judgments or to exercise other kind of pressure on a judge. Article 336 of CPC refers to the examination of the corps (dead body). It has not been modified since the Special Rapporteur’s visit. Furthermore,