25. T  he last Article 142 (bis) provides that: “a. The accused against whom the provisional imprisonment order is issued may appeal from the decision within twenty-four hours from the date of the decision. If it is decided to reject the appeal, the rejection shall be reasoned. b. The person whose appeal is rejected or who does not file the appeal within the prescribed limit may appeal the provisional detention order or the rejection decision before the executive judge within three days from the date of the rejection decision or the lapse of the appeal time limit set out in the preceding clause. The judge shall decide on the appeal within three days from the filing date, after perusal of the documents”. In principle, NIHR agrees with the article set out in the draft law. However, the justifications indicated by NIHR concerning Article 149 of the draft law should be taken into account. (2) House of Representatives In appreciation of the efforts of the House of Representatives with respect to human rights issues, NIHR, within the reporting period, received five requests for its insights on five draft laws. First: Draft Law Amending Articles 27 and 41 of Law No. 18 of 2014 Promulgating Reform and Rehabilitation Institution 1. N  IHR presented its advisory opinion on the draft law amending Articles 27 and 41 of the Law No. 18 of 2014 Promulgating the Reform and Rehabilitation Law. It referred to the proposal to add the following clause: “The Center management shall convene periodic meetings for preaching and religious guidance by specialists of official bodies to provide the inmates with moderate and proper religious teaching, which will better integrate them in the community after the end of their sentence period”, to Article 27, which provides as follows: “The Center management shall respect the sentiments of the inmates and the provisional detainees by granting them the right to perform their religious rituals on time, without prejudice to the security and order of the center”. In its views, NIHR indicated that the amendment of the above Article by adding a paragraph on organizing regular meetings for religious guidance and counseling in order to integrate the inmates in the community after the completion of their sentence period does not entail any violation of the fundamental rights. Therefore, it is of the opinion that the original provision of the article should be maintained. 2. W  ith respect to the addition of the following paragraph: “The visit time shall be coordinated to include attending the funeral of the deceased or the mourning ceremonies” to Article 41, which provides as follows: “The inmate or his second-degree relatives may request a special visit if there is reason to do so. The head of the center shall determine the circumstances of each case. The Director of the Institution, upon the approval of the Minister, or his deputy, may authorize the inmate visit to his family in the case of the death of one of his second-degree relatives, or in any other case determined by the management of the Institution. In all cases, the Executive Regulation shall determine the visit procedures, conditions, eligibility requirements, and duration”. 22