5. Alternative penalties allow the perpetrator to stay loose and away from the detention environment which usually has a negative impact on his health, psychological and mental state, as it allows him to continue to engage in professional and family activities. Therefore, the international community sought in conjunction with the evolution of the human rights movement to find alternative measures to the deprivation of freedom penalties. 6. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules11) constitute the legal main reference for this system, as included the basic objectives of these rules, their scope, and the legal safeguards for their application, and the non-custodial measures prior to the trial, and during the trial and sentencing, and then subsequent measures to the stage of the trial, and the mechanism for their implementation and supervision. 7.  United Nations adopted a set of principles and standards that emphasize the need to use imprisonment sentences as a last resort. Among the most important of principles adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in this area were: basic principles for the treatment of prisoners, standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, rules, and principles for the protection of all persons deprived of their liberty, and the standard minimum United Nations Rules for the administration of juvenile12 justice, the United Nations rules for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty. The United Nations also approved the rules concerning the treatment of female prisoners and alternative sanctions for them13, as it organized procedures that take into account pregnant women, female minors and foreigners. 8. The international law developed types of non-custodial measures for different stages that the accused goes through, such as pretrial or during trial, or as the punishment stage after the trial and conviction, where the Tokyo Rules were not limited to recommend replacing the punishment prescribed by law after the conviction of a crime, but also calls for the replacement of the custody procedure in the investigation stage and collecting evidence by alternative procedures to the deprivation of freedom, which are required by justice and the preservation of human dignity. This is because the suspect is still in the investigation phase and has not yet reached the stage of judgment and execution of the sentence, and his offense has not been proven yet, because it is not justice to repress the freedom of the suspect like repressing the freedom of the convicted, because the first is more deserving of his freedom than the latter. 9. The practical realities impose the need to resort to measures less restrictive of the freedom of the individual, since it is not just to apply to a suspect in certain circumstances measures that rob him of his freedom pending his conviction, as the deprivation of his freedom in temporary imprisonment may be more than the sentence he will receive. So, rule number (1-5) from the Tokyo Rules relating to the phase before the trial called for the drafting of legislation that empowers the judicial police or the public prosecutor or other authority to drop the simple criminal case whenever it deems necessary to protect society or to prevent crime or to promote respect of law and the rights of victims. 11 Tokyo Rules, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures, the General Assembly adopted resolution 45/110 of 14 December / 1990. 12  eijing Rules, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, the General Assembly adopted B resolution 40/33 of November 29/1985. 13 Bangkok Rules, the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures, adopted Resolution No. 229/65 dated March 16, 2011. 67