Article 2

The law, legislation and regulations hold other provisions for the accountability of major administrative decision-making offences.

Article 3. The main administrative decision-making responsibilities referred to in this approach refer to the responsibility of the major executive decisions of the local people at the district level that are not in accordance with the statutory authority, procedures, time-bound decisions, or that result in significant losses, adverse impacts, in accordance with this approach, for executive heads, other responsible leadership and associated responsibilities (hereinafter referred to as responsible).

Article IV should be held accountable for major administrative decision-making, in accordance with the principles of statute of competence, objectivity and impartiality, accountability and corrections.

Article 5 Governments of the local population at the district level and the relevant authorities should monitor the major administrative decisions of the lower-level people, in accordance with the legislative authority.

In accordance with the statutory competence, the authorities of the local people at the district level and their relevant departments or the local population's government inspectorate are responsible for investigations of serious administrative decision-making violations.

Major administrative decision-making responsibilities are governed by the law by the competent organ of exemption or by the inspectorate (hereinafter referred to as the responsible authority).

Major administrative decision-making by the local people at the district level should be followed by statutory procedures such as public participation, expert opinions, risk assessment, legitimacy review, collective discussion decisions.

Article 7 is one of the following cases in the major administrative decision-making process and should be held accountable to the responsible person:

(i) No public consultation in accordance with the provisions;

(ii) Failure to address the views of citizens, legal persons or other organizations in accordance with the provisions;

(iii) No hearings are held in accordance with the provisions;

(iv) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 8 is one of the following cases in the major administrative decision-making expert argument procedure and should be held accountable to the responsible person:

(i) No expert argument was organized in accordance with the provisions;

(ii) Resistance in the course of the arguments;

(iii) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 9 is one of the following cases in the major administrative decision-making risk assessment process and should be held accountable to the responsible person:

(i) No risk assessment as provided;

(ii) Failure to address risk assessment findings in accordance with the provisions;

(iii) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 10 is one of the following cases in the review of the legitimacy of major administrative decisions and should be held accountable to the responsible person:

(i) No review of legality in accordance with the provisions;

(ii) The determination of legality and the decision-making;

(iii) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 11. One of the following cases in the major administrative decision-making process shall be held accountable to the responsible person:

(i) No decision-making in accordance with the statutory competence, time frame and procedures;

(ii) No record of the proceedings of the decisions of the Conference, as required;

(iii) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 12

(i) No matter, basis and outcome of public and public media decision-making to society, as prescribed by the Government website or by the public;

(ii) No assessment of major administrative decision-making, as required;

(iii) Other cases provided for by law, regulations and regulations.

Article 13. In the drafting, decision-making process of major administrative decision-making matters, there is a violation of negligence, false testimony, favouring private fraud, corruption and bribery, which should be held in accordance with the law.

Article 14. Major administrative decision-making is one of the following cases: the Government of the local population at the district level and its relevant departments or local government inspectors at the district level should initiate the investigation process in accordance with the statutory authority:

(i) No significant administrative decision-making in accordance with laws, regulations and regulations;

(ii) Major administrative decision-making causes significant losses or adverse impacts;

(iii) Complaints, prosecutions and charges against major administrative decisions by citizens, legal persons or other organizations;

(iv) Other cases of accountability under laws, regulations and regulations.

The Government of the local population at the district level and its relevant departments or the local government inspection bodies at the district level should submit the findings of the investigation to the responsible authorities for the legal processing of the law.

Article 15 Laws, regulations stipulate that significant administrative decision-making responsibilities should be held throughout the lifetime, from their provisions.

Article 16 provides that the law, regulations, or the relevant provisions shall be mitigated or exempt from accountability for significant administrative decision-making.

Article 17, in accordance with this approach, provides for the accountability of the responsible person, may take criticism of the public good, apology, apprehension, absorption, dismissal, dismissal, dismissal, dismissal and accountability; and a disciplinary act, in accordance with the relevant laws, regulations, regulations, etc.; the transfer of criminal justice to the judiciary.

Article 18 Participation in major administrative decision-making experts' arguments, the intermediary organizations involved in risk assessment, experts, etc., should be responsible for the advice provided, in violation of legal regulations, professional ethics, occupational norms, and misappropriation of decision-making in participation in major administrative decision-making activities, and the accountability authority will investigate the relevant authorities, which shall be investigated and processed by the relevant authorities in accordance with the law.

Article 19 concerning accountability for major administrative decision-making responsibilities may be held in accordance with laws, regulations and regulations, such as the Civil Service Act of the People's Republic of China.

Article 20 of the main administrative decisions of the local people's government functions, the communes (communes), the people's Government, the street office or the legal, legislative or regulatory authority, should be held accountable for the accountability of the responsible person and be implemented in the light of this approach.

Article 21, this approach is implemented effective 1 November 2016.