A/70/212 processes, to inform and sensitize the judiciary to the situation of minorities in order to prevent discrimination, whether explicit or implicit. 69 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights recently condemned the use of ethnic stereotypes and social prejudices in judges’ reasoning. 70 50. Prosecutors also must carry out their functions impartially and avoid any kind of discrimination against minorities. 71 51. Independent professional bodies for judges, prosecutors and lawyers should ensure that codes of conduct prohibit discrimination against minorities, that complaints of discrimination are promptly and impartially investigated, and that disciplinary proceedings follow whenever complaints are well founded. 72 52. Prospective jurors must not be excluded on the basis of their membership in a particular ethnic or national, religious or linguistic minority, whether directly, indirectly or by proxy. Any examination of potential religious prejudice in jury selection, for instance, should focus on the specific individual ’s beliefs (insofar as they are relevant to the case), and his or her capacity to set those beliefs aside, and not on stereotypic inferences drawn from his or her affiliation to a particular religious denomination. Before trial, the judge should alert jurors to the risk of implicit bias. Jurors who demonstrate bias against minor ities should be disqualified. 73 F. Sentencing 53. States must ensure that courts do not apply harsher punishments by reason of an accused person’s membership in a minority. 74 Disparities in sentencing can arise through intentional prejudice or indirect discrimination. Minorities often face a greater likelihood of a prison sentence rather than conditional release, greater likelihood of longer terms of imprisonment or a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, and greater likelihood of imposition of the d eath __________________ 69 70 71 72 73 74 15-12578 E.g., Judicial College, England and Wales, Equal Treatment Bench Book (2013); and Australia (various jurisdictions), Equal Treatment Bench Books (2006, 2009). Many are updated frequently and publicly available online. See also John Richardson, Bias in the Court! Focusing on the Behavior of Judges, Lawyers, and Court Staff in Court Interactions (Williamsburg, Virginia, National Center for State Courts, 1997); Human Rights Council resolution 29/6 entitled, “Independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors, and the independence of lawyers”, 2 July 2015, para. 6 and Kang and others, “Implicit bias in the courtroom”, 59 UCLA L. REV. 1124 (2012), suggesting specific practices to counter implicit bias. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Norín Catrimán v. Chile (29 May 2014). Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors; and Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, 2003, part F.i(i). E.g., Supreme Court of Canada, Moreau Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council), 2002 SCC 11. Human Rights Committee, General Comment 32, para. 25; CERD, Narrainen v. Norway, CERD/C/44/D/3/1991 (1994); European Court of Human Rights, Sander v. the UK, No. 34129/96 (2000); United States Supreme Court, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79 (1986); Law Reform Commission reports on jury reform in, e.g., Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand; and Kang (see footnote 69 above), pp. 1179-1186. CERD General Recommendation 31 (2005) para. 34. 15/27