Chapter i  Fair Trial Standards: Scope of Application 35 (c) The right to vote and to stand for public office.100 (d) Situations where minor and non-punitive disciplinary measures are imposed on persons subordinated to a high degree of administrative control, such as civil servants, members of the armed forces, or prisoners. The following disciplinary measures should not be considered as minor and non-punitive for the purpose of attracting the applicability of fair trial guarantees: (i) Disciplinary measures involving dismissal from employment, which will normally be treated as engaging rights and obligations in a suit at law within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, or civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the ECHR.101 (ii) Disciplinary measures of a punitive nature, such as those involving a deprivation of liberty, which will be treated as measures involving a determination of a criminal charge (See also 1.1.3) under Article 14 of the ICCPR and Article 6 of the ECHR.102 1.3 Proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens Article 13 of the ICCPR “An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.” Article 1 of Protocol 7 of the ECHR “(1) An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed: “(a) to submit reasons against his expulsion, “(b) to have his case reviewed, and “(c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons designated by that authority. 100 Pierre-Bloch v France [1997] ECHR 84, paras 49, 50, 51; Yazar and Others v Turkey [2002] ECHR 408, para 66. 101 See, for example: Casanovas v France, HRC Communication 441/1990, UN Doc CCPR/C/51/D/441/1990 (1994), para 5.2; and Perterer v Austria, HRC Communication 1015/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/1015/2001 (2004), para 9.2. Contrast with Neigel v France [1997] ECHR 12. 102 See, for example, Engel and Others v the Netherlands [1976] ECHR 3, para 81 (disciplinary proceedings in the military).