Thank you, Mr. Minister.
In their report, the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission very clearly stated that the government's proposals, in other words, what you had really put in place, would lead to a reduction in certain salaries of judges. They recommended rejecting your proposals, and you accepted that recommendation. You accepted the commission's vision on that point.
The commission also recommended that appeal court judges have a salary that is 3% higher than that of trial court judges, given the importance and definitive nature of their decision. You did not accept that recommendation.
Why take the first recommendation but not the second?
I have another, perhaps more pointed, question. Do you think it is appropriate that the government is interfering in the recommendations, even though you have the power to do so and must justify your decisions? Aren't you afraid that this goes against the idea of the independence of the judiciary?