In the expectation of Montenegro’s concrete moves regarding the introduction of vetting, we are presenting a brief overview of how the financial, ethical and professional integrity of judges and prosecutors is vetted in the United States of America (USA).
In the document “Improving the Rule of Law – Guidelines on the Vetting of Judges”, the CEELI Institute showed how the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary is ensured in the USA.
The vetting process for federal judges is based on the US Constitution and supplemented by federal laws. It involves thorough background checks conducted by the FBI, as well as oversight by the US Senate, which serve to assess the suitability of candidates for lifetime appointments through an assessment of their reliability, credibility and personal integrity.
“The investigation looks at personal details, citizenship status, marital and cohabitation history, residential history, family background, education and employment history, military service (if any) and financial information. It also includes a mental health evaluation, involvement in civil or criminal legal matters, affiliation with various organisations, substance abuse (including drugs and alcohol) as well as any information technology abuse”.
In addition to the FBI, candidates for judges are also vetted by the US Senate, which is responsible “for providing advice and consent before a candidate can be appointed a federal judge”.
“The Senate supplements the FBI’s investigation by seeking detailed information about the candidate’s personal, educational and professional history, legal practice experience, affiliation with organisations, speeches and publications, previous judicial positions and financial statements. As stated in the document “Advancing the Rule of Law – Judicial Vetting Guidelines”, the Senate also “calls on civil society organisations, such as the American Bar Association, to provide impartial peer reviews of judicial candidates.”
However, the American vetting system does not end here. After the appointment, security checks of judges are periodically performed to ensure transparency and ethical behaviour, while judges have the obligation of constant reporting.
“This includes annual financial statements, reporting on effective case management, mandatory recusal from cases involving personal bias or financial interests, and compliance with the Code of Conduct for American Judges”.
The document says that allegations of judicial misconduct are investigated by the Judicial Council or the Judicial Conference of the United States, with the possibility of referring them to the US Congress, “which has the constitutional authority to impeach and remove judges from office”.
While America has a system that increases the responsibility of office holders in the judicial system, the situation in Montenegro is completely different.
In the April newsletter, we wrote about the fact that Montenegrin judges and prosecutors are rarely held accountable for failings in their work, and that they are not held accountable for not submitting property reports to the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption. Compared to the USA, it seems that in Montenegro the integrity of the judiciary still depends on the good will of individuals, rather than a system that should guarantee that integrity.
English