period of execution. b) Order the extension of the period during which the alternative punishment is to be implemented referred to in Clause (g) of Article (2) of this Law. c) Look into the reports related to the implementation of alternative punishments. d) All the other competences provided in this Law. The decisions and orders issued by the punishment enforcement judge are immediately in effect with the possibility of appeal before the Higher Criminal Court of Appeal.” 10. The National Institution has explained in its perspective that Article (16) of the draft law has entrusted the judge concerned with application of the punishment the jurisdiction to adjudicate in all the disputes related to implementing or cancelling the alternative punishment, or render all the decisions or orders related thereto, such after hearing the statements of the public prosecution. However, the abovementioned text did not allude to or give due regard to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), which clearly which clearly and expressly emphasized the necessity for the decisions imposing the non-detention measures to be subject to reconsideration by a judicial body or a competent body based on the respect of the criminal, and the right of the criminal to submit a request or complaint to a judicial body or another judicial independent body concerning matters that impinge on her individual rights concerning the implementation of noon-detention measures. 11. Concerning Article (20) of the draft law which provides that “it is permissible for the accused to aggrieve concerning the order issued by public prosecution or the judge- as the case may be- obligating him with one of the alternative measures provided in Article (18) of this excepting compulsory arrest at a specific place, such before the Criminal Court held in the consultation chamber, and in case his grievance is rejected then he must submit a new grievance every month from the date of the rejection of the grieving, and the period of these measures shall end in all cases with the expiry of six months from the date of start of enforcement, all of which is unless the suit is referred to the competent court, whereupon it is necessary to impose one of the alternative measures or invalidate its competence to consider it.” 12. Whereas the National Institution has found that Article (20) of the draft law has enabled the accused to file grievance for the order rendered by the public prosecution or the judge- as the case be may require- obliging one of the alternative measures provided under Article (18) of the draft law, excepting house arrest at a specific location, such before the high criminal court convened in the consultation chamber, where it becomes evident that the draft law has excepted the house arrest measure at a specific place concerning which the accused is entitled to file grievance, which is in reality an unjustifiable exception, which differentiates between the same alternative measures decided under the law, where the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules) provide for granting the criminal the right to appeal before a judicial body or another independent and competent quarter, in case of implementing detention prior to trial. 13. Accordingly, the National Institution is of the view that it agrees in principle to grant the accused the right to grievance from an order issued by the public prosecution or a judge obliging him by one of the alternative measures stipulated in Article (18) of the draft law; however, it is not warranted to exclude the house arrest measure at a specific place, to file grievance before the high criminal court 28