in addition to the Preamble (24) articles, which in general included the regulation of alternative punishments and measures, where its perspectives on the provisions of the draft law were confined to the areas which it deems directly impinge on human rights and basic freedoms, such in articles (8), (10), (11), (12), (13), (16), (20), while taking into consideration the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant international human rights instruments and conventions. 2. Article (8) of the draft law states “The attendance of rehabilitation and training programs shall be by obliging the convicted to attend one or more of the rehabilitation and training programs in the medical or psychological or social or educational or professional or industrial fields to rectify his conduct. And a decision shall be issued by the minister concerned with the affairs of justice in coordination with the Ministry of Interior to specify the programs of rehabilitation and training and the procedures for implementation.” 3. Accordingly, it is the view of the National Institution that Article (8) of the draft law has explained what is intended by the alternative punishment in Article (2) Paragraph (f) of the same drat law, and entwined the elaboration of rehabilitation and training programs and the procedures for implementing them with the issuance of a decision from the minister concerned with affairs of justice in coordination with the Ministry of Interior. However, before this takes place it is necessary to emphasize the imperative of underlining in the stipulation that the rehabilitation or training does not entail performing medical or mental experiments on the convicted person or exposing him to gross physical or mental risks. 4. Hence, it concurs in principle on the text of Article (8) stated in the draft law, and favors adding a provision to the same article indicating the necessity for rehabilitation or training of the convicted person not to involve conducting medical or mental experiments on the convicted person or exposing him to physical or mental risks. 5. Article (10) of the same draft law provides that “the judge upon sentencing for a period not in excess of one year may replace it with an alternative punishment or more than what is provided in Article (2) of this Law,” and Article (11) thereof provides that “the judge may upon sentencing the accused to imprisonment for a period not more than one year and not in excess of five years or to imprisonment for a period not in excess of five years in case it is evident that the personal or health conditions of the accused are not suitable for implementing the prison sentence in accordance with the reports requested by him, or which are submitted to him, and to replace it after setting the prison term or house arrest at a specific place solely or accompanied by any other alternative punishment other than what is provided in Article (2) of this Law.” 6.  rticle (12) of the draft law provides that “every person sentenced to imprisonment for a period not in A excess of one year or physical coercion shall request the judge of enforcement of punishment instead of enforcing the imprisonment or physical coercion to replace it with an alternative punishment or more than what is provided in Article (2) of this Law, and the punishment enforcement judge shall adjudicate after hearing the statements of the public prosecution,” and Article (13) states that “it is 26