(Summit No. 6 of 31 December 2013, by the 7th ordinary meeting of the People's Government of Chiang Maiang on 24 December 2013, published as of 1 March 2014)

Chapter I General

Article 1 provides for the regulation of administrative law enforcement, the prevention and correction of administrative law errors, the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and the development of this approach in line with the practice of the city.

Article 2 refers to administrative law enforcement, including administrative penalties, administrative licences, administrative enforcement, administrative charges, administrative decisions, administrative recognition, administrative payments and other administrative enforcement activities under the laws, regulations and regulations.

This approach refers to the misperformance of administrative law, which means that the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations are jeopardized by the executive law and legal provisions of the various levels of the people's governments, the communes of the population, and the organizations entrusted by the law (hereinafter referred to as administrative law enforcement agencies) and their administrative law enforcement officials in administrative law enforcement activities, and that acts of administrative responsibility should be confirmed by the statutory procedures.

This approach refers to acts of misappropriation of administrative law enforcement committed by administrative law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials, which conduct investigations, confirmation of responsibility and activities addressed in accordance with the provisions.

Article 3. Administrative law enforcement authorities at all levels of the city's administration and their administrative law enforcement officers are held accountable and apply this approach.

Article IV. The responsibility for administrative law enforcement should be held in a manner consistent with the principles of objectivity and impartiality, real demand, integrity, accountability, education and punishment.

Administrative law enforcement has been held accountable and should be clear, substantiated, qualitative and appropriate, procedural legitimacy and integrity.

Article 5

The Government of the more people at the district level and its executive branches are the administrative law enforcement responsible for accountability.

The executive law enforcement body responsible for the rule of law of the organs responsible for the conduct of specific work of the Government at this level, the sector in charge of erroneous administrative enforcement responsibilities, with the following responsibilities:

(i) To receive complaints, reports of miscarriage of administrative law enforcement and conduct initial or case investigations;

(ii) To investigate the evidence obtained from the relevant organizations and persons and to obtain the information on the file;

(iii) Review the determination of excessive accountability for administrative law enforcement and recommend accountability for administrative law enforcement;

(iv) Oversight of the implementation of the erroneous responsibilities of administrative law enforcement;

(v) Matters relating to the transfer of cases to be dealt with by the inspectorate, the staff member's office and the judiciary;

(vi) Processing of claims of misperceptions of administrative law enforcement that are not subject to repeated requests from the Government of the People or the administrative law enforcement authorities;

(vii) To conduct oversight inspections of administrative misperceptions in the executive branch at the lower level;

(viii) To coordinate the handling of disputes arising between lower-level administrative law enforcement erroneous responsibilities and the determination of responsibility;

(ix) Statistical matters in cases where administrative law enforcement was wrongly held;

(x) Administrative law enforcement is responsible for other responsibilities conferred by the organ.

Article VI, in accordance with the law, legislation and this approach, should be dealt with by the inspectorate, the personnel exemption authority and the superior administrative body, in accordance with the relevant legal, legislative and other provisions, such as the National People's Republic of China Administrative Monitoring Act, the Civil Service Act of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Service Act of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Service Code of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Service Code of the Administrative Authority.

Article 7. Administrative law enforcement agencies at all levels should establish a system that governs enforcement activities, strengthens oversight mechanisms, enhance training and management of law enforcement officials and avoids and reduces excessive administrative law enforcement practices.

Article 8. Administrative law enforcement agencies at all levels should strengthen administrative law enforcement informationization, build up the digital law enforcement of administrative law enforcement officers, enforce the credit information bank and electronic video surveillance facilities in key law enforcement locations, providing scientific and technical guarantees for reducing and detecting administrative law error.

Article 9. Administrative law enforcement organs at all levels should be held accountable for administrative error as administrative law enforcement responsibilities, key elements of the legal administrative examination, and serve as an important basis for the executive branch's objective accountability, leading the BPR and the annual civil service examination.

Chapter II Accountability

Article 10. In administrative law enforcement activities, the executive law enforcement agencies and their administrative law enforcement officials have one of the following cases:

(i) It is not possible to determine or go beyond the exercise of the authority of the statutory authority;

(ii) The error of the legal basis;

(iii) The fact that there is insufficient evidence;

(iv) Violations of statutory procedures;

(v) Clearly inappropriate law enforcement;

(vi) Non-fulfilment of statutory responsibilities;

(vii) Other cases where administrative law enforcement was wrong.

Article 11, as confirmed by the authorities of the following States, that administrative law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials have committed administrative law enforcement offences, should be found to be wrongly responsible for administrative enforcement.

(i) The General Assembly and its Standing Committee of the People's Representatives have found and confirmed administrative law enforcement violations in oversight;

(ii) The judgement of the People's Court of entry into force, the decision to remove, modify, confirm the violation of the law and order the administrative law enforcement of its statutory duties; the People's Court considers that the executive body is responsible, directly responsible, in violation of the political discipline and transferred to the administrative law enforcement offences dealt with by the administrative law enforcement authorities;

(iii) The prosecution opinion of the People's Procurator's Office is of the view that the criminal circumstances are minor and that penalties are not subject to the penal provisions, subject to administrative law enforcement, which should be dealt with by the administration;

(iv) The executive review of the executive review body decides to withdraw, modify and identify administrative law enforcement violations of the law;

(v) Administrative law enforcement authorities have found and confirmed administrative law enforcement offences in the receipt of administrative law enforcement complaints from citizens, legal persons and other organizations;

(vi) Administrative law enforcement authorities have found and confirmed administrative law enforcement offences in activities that perform administrative law enforcement oversight duties;

(vii) The specialized oversight bodies, such as inspection, audit, have found and confirmed that administrative law enforcement violations that should be dealt with by administrative law enforcement agencies should be transferred in accordance with the law;

(viii) Other administrative law enforcement offences which should be found to be wrong in administrative law enforcement.

Chapter III

Article 12. The responsibility of administrative law enforcement is divided into direct responsibilities and responsibilities.

The two categories of responsibilities listed in the preceding paragraph should be distinguished between the primary responsibility, the secondary responsibility or the same responsibilities in the context of two or more responsibilities.

Article 13, an administrative law enforcement body had experienced a mistake in administrative law enforcement, which had assumed full responsibility as a direct responsible authority.

Two or more administrative law enforcement agencies are co-located in administrative law enforcement, which should be the primary responsibility of the host authorities and other agencies bear secondary responsibility.

Administrative law enforcement authorities have been wrongly responsible for the enforcement of administrative law due to the enforcement of decisions of superior administrative authorities and the error of orders, and should be held by the wrong decision-making and ordering superior administrative authorities. The executive branch found that decisions, orders were wrong, did not provide a changeive opinion at the superior level or that the enforcement of decisions and orders that were clearly incompatible should be held in accordance with the law.

The removal, modification of administrative law enforcement by superior administrative law enforcement agencies, resulting in a misperception of administrative law enforcement, should be borne by superior administrative law enforcement agencies.

The applicable circumstances of the organization, which is the subject of administrative law enforcement, are governed by the provisions of the former article.

Article XIV distinguishes between miser responsibilities and determines the subject of responsibility, and should be based on the executive law enforcement of the wrongdoing, the reviewor and the rator, the role of administrative law errors in different forms and administrative law enforcement errors that occur in different directions should be fully and objectively analysed.

The former is referred to as the specific perpetrator of an administrative act; the licensor, including the head of the body within the executive branch, the head of the executive branch, and other reviewers mandated to exercise their functions; the rator, including the executive head responsible for issuing administrative decisions, as well as the other rator authorized to exercise its mandate, as prescribed or authorized.

Article 15 is one of the following cases in which the custodian should assume responsibility as a direct responsible person:

(i) The exercise of the law enforcement authority by a person resulted in a misperformance of administrative law enforcement;

(ii) Execution of administrative acts without clearance and approval, resulting in mismanagement of administrative law;

(iii) Concluding the facts, concealment of evidence or providing unvery circumstances, resulting in an error of decision by the licensor, the rator and the rator, causing administrative law error;

(iv) Reimbursement, approval, resulting in misperformance of administrative law enforcement;

(v) There is no reason to carry out the statutory duties.

Article 16 examines one of the following cases and should assume responsibility as a direct holder:

(i) The direct application of administrative law enforcement, without the intention of the contractor or without the approval of the author, resulting in an error in administrative law enforcement;

(ii) Concluding facts, concealing evidence or providing unvery circumstances, resulting in an error in the author's decision, resulting in an administrative error;

Article 17 has one of the following cases in which the author is authorized and should assume responsibility as a direct responsible person:

(i) Direct administrative law enforcement decisions without the preparation, review and approval of the custodian, resulting in excessive administrative law enforcement;

(ii) The failure to adopt or change the correct opinion of the custodian, the veraging of the custodian, has resulted in a mismanagement of administrative law.

Article 18, the licensor suggested that the licensor, the rator, the ratifier should find that the author should not be found, or that the latter had not been corrected, resulting in a misperformance of administrative law, the custodian, the licensor, the rator, the rator, the rator, the rator, the rator, the rator, the rator and the rator had assumed the corresponding wrong responsibility.

The reviewor does not adopt or change the right opinion of the custodian, with the approval of the author, which has resulted in a misperception of administrative law, the responsibility of the licensor and the responsibility of the author.

Article 19, two or more individuals jointly implement administrative law enforcement, resulting in excessive administrative law enforcement, and the hostr should assume the primary responsibility and the secondary responsibility of other personnel; it cannot distinguish between the primary responsibility and assume direct responsibility.

Article 20, which was determined by collective discussions, should be the primary responsibility of the executive law enforcement authorities chairing the discussion, with the secondary responsibility of other heads and specific law enforcement officials involved in the discussion and the responsibility of those who did not accept it.

Article 21, which had been decided by administrative review, constituted a miscarriage of administrative law enforcement, should be the primary responsibility of the former specific administrative law enforcement agencies, and the executive review body should assume secondary responsibility or corresponding responsibility.

In accordance with the administrative review decision to withdraw, change specific administrative acts, resulting in excessive administrative law enforcement and should be held accountable by the executive review body.

Article 2, which was entrusted with an error in administrative law enforcement, should be vested with the external responsibility of the commissioning authority, the specific law enforcement officer responsible for the commissioning organization and the responsibility of the responsible organ.

Chapter IV

Article 23. The form of accountability over administrative law enforcement is divided into administrative and administrative disposal. Administrative processing and administrative disposal can be applied either alone or in combination.

Article 24 Types of administrative treatment:

(i) To caution against statements;

(ii) A written inspection order;

(iii) Removal of orders or relocation of deadlines;

(iv) To inform criticism;

(v) Removal of administrative law enforcement documents and induction training;

(vi) Removal of administrative law enforcement documents;

(vii) Removal of administrative law enforcement positions;

(viii) Other types of administrative treatment provided by States, provinces.

The types of treatment under the preceding paragraph may be applied either alone or in combination.

The categories set out in the preceding paragraph apply to cases where the responsible person was held responsible for error; second, third and fourth cases applicable to the accountability of administrative law enforcement agencies.

Article 25 establishes the form of accountability for administrative law enforcement and should be tailored to the facts, nature, circumstances and the extent of harm.

The administrative treatment of the responsible administrative law enforcement should be addressed as follows:

(i) A minor circumstance, with less consequences, a careful intervention, a warrant for a written examination and a change in order to correct or deadlines;

(ii) In the light of the gravity of the circumstances, the consequences of the harm are greater, the disclosure of criticism or suspension of administrative law enforcement documents, and the induction training;

(iii) Disadvantages, causing significant loss or serious social impact, reversing administrative law enforcement documents, relocating administrative law enforcement positions, and making administrative disciplinary recommendations to the inspectorate, the personnel exemption authority;

The administrative treatment of the misperceptive organ of administrative law, the misperception of an act, a written examination of the order and a correction of the sentence or period of time; a serious circumstance of the wrongdoing, which is criticized in the form of written checking, ordering or a change of time.

Article 26 Types of administrative disposition apply to the provisions of the Ordinance on Civil Servants of Administration. With regard to job adjustments, the relevant provisions apply to the exemption of personnel.

The types of disposal of law enforcement and law enforcement officers who are not granted civil service status are authorized to apply the rules relating to the organization.

Article 27 states that the responsible organs and responsibilities of administrative law enforcement are one of the following cases and should be held accountable:

(i) The failure to perform or fail to carry out its statutory duties in a manner that is more serious;

(ii) When administrative law enforcement is wrong, conceals or does not take effective measures to increase the consequences of damage;

(iii) The misresponsibility of administrative law enforcement to hold organs accountable for their corrections or deadlines, and to refuse to change;

(iv) Discriminating the administrative law enforcement organs or concealing, transferring, adapting, destroying the evidence or refusing to provide evidence to the administrative law enforcement errone;

(v) There are more than two (two) acts of misperception of administrative law enforcement with the same type of administrative law that should be held accountable for error;

(vi) Combat reprisals against complainants, reporters, investigators and associated personnel;

(vii) Other cases in which responsibility should be prosecuted.

Article 28, where administrative law enforcement erroneously responsible organs and responsibilities have one of the following cases, should be prosecuted with light and mitigation:

(i) In exceptional circumstances, the consequences and impacts are smaller;

(ii) To be able to report on wrongdoing and to take measures to effectively avoid loss or recovery;

(iii) The intentional intrusion or concealment of important evidence by the relative administration, resulting in an increase in administrative law enforcement;

(iv) Other cases where accountability can be mitigated.

Article 29 states that the responsible organs and responsibilities of administrative law enforcement are one of the following cases and are not held accountable:

(i) Excellence in administrative law enforcement due to force majeure;

(ii) Administrative law enforcement errors for reasons such as legitimate defence, emergency avoidance;

(iii) The circumstances in which administrative law enforcement is misleading, with the initiative of administrative law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials to detect and correct them in a timely manner and without causing consequences;

(iv) Other cases where administrative law enforcement was wrong.

Article 33 Administrative law enforcement agencies have been wrongly responsible for administrative law enforcement in the course of approved exploration and experimental law enforcement innovations by law. However, timely corrections should be made.

Article 31, when administrative law enforcement officials cause State liability because of the misappropriation of law enforcement, the compensatory authority shall, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the National Compensation Act of the People's Republic of China, recover the portion or all compensation costs for administrative law enforcement.

Chapter V Responsibilities and responsibilities for accountability

Article 32 errone responsibility for administrative law enforcement is determined by the executive body at all levels.

More than the people at the district level are responsible for erroneous administrative law enforcement in the respective executive and lower-level people's governments.

The executive branch of the people of the district level is responsible for responsibilities for administrative law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials, law enforcement organizations entrusted with them and their law enforcement officials.

The executive law enforcement branch, which is administered in the province, is responsible for erroneous determination of administrative law enforcement errors committed by executive law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials and lower-level administrative law enforcement authorities. More than the population at the location of the executive law enforcement agencies in vertical management can make recommendations to their superior authorities for accountability for administrative law enforcement.

The Government of the people at the district level is of the view that there is a need to deal directly with the administrative error of responsibility for the administration of the lower-level people's Government and the subordinate administrative law enforcement authorities.

Article 33 XIII is responsible for the rule of law institutions at all levels responsible for the accountability of administrative law enforcement.

Administrative law enforcement at all levels may also be established by the principal head or head of the executive body, with the participation of the relevant bodies, such as the rule of law, inspection, personnel, as well as the organization of administrative misaccountability, responsible for the specific work identified by the excessive responsibility of administrative law enforcement.

In accordance with the finding that administrative law enforcement erroneous responsibility should be given administrative treatment and that administrative law enforcement errone is responsible for the enforcement of the authority of management; administrative disposition or placement adjustments should be granted to the inspectorate or to the staff member's removal authority.

The transfer of the judiciary is criminalized by law.

Article XV of the misresponsibilities of administrative law enforcement are not held by the executive law enforcement authorities and administrative law enforcement officials who should be held accountable for the misperception of administrative law enforcement, which may be held accountable by the superior administrative law enforcement authority or are charged directly in accordance with the management authority.

In the region, the system has a greater impact on the administration of justice, which is considered to be wrongly responsible by the executive branch at the top of article 36, and can be held directly.

Chapter VI Accountability procedures

Article 37 erroneous accountability for the administration of justice in compliance with article 10, article 11 provides for a misperception of administrative law by the responsible organs and responsibilities in cases, investigations, decisions.

Article 33 Eighteen is responsible for the administration of justice for the Government of the people at the district level, with the responsibility of the rule of law institutions at the district level, and for the identification, verification of facts, evidence.

Administrative law enforcement has been responsible for the administrative law enforcement sector, which is owned by the authorities of the people at the district level, approved by the head of the sector, and for the identification, verification of facts, evidence.

Article 39 of the erroneous accountability of administrative law enforcement agencies to conduct misperceptions of administrative law enforcement in accordance with article 11 of this approach, which can be considered by written material transferred to other State organs, directly deemed responsible for administrative law enforcement. It was found that there was a lack of facts or a lack of evidence and should be reviewed by means of investigation.

Article 40, when administrative law enforcement erroneously held accountable for the investigation, the investigators were not less than two persons and presented administrative law enforcement inspection documents to the investigating authorities. In carrying out their duties, the investigators may take the following measures:

(i) To receive information on administrative law enforcement files and accounts, instruments, vouchers, etc., and, where necessary, reproduction;

(ii) Inquired with the heads of administrative law enforcement agencies, executive law enforcement officials, administrative counterparts, witnesses, etc., and in the production of a query;

(iii) Call for interpretation and clarification by administrative law enforcement agencies and administrative law enforcement officials on issues related to administrative law enforcement;

(iv) To collect evidence, including photographs, audio, videos, sampling;

(v) To entrust the relevant bodies with the identification, assessment, testing;

(vi) Removal or seizure of administrative law enforcement documents in accordance with the relevant provisions;

(vii) To compel administrative law enforcement agencies and administrative law enforcement officials to cease violations or inappropriate administrative acts.

The relevant administrative law enforcement agencies and administrative law enforcement officials should cooperate with the investigation and should not reject the provision of evidence, false testimony or concealment, diversion, alteration and destruction of evidence.

The survey should produce a notice.

It should be avoided by investigators in their relations with the administrative law enforcement authorities that investigate or are investigated.

Article 40 Review of administrative law error should be reviewed within 30 days of the date of the submission and the findings of responsibility.

The situation is complex, with the approval of the Head of the Rule of Law Authority of the current Government, the Government of the above-mentioned people has been responsible for the administration of justice, with the approval of the head of the executive branch of the Government of the Principality, which, with the approval of the head of the sector, could extend the period of review as appropriate, but the extension period should not exceed 20 days.

Article 42 provides the right of administrative law enforcement responsible organs and responsibilities to make representations and pleas. Administrative law enforcement should be fully informed by the views of the responsible organs and responsibilities and should be reviewed on the facts, evidence, grounds and reasons presented; the facts, evidence, grounds established should be adopted.

Administrative law enforcement should not be held accountable by the responsible organs, the statements of the responsible person and the defence.

Article 43 concludes with the determination of the following responsibilities, based on different circumstances, of the accountability of administrative law enforcement errants:

(i) The existence of an administrative error to be held accountable and the specific administrative responsibility to which the responsible person is responsible should be clearly defined in accordance with the circumstances and the relevant provisions of chapter III, chapter IV of this approach;

(ii) The fact that administrative law error cannot be established or that the misperformance of administrative law enforcement is in accordance with one of the conditions set out in article 29 of this approach, and should be determined not to be held accountable;

(iii) Administrative law enforcement errors are suspected of committing crimes and are transferred to the judiciary.

In the case of complex or significant administrative misperceptions, the heads of administrative law enforcement errone should collectively discuss the determination of responsibility.

Article 44 quasi-responsibility of administrative law enforcement has resulted in the production of the erroneous responsibilities of administrative law enforcement, in accordance with the finding of responsibility of the organ under article 43 of this approach. The responsibilities for administrative law enforcement should be determined by the following:

(i) Sources of cases and basic merits;

(ii) The facts, nature, circumstances and extent of social harm;

(iii) Determining whether administrative law enforcement was wrong;

(iv) Recommendations on the division of responsibility and accountability of the persons concerned;

(v) Recturing administrative law errors and eliminating the consequences.

The responsibilities for administrative law enforcement have been found to be signed by a reviewer, a reviewer, a reviewer and a re-exploitation officer, who has reported that administrative law erroneous responsibility for the prosecution of the principal head of the organ or the head of the competent authority, after the approval of the executive branch.

Administrative law enforcement erroneously held accountable to the executive branch and should be sent within 7 days of the determination of administrative law enforcement erroneous responsibility to the executive branch and to the responsible organ or the responsible person.

Article 42 determines that the results should be dealt with by administrative law enforcement, and that administrative law enforcement should be held accountable to the executive organs. The Executive Decisions shall contain the following matters:

(i) The name, unit, place of the responsible person;

(ii) Facts and evidence that administrative law enforcement is responsible for error;

(iii) Type and basis for administrative processing;

(iv) Reimbursement and timelines for administrative processing decisions;

(v) organs and dates for the administrative processing of decisions.

The Administrative Processing Decision should highlight the seals of the executive management decision organs.

The organs that make administrative decisions and those found to be wrongly responsible for administrative enforcement are the same organ, and administrative processing decisions are considered to be in conjunction with the responsibilities of administrative law enforcement.

After the administrative handling decision, the responsible organ or the responsible person shall be delivered within five days.

It is recommended that those responsible for administrative disposition or for job adjustments be granted, and that they should be declared or notified in a timely manner, after the administrative processing decision is made. Where circumstances warrant, either a declaration or notice may be made in conjunction with a decision on administrative disposition or a decision on restructuring.

Article 46 determines that the results should be treated by administrative law or adjusted for their functions, and that administrative law enforcement errone should produce proposals for administrative disposal. The Recommendations on Administrative Disposal should contain the following matters:

(i) The name, unit, place of the responsible person;

(ii) Facts and evidence that administrative law enforcement is responsible for error;

(iii) Recommendations for administrative disposition or for job adjustments;

(iv) The organs and dates of the recommendations.

The Recommendations on Administrative Disposal should highlight the seals of the proposed organs for administrative disposal.

Article 47 erroneous responsibilities for administrative law enforcement should be transferred to a competent inspectorate or a personnel exemption authority within 7 days of the determination of excessive administrative law enforcement responsibility.

Article 48, the Inspector General, the Personnel Exemptive Authority, in accordance with the administrative disciplinary recommendations made by the executive law enforcement body, conducts a case-by-case investigation and transmits the results to the administrative law enforcement body.

Article 49 errones of administrative law enforcement are not deemed to be wrongly responsible for administrative law enforcement, or if there is no administrative decision to deal, may apply for review to the competent organ of the former, within 15 days of the date of the determination of responsibility or the disposition of the decision, to be made within 15 days, and the review decision shall be made within 15 days of the non-conformation of the outcome of the review, which may be filed within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the review decision; or may not be repeated, from the date of the determination of the responsibility or from the decision of 30 days.

The decision of the superior administrative law enforcement erroneously held by the executive body that administrative law was misappropriated at the lower level could be tasked with changing or revoting the executive branch at the lower level, or, where necessary, directly making changes or cancellation decisions.

The implementation of the decision was not stopped during the review and the appeals period. The bodies that receive review and application are of the view that implementation needs to be stopped and implementation can be stopped.

Administrative law enforcement erroneous decisions of the responsible person with respect to administrative disposition are not consistent and apply for review or appeal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Service Disposal Regulations of the Administration.

Chapter VII Implementation and oversight

Article 50 of the misresponsibilities of administrative law enforcement should be inspected and inspected about the implementation of the erroneous responsibilities of administrative law enforcement, the Administrative Disposal Decisions and the Administrative Disposal Recommendations.

Article 50 has been erroneously determined that the relevant administrative law enforcement authorities and their law enforcement officials should redeploy administrative law enforcement erroneously to the accountability of the administration; refrain from redressing themselves, inform the authorities of the rule of law in the current Government or the law enforcement agencies at the senior level of the executive branch of their deadlines; delay in corrective action, with the approval of the current Government or the superior administration, the decision to remove, modify administrative law enforcement acts or to re-establish specific administrative acts, provide criticism, and give the executive heads responsible for the administration of justice.

The executive branch of article 52 should monitor the implementation of the system of accountability for administrative law enforcement at the lower level, identify and correct problems in a timely manner and ensure the implementation of the system of accountability for administrative law enforcement.

Article 53 erroneous accountability for administrative law enforcement should be reported or communicated to the relevant State organs in accordance with article 11 of this approach.

In the light of complaints, reports, media exposures, administrative law enforcement errors should be found to be responsible for administrative law enforcement and the identification and processing of results of prompt feedback to complainants, reporters or the media.

More than 54 people at the district level are between the Government and the respective executive law enforcement departments, and the Government of the above-mentioned people at the district level should establish an administrative enforcement error accountability mechanism.

Article 55 of the misresponsibility of administrative law enforcement, the personnel-execution authority, the inspectorate has one of the following cases in the administration of justice, to communicate criticism and accountability for the duration of the period; and, in serious circumstances, to grant administrative disposal to the competent and other responsible personnel directly responsible; and to transfer to the judiciary suspected of committing crimes:

(i) The intentional concealment of misperceptions of administrative law enforcement, or the discovery of misperceptions of administrative law enforcement, without prosecution;

(ii) deliberately aggravate or mitigate the responsibility of the responsible person;

(iii) The law should be transferred to the judiciary to hold criminal responsibility without being transferred.

Chapter VIII

The administration of the regions under the jurisdiction of government agencies such as the development zones, the management area was held accountable for the implementation of this approach.

Article 57 of the People's Government (communes, districts) and the various administrative law enforcement departments of the municipal government may establish administrative law errors in line with this approach.

Article 58