Protest committees decide whether a rule has been broken. Before that, the breach is alleged. When we're reaching the particulars codes of rules 5, 6 and 7, RRS state alleged and actual because these codes provide for hearing procedures and deciding whether the rules of those codes have been broken, as well as provisions on sanctions. When someone reports a corruption case, it shall be heard under Reg 37 to decide whether there has been corruption. If there has been, then you have to follow Reg 37 as to the sanctions. You can't use rule 64 to take a decision on such case.

For "regular" rules, you have an alleged breach before a hearing, then when you've decided you actually have a breach, then you take a decision under the RRS.

Rule 60.5 is here to prevent a hearing under the RRS, because such case has to be dealt with under WS Regulations. For rule 69, it is similar: you're not conducting a hearing under the provisions of rule 63 but 69 (and eventually Reg 35): not the "usual" way.

Baptiste Verniest,

thank you for the accurate and descriptive answer.