permissible for the correctional facility to request the punishment enforcement judge to replace the original punishment with an alternative punishment or more than what is provided in Article (2) of this Law for a period equal to the remaining punishment or the totality of the punishments decided, such in case the convict meets the following conditions: 1- He served half of his sentence or the other punishments 2- He is of good conduct. 3- His release does not endanger public order. 4- That he fulfilled his financial obligations subject of a criminal court ruling, unless it is impossible for him to meet this requirement. The punishment enforcement judge shall adjudicate on the request after hearing the statements of public prosecution. Applicable to implementing alternative punishments are the provisions of the Fifth Chapter of the Fifth Book of the Code of Criminal Procedure issued by virtue of Decree-Law Number (46) of 2002.” 7. While the National Institution is of the view that Articles (10), (11), (12), (13), have granted that judge discretionary power or based on the request of the convicted person or the reform and rehabilitation institution there may be a modification of the decided punishment to an alternative punishment that is decided according to what is provided in Article (2) of the draft law, without such discretionary power being restricted by legal guarantees in case the punishment is altered, and perhaps among the most prominent of those guarantees is what is decided in Paragraph (3-2) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), 5 it must be taken into consideration- in case of altering the punishment- the nature of the crime and the extent of the risk of the criminal, the danger he represents and his background, and the requisites of protecting society and safeguarding the rights of the victim, and respecting the private life of the criminal and members of his family, in addition to the importance for the alternative punishments to be attuned to the gender of the convicted person, particularly pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers, such in accordance with the principles and rules set forth by the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules).6 8. Hence, the National Institution concurs in principle with the provisions of the articles abovementioned in granting the judge based on the facts of the suit presented before him, whether at his own initiative or based on the request or the convicted person or the reform and rehabilitation institution the right to alter the decided punishment with one alternative punishment or more according to what is provided in Article (2) of the draft law. However, it views as important for those articles to include guarantees expressly stated in the same law in case the decided punishment is replaced with an alternative punishment, in conformity with what was decided under the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules). 9.  Concerning Article (16) of the draft law which provides that “the punishment enforcement judge is competent to adjudicate all disputes related to implementing or rescinding alternative punishments, and to issue all the decisions and orders related thereto, after hearing the statements of public prosecution, and he shall in particular: a) Order the execution of the original punishment or what remains thereof or to order another alternative punishment in case of refrainment from implementing any of the alternative punishments or dereliction in implementing them during the 5 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), adopted in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution Number (45/110) dated 14 December 1990. 6 The United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules), adopted by virtue of UN Resolution Number (65/229) dated 21 December 2010. 27