3. The National Institution values in principle the bases and principles upon which is based the proposed law at issue, represented- as stated in the explanatory memorandum- that in view of an increase in crimes and actions which aim to destroy state institutions and violate private property thereby beclouding the tranquility of society and destabilizing it, including crimes which constitute an infringement of personal freedom within private dwellings and the safety and privacy of public and vital buildings and installations, which is what was emphasized in Article (25) of the Constitution which provides that: “Dwellings are inviolate. They cannot be entered or searched without the permission of their occupants’ exception in cases of maximum necessity as laid down and in the manner provided by law.” 4. Moreover, given that these crimes have come to assume modern forms using advanced machinery and arms, which necessitates confronting and deterring them, and for the scope of criminalization to be widened to involve suitable punishment given the ominous modern methods used in those crimes. 5. Accordingly, it is the view of the National Institution that the policy adopted in the proposed law to intensify the punishment prescribed for certain crimes or the criminalization of other actions, emerged for aims and objectives represented in achieving a stage of security and social stability and to also achieve deterrence of the commission of this type of crimes, in addition to helping to diminish them given their criminal peril to the individual, society and the state, which may not be considered greater strictness which impinges on the basic rights and freedoms enjoyed by people, and, moreover, the amendments in the proposed law- in general- do not represent a violation of human rights according to the relevant international human rights instruments. 6. The National Institution views with favor for the honorable committee to reconsider the term monitoring (Muraqabah) given that it is a broad and nebulous term which entails numerous legitimate actions which may be interpreted and considered as monitoring that is punishable according to what is stated in the proposal, which is something incompatible with the principles of legal formulation of criminal rules in this regard, given that the law in certain situations has made it mandatory for individuals to undertake the act of monitoring (Muraqabah) in order to safeguard and protect the state and society, which leads to a conflict between the legal rules concurrently, particularly what was decided in Article (9) of the Constitution which provides that: “Public funds are inviolate, and it is the duty of every citizen to protect them”, given that monitoring public property and wealth is a constitutional duty which principally aims to protect them, and hence it is unacceptable to consider such monitoring as among the illegitimate acts which are legally criminalized. 7. On the other hand, the National Institution views with favor, and in line with the principles and standards of legal formulation of criminal rules, for the quarters intended expressly by the proposal in the end of Article (361) instead of referring to them in Paragraphs (1), (5), (6) of Article (107) of the same law, such in order to prevent the possibility of (open-ended) interpretation. 31