requiring the HJC to assist the President of the Republic clearly puts it under the control and tutelage of the latter. 78. The Court notes that the Constitutional Court has addressed the constitutionality of the HJC law on two occasions, first, by Decision DCC 18 - 005 of 23 January 2018 which declared the said law consistent with the Constitution and, secondly, by Decision DCC 18 - 142 of 28 June 2018 which reversed the first decision. 79. The Court holds the same view as the Constitutional Court’s initial interpretation which declared that Article 1 of the said law was contrary to the Constitution insofar as “The composition of this council must reflect the concern for the independence of the judiciary. By retaining as ex officio members, in addition to the President of the Republic, guarantor of the independence of the judiciary and the Keeper of the Seals, minister in charge of managing the careers of magistrates, the minister in charge of the Civil Service and the Minister of Finance, Article 1 of the law is contrary to the Constitution.” 80. On that same occasion, the Constitutional Court further held that “the legislator, in the interests of the independence of the judiciary, must provide for a certain balance in the composition of the HJC [...] It is important to specify that the external persons likely to be appointed by the Bureau of the National Assembly must be appointed on an equal basis on account of proposals emanating from the parliamentary minority and majority”. 81. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the administrative management of the judiciary, exercises direct and sometimes discretionary authority over the careers of judges. He is the main person responsible for the planning and management of resources in the judiciary. As such, he determines the human resources needs in the judicial 25