• The procedures used to inquire into whether certain conduct constitutes an administrative infraction or a crime: the procedures on administrative infractions are generally the responsibility of EMBs, while criminal offences are prosecuted by the public prosecutor or an equivalent authority. • The organs with the authority to adjudicate on whether an electoral crime or infraction has been committed and to impose the appropriate sanction: in non-common law countries, administrative sanctions are generally imposed by the EMB or a civil or administrative law court; criminal penalties are however imposed by the criminal courts. 100. Despite these basic differences, regimes for administrative liability and criminal liability have some common characteristics. According to the principle of legality implicit in all punitive or sanction-imposing powers of the state (ius puniendi), there can be no crime or infraction without a punishment or sanction having been provided for in the applicable written law. In this respect, the following principles or guarantees should be applied in every case of criminal or administrative responsibility: • The definition of a criminal offence or administrative infraction and the sanction or penalty to be applied for committing it must be determined by law before the crime or infraction is committed. Retrospective legislation should not be permitted. The EMBs and judicial bodies (criminal courts, civil or administrative law courts or EDRBs) entrusted with the proceedings or trials to determine the facts and rule on them do not have the power to create new classes of administrative infraction or crime, since this falls within the exclusive power of the legislative body. • The legal provision that establishes an administrative infraction or criminal offence and the corresponding sanction or penalty should embody the principles of certainty and objectivity. This means it should be stated in writing in an abstract, general and impersonal manner, so that it is clear what conduct is regulated or prohibited and what the legal consequences of a breach are. • The provisions setting out the sanction or punishment need to be interpreted and applied strictly. The principle of legality requires that no argument by analogy should be applied, nor should the argument of ‘common sense’ be applicable. The use of such arguments would lead to uncertainty as to what conduct or omission is punishable and what is not. 101. The ‘argument of a stronger case’ would provide for example that if a 14-year-old child cannot sign a binding contract, then a 13-year-old cannot do so either. However, this kind of reasoning should be avoided in criminal and administrative law. 42