15.  Also, with reference to Article (372), which stipulates that “the convict can work free of charge for a government or municipal entity for a period of time equal to the duration of his sentence. The type of work to be done by the convict is decided in addition to identifying the administrative entities that decide exactly on the work to be performed by a decision from the competent minister. The work to be performed should be completed in a matter of six hours, according to his status”. And Article No. (373), specifies that “ the convict should be treated in accordance with Article (371) and does not become absent from the location assigned to him, or does not finish the work assigned to him without an excuse that the administration deems acceptable. If this happens, then, the convict will be sent to prison for the implementation of the physical duress, where he was originally sentenced for execution. The days he already worked will be deducted from the duration. Also, physical coercion on the convict, who chose the job, rather than coercion, should be implemented if there is no chance for an alternative work”, and Article No. (374), states that “the amounts due to the State of the fine and the amounts that must be returned and the expenses will be deducted in exchange for the convict’s work as five dinars for each day”. 16. However, the NIHR believes that Article No. (337) excluded suspects at the stage of investigation or during the trial and pre-judgment from the request for replacing deprivation of freedom punishment with the phrase “for each convict”. Perhaps one of the requirements of justice is to enable the suspect to enjoy the alternative penalties that do not deprive him from his freedom as long as Article No. (337) grants the convict the right to benefit from it. 17. T  he Article mentioned above also confined replacing deprivation of freedom punishment with noncustodial measures in the case of imprisonment which does not exceed three months, which means narrowing the scope of application of alternative punishments. Meanwhile it is necessary to expand the application of alternative sanctions to include a maximum in the prison sentence, taking into account it is a punishment for a misdemeanor. Besides restricting the replacement of punishment by a request from the convict to the judge, this requires granting the judge discretionary power in the application of alternative punishment, taking into account the circumstances of the offender and the nature of the offense. 18. T  he previous article identified the types of non-custodial measures as “working” outside the prison only, which signifies the inapplicability of any other measure such as reform of the crime damage, or putting the offender on probation or judicial probation, and it was better not to specify the noncustodial measures, in an effort to expand the scope of its application in terms of the type of measure. 19. T  he decision No. (2) for the year 2013 amending Resolution No. (27) of 2008 on the amendment of Resolution No. (3) for the year 2008 set the business and administrative entities that the convict maybe employed in under an order from the judge and the controls for such employment. The Ministry of Justice Affairs and Islamic endowments put a schedule of the types of work that may be applied instead of custodial punishment as “replacing physical coercion with industrial or manual work” in some workplaces dominated by social nature, but this decision is still flawed, like Article No. (337) mentioned above. 69