And conciliation entails the end of the criminal suit, and it is for the public prosecution to order to cease the implementation of the punishment in case conciliation occurs during implementation. And in case the victims are multiple as a result of one criminal act, then the conciliation shall be of no effect in terms of the end of the criminal suit unless there is concurrence by all the victims. And in case the victims are multiple involving several crimes whether related to each other indivisibly or unrelated the conciliation will be of no effect except regarding the criminal suit concerning which conciliation was in effect.” 4. While Article (21 bis1) provides that it is “permissible for the accused or his special attorney to prove conciliation in violations whose penalty is a fine, and offenses punishable by a fine or imprisonment for a period not in excess of six months. The proof of conciliation shall be with the report clerk or the public prosecution, provided that the accused pays the maximum limit of the fine decided for the punishment. And in case the criminal suit is referred to the competent court, it is permissible for the accused- in whatever condition that the suit is in- to prove conciliation prior to the rendering of a judgment, provided that he pays three-quarters of the maximum limit of the fine decided for the punishment. And the Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs shall issue a decision specifying the party to be paid, and a consequence of the conciliation is the end of the criminal suit, and the end of the criminal suit has no consequence for the civil suit.” 5. The National Institution explained in its perspectives that it is natural for some of the rules of criminal procedures to impinge on the rights and freedoms of individuals, because to the extent that the object is to protect the freedoms of individuals and assuring fair trial for them, the aim is likewise to combat crime and safeguard public security and the safety of persons and properties, which is a difficult equation requiring due justice to two forms of interests while not sacrificing one at the expense of the other. 6. Moreover, the National Institution emphasized the necessity of adherence, upon laying down procedural rules impinging on the freedoms and rights of individuals, to rules and standards that are internationally agreed upon, which do not go beyond three fundamental principles embodied in the principle of “necessity”, that is, procedural rules restricting freedom should not be formulated unless dictated by necessity, and the principle of “proportionality” through striking a balance between freedom, or the right to be impinged upon and the aim desired from laying down the procedural rule, and the principle of “legitimacy” which necessitates respecting the mandatory rules upon formulating a legal principle, and the importance of the Code of Criminal Procedures does not elude one on the other hand given that it tackles in detail, the basic principle affirmed in the Constitution, and perhaps the principles related to individual freedom or the sanctity of the home, powerfully attests to this. 7. Whereas the freedom of the individual to move and reside in the place he desires constitutes one of the foremost freedoms which the individual is keen on while simultaneously representing an indubitable interest for the individual and his community; this freedom has actually garnered interest on a global level where international conventions related to human rights have contained 19