(93) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; which stipulates that, for recording calls and tracing some means of communication and correspondence, the Public Prosecution must obtain a reasoned prior permission from the Lower Court judge upon reviewing all the documents of the case, for a period not exceeding thirty days, renewable for another similar period(s). 7. On the other hand, the right of the Public Prosecution to record certain calls and to trace some means of communication and correspondence must not prejudice the right of the accused to communicate with his/her attorney and consult with him/her freely and at all times privately, without the possibility of wiretapping their conversation. Article (94) of the same law stipulates that, “A Public Prosecution member shall not seize from the attorney defending the accused or the consulting expert the papers and documents delivered to them by the accused for the discharge of the mandate entrusted to them, nor the correspondence exchanged between them in the case.” 8. Based on the foregoing, the NIHR agrees in principle with the objectives and goals of the amendment of the provision of Article (127 bis) of the draft law under consideration. However, the NIHR expects to reconsider it, taking into account the legal observations (in form and in substance) included in the relevant memoranda of the Government and the Legislation and Legal Opinion Commission, without prejudice to the legal and judicial guarantee mentioned in Articles (93) and (94) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the event that the Public Prosecution records certain calls and tracks some means of communication and correspondence, as detailed above. Fifth: Draft law amending some provisions of the Penal Code promulgated by Decree-Law No. (15) of 1976 (prepared in light of the proposed law “as amended” submitted by the Shura Council) 1. The NIHR submitted its advisory opinion on the draft law amending some of the provisions of the Penal Code promulgated by Decree-Law No. (15) of 1976 (prepared based on the proposed law “as amended” submitted by the Shura Council). The draft law comprises two articles, in addition to the preamble. The first article replaces the provisions of Articles (354) and (370) of the Penal Code, which aim to tighten the penalty imposed on any person who is found in a public road or in a frequented place inciting pedestrians, by words, signs, or any other means, to indulge in vice; and on any person who publishes, by any method of publication, news, photographs, or comments pertaining to confidential matters on the private or family lives of individuals, even if such is true, should the publication thereof be damaging thereto. The second article is executive relating to the competent authorities, who implement the provisions of this law, and the date of entry into force of the provisions contained therein. 2. Whereas Article (354), as stated in the draft law, provides that, “A punishment of imprisonment for not less than three months and not exceeding six months, or a fine of not less than one hundred dinars and not exceeding five hundred dinars, shall be inflicted upon a person who is found on a public road or in a place frequented by the public inciting passers-by, by words or signs or any other means, to indulge in vice.” While Article (370) of the same draft law provides that, 25