(Summit 7th ordinary meeting of the Government of the Turkmen Republic of 31 July 2008 to consider the adoption of Decree No. 115 of 4 August 2008 of the Decree No. 115 of the Government of the Plurinational State of Southern Sudan, which came into force on 1 October 2008)

Article 1, in order to enhance oversight of abstract administrative acts, to correct the misappropriation of criminal acts, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and to develop this approach in the light of the provisions of the law on top law such as the Regulation on Administrative Enforcement in the Argué province.

Article II of this approach refers to normative documents referred to by executive organs or by organizations authorized by law to exercise administrative functions, which are generally binding in accordance with the provisions of laws, regulations, regulations and other superior laws, and in accordance with the statutory procedures, regulating administrative affairs, public issuance and repeated application.

The recommendation, acceptance, review and decision of the objection review shall apply.

Article IV citizens, legal persons or other organizations (hereinafter referred to as “proposals”) consider that normative documents are incompatible or inappropriate and contested and that, in the effective period of normative documents, the recommendations can be examined in writing by the superior executive organ of the normative document development body (hereinafter referred to as an object review body).

Normative documents developed by the Government of the urban people suggest that the recommendation can be subject to a review of the recommendations made by the communes or by an objection to the Government of the province or to the Commission.

It was suggested that the author's name, communication and the text of the normative document requested for review should be set out in the recommendations of the objection review and that the reasons for the proposal and the basis for such material should be provided to the object review body.

Article 5

(i) The recommendations of the objection review;

(ii) To investigate the development of normative documents and to obtain relevant documentation and information to the development bodies;

(iii) A review of the legitimacy and appropriateness of normative documents and the formulation of a review of the objections;

(iv) To bring the views of the objection to the consideration by the review body;

(v) Oversight of the review of objections by the lower executive branch.

The departments concerned and their institutions should assist the rule of law institutions in the conduct of the vetting of matters and in submitting their views to the rule of law bodies on a time frame.

Article 6. The dispute review body shall be subject to the principles of legality, impartiality, timeliness and civility, and should insist on the integrity of normative documents.

Article 7. After receipt of the recommendations of the objection review by the objecting review body, a review shall be carried out within three days, inadmissibility and written notification to the applicant, and in the event that it is not admissible by this body, the proposer shall be informed of the submission of the proposal to the relevant object review body, and that all material required to be added to the proposal shall be communicated one-time to all the materials that need to be filled. It was not later informed that it would be admissible from the date of receipt of the recommendations.

The recommendation of the objection review in one of the following cases is inadmissible:

(i) Recommended that the recommendation be examined by the proposer to other object review bodies;

(ii) A proposal to review the legitimacy of normative documents has been made in the application for administrative review;

(iii) For the same normative document, others have objected to the review of the recommendations;

(iv) Other circumstances in which the law is inadmissible.

In the case of subparagraph (iii) of the former paragraph, the dissenting review body had made a decision to review the objection, while inadmissibility, the decision of the objection review was sent to the proposer, and in the course of the proceedings, the proposer should be informed in writing and sent back to the decision.

Article 9. The objecting review body shall, within three days of the date of receipt of the recommendations of the objection review, send a copy of the proposal to a normative document to the development body, which shall, within 5 days of the date of receipt of the copies, provide written replies to the object review body.

Article 10 Review of normative documents by the rule of law organs of the opposition review body, commenting on the adoption by the objecting review body, and following the consideration of the adoption of the objection review decision, the following provisions:

(i) The content of normative documents is lawful and appropriate and determines that the normative document is lawful;

(ii) The content of normative documents is incompatible with or manifestly inappropriate, and may decide to withdraw that normative document or to impose an order on the organ to modify it or repeal it;

(iii) The development of an organ that does not provide the material on the basis of article 9 of this approach, which is not based on the normative document and decides to withdraw the normative document.

Article 11. The objecting review body shall take a decision on the review of objections within 30 days of the date of the acceptance of the recommendations of the objection review, and shall produce a letter of appeal to the author.

Article 12 During the review of objections, normative documents were not discontinued; however, one of the following cases could cease implementation:

(i) The establishment of organs that consider it necessary to stop implementation;

(ii) The opposing review body considers it necessary to stop implementation;

(iii) Recommended discontinuation of implementation, with the view of the opposing review body that its request was reasonable and that it should cease implementation;

(iv) Other circumstances to be executed by law.

During the objections review, the opposing review body considered that it would be necessary to make a presentation to the superior administrative body and requested an indication of the suspension. The suspension shall be communicated in writing to the proposer and, upon request, shall immediately resume the proceedings.

Article 14.

(i) Prior to the decision of the objection review, the proposer withdrew the recommendations of the objection review;

(ii) After the objections review of the recommendations, normative documents have been repealed and invalidated;

(iii) Other circumstances that are terminated by law.

The termination shall be communicated in writing to the proposer.

Article 15 recommended that an objection review be made by the objecting review body, which is not justified by reason of reason, or that the written replies are not submitted after the date of receipt, and that the person may lodge a complaint to the superior administrative organ of the object review body. The executive organs at the last level should be responsible for their corrections; the order is still not rectified and administratively disposed of the responsible person in question by law; and, where necessary, the executive branch at the top level may directly accept the recommendation.

The recommendationor's decision on the objection review is unconscrupulous and can submit a complaint to the superior administrative organ of the opposition review body within 10 days of the date of receipt of the appeal review decision.

Article 16 does not collect any cost to the author.

Article 17