10. At the same time those rules allow imposing non-deprivation of freedom measures when necessary, such as an obligation to appear before the court upon request, or to refrain from interfering in the administration of justice, or a commitment to a certain behavior of select controls on movement, or provide a daily or periodic report to the court, or the police or to any other authority, or accept censorship by an entity designated by the court, or through the provision of financial or in kind guarantees for attending the trial. 11. T  okyo’s rules also include a large number of non-deprivation of freedom measures that the judicial authorities may use as alternative punishments for imprisonment, while observing the offender’s need for rehabilitation, protection of society and the interests of the victim. These include oral measures such as a reprimand, warning and alarm, parole, and sanctions affecting the legal situation of the individual: such as the deprivation of the exercise of certain activities that do not fit the nature of the offense, including the denial of the convicted of fraud from pursuing a career based on trust such as law or business management. 12. B  esides penalties of an economic or financial nature that must take into account the financial condition of the individual, and order the confiscation or expropriation of funds, and restitution of money to the victim or compensating him/her, and suspending or deferring the judgment, and placing the offender under probation and judicial supervision, or making the offender work with a service of a social nature without pay, or referral to centers where the offender spends his day and is subject to treatment or make the offender gain specific skills to improve his behavior, and finally the house arrest as determined by the judge. 13. In the next phase of the ruling, the Tokyo Rules developed a large number of non-deprivation of freedom measures subsequent to the issuance of the verdict in order to avoid the placement of a convicted person in places of detention, such as the declaration of absence and the role of rehabilitation, and release in order to work or get an education, parole in its various forms, dropping the punishment, or pardon. 14. E  xtrapolating the national legislation, specifically Decree Law No. 46 of 2002 promulgating the Code of Criminal Procedure, and its amendments, it did not address the alternative sanctions as a punitive substitute for sentences of imprisonment, except as provided in Article No. (337) that says: “Anyone sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months has the right to ask the judge, rather than giving him the imprisonment sentence, to sentence him to work outside the prison in accordance with article (371) and beyond ”, and with reference to Article No. (371), which stipulates that “the convicted person may request at any time from the judge implementing the punishment before the issuance of the physical coercion to replace it by a manual or industrial labor sentence”. 68