CCPR/C/112/D/1989/2010 6.4 As to the author’s claims under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant that he was found guilty of having committed an administrative offence and fined in the absence of a representative, and that his request to question a particular witness was dismissed by the court, the Committee recalls that the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal is guaranteed in cases regarding the determination of criminal charges against individuals or of their rights and obligations in a suit at law. It further recalls that criminal charges relate in principle to acts declared to be punishable under domestic criminal law. The notion, however, may also extend to acts that are criminal in nature with sanctions that, regardless of their qualification in domestic law, must be regarded as penal because of their purpose, character or severity. In that respect, the Committee notes that the concept of a “criminal charge” bears an autonomous meaning, independent of the categorizations employed by the national legal system of States parties, and has to be understood within the meaning of the Covenant. Leaving States parties the discretion to transfer the decision over a criminal offence, including the imposition of punishment, to the administrative authorities and thus avoid the application of the fair trial guarantees under article 14, might lead to results incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant.7 6.5 The issue before the Committee is, therefore, whether article 14 of the Covenant is applicable in the present communication, that is, whether the sanctions in the author’s case related to his participation in the unsanctioned mass event on 25 March 2008 concerned “any criminal charge” within the meaning of the Covenant. As to the conditions of “purpose and character” of the sanctions, the Committee notes that, although administrative according to the law of the State party, the sanctions imposed on the author under article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences had the aim of repressing, through penalties, the offences alleged against him and of serving as a deterrent to others – objectives analogous to the general goal of the criminal law. In that regard, the Committee notes that article 23.34 of the Code includes as a sanction “administrative arrest” (i.e. detention). It further notes that the rules of law infringed by the author are directed, not towards a given group possessing a special status – in the manner, for example, of disciplinary law – but towards everyone in his or her capacity as individuals participating in unsanctioned mass events. They prescribe conduct of a certain kind and make the resultant requirement subject to a sanction that is punitive. Therefore, the general character of the rules and the purpose of the penalty, being both deterrent and punitive, suffice to show that the offence in question was, in terms of article 14 of the Covenant, criminal in nature.8 6.6 Consequently, the Committee concludes that the proceedings finding the author guilty of an administrative offence on account of his participation in the unsanctioned mass event on 25 March 2008, fall within the ambit of “the determination” of a “criminal charge” under article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant.9 6.7 As to the author’s claim that, during the administrative proceedings before the Zavodskoy District Court he was not provided with a representative, in spite of his request, the Committee observes that the trial court examined his request for a representation, but concluded that, under article 4.3 of the Procedural-Executive Code of Administrative Offences, the author did not belong to one of the categories of persons whose interests were to be represented by a “lawful representative” and notes that he had not requested the participation of his representative in line with the procedure set out in article 4.5 of the Code. Accordingly, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, the 7 8 9 6 See for example communication No. 1311/2004, Osiyuk v. Belarus, Views adopted on 30 July 2009, para. 7.3. Ibid., para. 7.4. Ibid., para. 7.5.