HOUSE ARREST AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO PRISON SENTENCE IN MODERN GEORGIAN LAW: (Evolution and Transformation)

Abstract

This article is about house arrest, one of the types of non-custodial punishment in modern Georgian law, where the legal problems of using this benefit, provided by the law, are discussed, which is based on a deep analysis of practice and research of a number of scientific works. The importance of the topic was determined by the unfavorable state of the domestic legislation, the existence of a non-homogenous practice on the part of the court in relation to the “revision” of the decisions made by the local councils of the special penitentiary service, the incalculability of statistical data, as well as the great practical importance of the said topic in the process of both law-making and law enforcement, due to the paucity of modern Georgian legal literature regarding this concept. The aim of this article is to clarify the legal nature and the extent of house arrest, not only on the example of Georgia, but also on the example of some foreign countries, which will make the process of scientific research of the legal problems, of replacing the remaining sentence with house arrest, even more interesting and diverse. In addition, the article also aims to analyze the errors made in the applied practice and to develop scientifically based recommendations to eliminate the gaps in the rules regulating house arrest. The results of the theoretical/empirical research allow legal analysis to be made on the introduction/establishment of non-custodial punishment, which was previously unfamiliar to our country; to what extent the aforementioned legislative innovation was justified and what can be done for its further refinement/perfection, which is ultimately aimed to prohibit the usage of non-homogenous practice, regarding the use of the mentioned legal mechanism, on the part of both the decision-making body and the court. Historical, formal-logical, dogmatic, formal-legal, comparative-legal, descriptive and systematic methods were used to study the problem, posed in a separate chapter of the article. Furthermore, the data of legal statistics was used to study and generalize the practice of local councils, as well as the court, and the final part is devoted to the conclusive decrees obtained as a result of the study and scientific processing of the raised issues.

Keywords: house arrest, evaluation criteria (evaluative marks), prison sentence, practice of local councils of special penitentiary service and justice implementing body

Introduction

In modern Georgian law, day by day, special attention is paid to the humanization of both criminal law and penal law legislation, since the strictness of the law did not turn out to be a solution to the situation created in practice. The democratic processes implemented in recent years, as well as the liberalization of the criminal justice policy, have shown the role of non-custodial punishments in their own way. The institution of house arrest can be considered as one of the outstanding expressions of liberalization of non-custodial sentences, not only in the case of crimes committed by adult convicts, but also in relation to minors. This is mainly due to the fact that house arrest is both a real and effective alternative to imprisonment, which is not related to the complete isolation of the convict from society and is the best means of limiting the use of imprisonment, as well as resocialization of the convicts - rehabilitation. With this, as we can see, the state is already using the so-called “post-criminal encouraging” norms, one of which is the legal basis for the appointment and enforcement of house arrest and others.

From the introduction of this type of punishment in Georgia, which on its own doesn’t have a long history, a considerable period has passed, some scientific analysis regarding the effective functioning of the given legal institution has changed. Therefore, the discussion of the topic, with its evaluations and recommendations, I think is quite important, especially in the background, when it remains an object of constant public observation again and again.

The topicality of the topic was determined by the unfavorable state of domestic legislation, the existence of a non-uniform practice on the part of the court in relation to the “revision” of the decisions made by the local councils of the special penitentiary service, the lack of statistical data regarding the return to the penitentiary institution of those persons who were released and replaced by the local councils of the special penitentiary service. The unpaid part of the sentence is house arrest, as well as those persons for whom the court determined house arrest as the main punishment, but despite this, they did not fulfill their duties or committed crimes again, as well as the great practical importance of the named topic, both in terms of law-making and In the process of law enforcement, in addition, the scarcity of modern Georgian legal literature regarding this concept.

The article aims to clarify the legal nature and extent of house arrest, not only on the example of Georgia, but also on the example of some foreign countries, which will make the process of scientific research of the legal problems of replacing the remaining sentence with house arrest even more interesting and diverse. To develop scientifically based recommendations to eliminate the gaps in regulatory norms. The hypothesis of the research topic is to determine how effective the form of punishment is and what causes the legal problems of its use.

To achieve the goal of the research, it is formulated task: to study the opinions of scientists and to achieve the goal of the research by answering questions about problematic topics, at the same time, to examine the experience of foreign countries and make recommendations in terms of adjusting/improving the current legislation.

The subject of the research is the opinions in the legal, sociological and philosophical literature regarding the issue of the appointment of house arrest, as well as the relevant positions on the identification of the causes of the problems arising during its use, the types and forms of their manifestation, and the object of the research is the legal problems identified during the use of house arrest. When talking about the scientific novelty of the topic, the following should be emphasized:

• This article is the first attempt at a complex study of the research topic and represents the first monographic study;


• The article will formulate a position on the following issue: whether the local council should be limited to give priority to only one main criterion when making a decision on replacing the unpaid part of the sentence with a lighter one;


• From the point of view of law enforcement and rule-making, the article will substantiate the position of how reasonable it is to regulate the standard of justification of the decision on the change of the regime of execution of house arrest by a by-law;


• The article will analyze the point of view as to how appropriate it is to add an assessment mark to the criteria established by Article 13 of the rule approved by the order of the Minister of Justice of Georgia on August 7, 2018, N320 - failure to make a summary decision on another criminal case;


• The article will evaluate the legal problems of criminal procedure, for example, when appointing the mechanism of release, the court takes into account the issue of achieving the goals of punishment, how far it is possible to fulfill the assigned duties - in the part of the protection of the defined regime;


• It will be discussed what can be considered special circumstances;


• Section 8 of Article 43 of the Prison Code will be explained in terms of consideration of petitions, etc. Sh.

1. The essence and meaning of house arrest

At the initial stage of the complex reduction of house arrest, it is important to investigate what this type of punishment is and how it is explained both in Georgian legal dogmatics and in the applicable legislative norms.

To discuss the essence of house arrest in the Georgian legal framework, we should refer to both the Criminal Law Code and the Juvenile Justice Code and the Order No. 146 of December 28, 2017, of the Minister of Corrections and Probation of Georgia “On Approving the Rules for the Execution of House Arrest”, since the mentioned legal acts explain its nature. According to Article 47^[1]1 of the Criminal Code, house arrest means imposing the obligation on the convicted person to stay at his place of residence for a certain period of time. Article 69 of the Juvenile Justice Code, similar to Article 47¹ of the Criminal Code, establishes the appropriate definition of house arrest, the effect of which in this case applies to minors, which does not mean that a minor under house arrest must be placed at home for 24 hours Based on this, we can conclude that Article 69 of the Code of Juvenile Justice and the Criminal Code have a unified definition of house arrest. Regarding the penitentiary system, the first part of Article 4 of the rule approved by the Order No. 146 of the Minister of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia on December 28, 2017, defines the regime of execution of house arrest in the same way as Article 47¹ of the Criminal Code, house arrest. This minister’s order confuses the essence of house arrest and the mode of execution as if there is not even an iota of difference between them. I think that the first part of Article 4 of the rule approved by the Order No. 146 of December 28, 2017, of the Minister of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia should be formulated so as not to confuse the concepts of these two concepts. It should be emphasized that the majority of the mentioned articles are devoted to the conditions necessary for the use of house arrest, and the feeling remains that part of the definition is not spelled out precisely. I believe that house arrest should be interpreted as a form of non-custodial punishment, which implies the obligation to stay continuously at the place of residence of the convicted person/minor during the corresponding period of the day and night established by the legal act, which is carried out with the use of electronic supervision or without the use of electronic supervision in the event that technically it is impossible to execute the sentence using the means of electronic supervision. Perhaps, the given definition is not perfect, but the only attempt is to present the nature of house arrest in a complex way, which will help those interested in the given topic to further refine the concept of this punishment.

In the Georgian legal literature, the only opinion regarding the essence of house arrest is found in the thesis of Professor Venedi Benidze, who believes that house arrest is a restriction of freedom for a specified period, by prohibiting leaving the house and imposing other restrictions established by law (prohibition of telephone conversations, receiving and sending correspondence, imposing police supervision and etc.) which is applied to the accused and the sentence by order of the judge, for the purpose of their temporary isolation from society.^[2] I think, in this case, the above-mentioned definition is more suitable for such a definition of house arrest, which represents it only as a preventive measure.

Perhaps, time will pass and in Georgian legal dogmatics, there will be a discussion about how correctly and perfectly the definition of house arrest as a non-custodial punishment is defined in the current legislative acts, and appropriate changes will be made to refine the regulatory legal framework.

Among preventive measures, after imprisonment, house arrest is one of the strictest types due to the form of its commitment, in a way we can even say that it is related to imprisonment by its nature, although it is actually used as an alternative to imprisonment, which facilitates its execution without isolation from society, in addition, from the economic standpoint, it is a very favorable way for the state, because the state does not have to pay the corresponding costs for the provision of convicts in penitentiary institutions. It is even cheaper for the state to enforce this particular type of punishment. Also, we should not ignore the situation of violators of the rule of house arrest, in which case it may happen that a person’s house arrest may be replaced by another legal measure based on the judge’s decision, which includes stricter measures, such as imprisonment as a measure of punishment. Therefore, the execution of house arrest is adjusted to the interests of the convict, the state and the law, on the one hand, to promote the resocialization - rehabilitation of the person, and on the other hand, to prevent new illegal and guilty actions, which is ultimately aimed at protecting the legal rights and freedoms of citizens. Based on this, we can conclude that the use of house arrest is very important and it is a very effective form of punishment.

1. Types of house arrest and its execution mechanism

“There are three types of house arrest. The most severe - the closest to imprisonment - is house arrest, which obliges the offender to remain at home at all times. Allowed exceptions are visiting a medical facility or participating in a religious ceremony. Home detention is less strict - a person can only leave the house to go to work, to an educational institution or to go to the doctor. The most liberal form is curfew, when the prisoner is obliged to stay at home for certain hours, which is determined by the court’s decision. It mainly concerns the night hours”. “House arrest can be accompanied by electronic control”.^[3] According to the same rules, house arrest cannot be used incorrectly and inappropriately. There must be a reason for using such an alternative and the personality of the offender must be taken into account.^[4]

As already mentioned, house arrest is carried out with the use of electronic supervision or without the use of electronic supervision in the event that it is technically impossible to execute the sentence with the use of electronic supervision.

In the homeland of Electronic Monitored Home Confinement, in the United States of America, three different types of home confinement are used:

• Curfew - obliges a person to stay away from home at night and on weekends. This type of house arrest is a relatively mild form of punishment.


• “Home Detention” is a more severe form of punishment compared to the first type of house arrest, which obliges the person to stay at home all the time and gives the right to leave the place of residence only for specified purposes.


• “Home incarceration” is the strictest form of house arrest, which implies the absolute prohibition of leaving the house and receiving visitors.^[5]

The legislation in force in Georgia does not recognize such a division. Accordingly, the obligations imposed during the execution of house arrest are radically different from the types of obligations existing in the United States of America. Here, the regime of execution of house arrest (hereinafter - the regime) refers to the obligation to stay continuously at the place of residence of the convicted person during the corresponding period of the day and night established by the legal act.^[6]

As for the enforcement of house arrest without the use of electronic means of supervision, it is related to personal supervision. The person is checked at this time through irregular telephone conversations or personal visits. In the modern period, house arrest carried out with such irregular personal contact is replaced in most cases by house arrest carried out with electronic supervision.^[7] Taking into account the specifics of the place of execution of house arrest in Georgia, if it is technically impossible to execute the sentence using the means of electronic supervision, supervision is carried out through periodic control visits of the probation officer. This means making at least six unannounced visits to the convicted person at the place of execution of the sentence during the hours of house arrest.^[8]

The many different uses of electronic surveillance around the world can generally be divided into two groups: Frontdoor Systems and Backdoor Systems. The alternative to prison prevents a person from serving a prison sentence entirely. Electronic monitoring is used instead of pretrial detention or short-term imprisonment. The “Backdoor System” is used for parole after serving a partial prison sentence.^[9]

1. A brief historical perspective of the origin and development of house arrest

We find the use of house arrest as a form of punishment in the Middle Ages, naturally, it was a very innovative step in that era, although it should be noted that its subject was a quite successful scientist at that time - Galileo Galilei, therefore its use and relief probably happened rarely and it was not widely used, although the origin of the form of punishment was recorded as the first proven fact in 1632 in Rome, Italy.^[10] Galileo’s work was a significant departure from Aristotle’s thinking. His conflict with the Catholic Church is also seen as an important early example of conflict with authority and freedom of thought, especially in the field of science, in Western society, exemplified by the fact that Galileo was forced to confess his “mistakes” in a 1616 decree under the threat of torture. Galileo agreed and was brought to court. On June 21, 1633, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and forced to renounce his ideas. After doing so, the sentence was commuted to house arrest. He was imprisoned from 1633 to 1638 and during this period he was able to publish a few more works because he could receive visits from some of his colleagues.^[11]

The mass use of house arrest in the last decades of the 20^th century was connected to the development of technology and, accordingly, the possibility of electronic surveillance. Experiments on electronic human surveillance have been taking place since 1964 at Harvard University. The first sentence of electronically controlled house arrest was also handed down in the United States in 1983, when Jack Love, a judge in the Albuquerque, New Mexico City Court, convinced a computer technology dealer to develop a system for five convicts to be electronically monitored. Initially, the system was only used in the home, as it required fixed telephone lines. Later, in the 1990s, mobile devices and Internet connectivity made it possible for surveillance to be carried out not only at home, but anywhere the convict moved.^[12] After that, the said punishment spread so quickly that by 1988 there were 2,300 convicts under house arrest across 32 American states,^[13] and ten years later, by January 1998, there were already 95,000 electronically controlled house prisoners in the states.^[14] In other countries, namely Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden and the Netherlands, the number of convicts sentenced to house arrest each year was relatively unpredictable.^[15] As for Europe, this type of punishment, unlike the United States of America, took hold later. Electronically monitored house arrest for minors was introduced in Great Britain in 1989.^[16]

No matter how surprising, house arrest was first used in Russia in 1795 against Count Bestuzhev-Ryumin.^[17] According to P. I. Lyublinski, this coercive measure was used as early as 1632 in Shein’s case against Belosevski himself.^[18] House arrest as a form of punishment was also provided for in the 1923 Criminal Law Code of the Soviet Union. In the indicated period and context, house arrest was used for political and criminal offenders, although the place of execution of this punishment was not defined, which made it an instrument of political punishment.^[19]

Naturally, the international law system has always influenced Georgian law, therefore, it took several decades for Georgian law and the state in general to receive the successful institutions of the American and European model of juvenile justice, including house arrest as a lighter form of punishment in the Georgian legal space. The institution of house arrest in Georgia has been operational since September 1, 2015. This type of punishment was used only for juvenile convicts, in the cases provided for by the Juvenile Justice Code and according to the established procedure. From January 1, 2018, house arrest was implemented in the Criminal Law Code of Georgia, as well as for adults. Despite the fact that the use of this type of punishment does not have a long history, there are still some legal problems both from the point of view of law-making and law enforcement.

Georgian legislation offers different terms of house arrest for adult convicts and minors, in the case of an adult, a person without a conviction may be sentenced to house arrest for a period of six months to two years,^[20] and for a minor, six months to 1 year, as regulated by Article 69, Part 2 of the Code of Juvenile Justice. It is obvious that there is no difference between the lower limit of punishment for both minors and adults, and the upper limit is not identical, and this indicates disproportionality. Lowering the threshold has long been suspected of being disproportionately large.

It is especially important to develop an appropriate legal norm, which will establish that the competent authority for determining the hours of house arrest for a minor can be both the court and the local council when replacing the remaining sentence with a lighter one.

It is also acceptable to take into account the fact that until now there is no such legal record in the current legislation that would regulate the basic rules and conditions for determining the regime of house arrest, which would take into account the individual report of the person and various types of circumstances, which would present the main bases of the decision-making body, which became the main argument for defining a specific time period.

The legal mechanisms in the penitentiary system, by which the unpaid part of the sentence of the convicted person is replaced by a lighter type of punishment - house arrest, should not remain beyond the evaluation. In this case, the local councils of the Special Penitentiary Service represent the reviewing body, the number and territorial distribution of which is determined by Order No. 320 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia.^[21] The local councils are guided by Article 73 of the Criminal Code of Georgia, Articles 40, 41 and 43 of the Prison Code, as well as “The local councils of the special penitentiary service, a state sub-departmental institution included in the system of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia On approval of the procedure for consideration and decision-making of the issue of early release” according to the procedure approved by the order No. 320 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia dated August 7, 2018. Of these acts, the Criminal Law Code of Georgia and the Prison Code regulate the specifics of replacing the unpaid part of the sentence with a lighter one only in general, the important details of the matter, such as the evaluation criteria and the measure of justification, are determined by the above-mentioned order.

When familiarizing with the order, it is logical that the question arises as to how perfect the defined evaluation marks are or whether some criterion needs to be added, which will further strengthen the justification of the local council’s decision. In this case, I consider it expedient to write as the 6^th criterion such an evaluation mark as failure to make a summary decision in another criminal case. Here, the mentioned criterion can be a kind of help to the local councils, when the negative context is created only by the nature of the crime, and this will further strengthen the argumentation of making a negative decision, especially when the already convicted person has appealed the decision of the council in court and there is a dispute regarding the invalidity of the act, which is often the case. A case when the justice enforcement body fully satisfies the claimant’s claim and after the release the person returns to the penitentiary either because of a guilty verdict or because he committed a new crime. Here, someone might have the idea that the presumption of innocence is violated in a way, although I cannot agree, from whom a specific decision was taken at a specific stage of the review, and in the resolution part, a corresponding reference is made by the decision-making body, that for that stage, it is meant the stage of consideration of the benefits provided by the law. The criteria of the context are outweighed by the negative, which does not imply that such justification may be present at other times, it may be evaluated positively by the Council in the sense that at a specific stage the goal of the punishment is not achieved and the society outside the institution is not endangered. On the one hand, it is undesirable for this to happen, and if it turns out that the beneficiary placed in the institution is justified, he can already apply to the council for the distribution of the specified benefit, here, in this case, the local council will make an appropriate decision based on the new circumstances, weighing public and private interests and their confrontation.

“Based on the procedure for consideration and decision-making of the issue of conditional release from serving the sentence by the local councils of the state sub-departmental institution - Special Penitentiary Service, included in the system of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia” according to the order of the Minister of Justice of Georgia dated August 7, 2018 No. 320^[22] Applied punishment - encouraging facts, which testify to the behavior of the convict in the penitentiary institution, how much he complies with the regime requirements, whether he complies with the rules defined by the institution’s statute, etc. Sh. As one of the substantiating circumstances of the decision by the reviewing body, it is recommended to make a relevant legislative change in such a way that it is recorded that it is not necessary for a disciplinary punishment to be valid, since this is a general characteristic of the convicted person’s personality and thus it is assessed what kind of relationship he has with the rules of behavior established in the penitentiary institution. In paragraph 21 of the petitions submitted to the local council, there were many times the relevant data on imposing multiple disciplinary penalties and leaving them outside the evaluation of their dynamics will only result in not taking into account the actions of the beneficiary when making a decision, which is incorrect. In such a case, we come again and again to the discussion with the goals of the punishment, that if the convict shows antisocial behavior tendencies again at a certain stage in the penitentiary institution, there is a probability that the same will be revealed in the case of release. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the invalid disciplinary punishment of the convicted person in conjunction with other factors, with the appropriate evaluation marks, after which the council will make the appropriate decision.

Local Council, as an administrative body, is obligated to make a decision based on the discretionary authority, taking into account public and private interests. “The discretionary authority of an administrative body is seen when, in the case of establishing the conformity of the actual composition of the law and the fact, it has the opportunity to choose the appropriate legal result”,^[23] where the interests of each party in a specific case should be evaluated, contrasted with the other interest and checked.^[24] Here, the question may arise as to how authorized the local council is to rely on only one criterion when considering the issue of replacing the remaining sentence with house arrest. According to Article 2 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, Section 1, Subsection L,^[25] the discretionary authority gives the administrative body or official the freedom to choose the most acceptable decision from several decisions in accordance with the law based on the protection of public and private interests. Taking into account the mentioned norm, we can conclude that the local council is not limited to give priority to only one main criterion, for example, the nature of the crime, when deciding on the matter of replacing the unpaid part of the sentence with a lighter one, here the council is authorized to assess how appropriate it is to replace the remaining sentence with house arrest. This should be dictated by the inner conviction of the members of the Council and should be based only on a qualified assessment of the objective and subjective circumstances of the disputed issue. Based on this, only one criterion may become the basis for making a negative or at least a positive decision.

It is important to pay attention to the part of the Public Defender's 2022 report^[26] that deals with the procedure for conducting oral hearings, whereby the Public Defender recommends making changes to the Prison Code and defining mandatory criteria for conducting oral hearings by the local council. I think that the legislative initiative to amend the prison code is inappropriate, since it violates the discretionary powers of the council. In addition, all mandatory criteria are expected to be of a general nature, which are taken into account based on unwritten norms, in addition, there are cases when the petition and case materials presented to the Council do not necessarily require additional questions. Accordingly, the writing of mandatory criteria will lead to the consideration of an unreasonably large volume of cases at the oral hearing, which creates the risk of violating the legislative deadline, as well as deprives the party of the opportunity to enjoy timely and quality justice. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the fact that the activities of local council members are unpaid, they are employed in different institutions, if the human resources of the local council apparatus will increase, at the same time, the council members will be fairly compensated, then it is possible to start discussing the process of implementing the given legislative change, although Based on today's data and existing circumstances, it is impossible to implement an appropriate response at this stage.

In today’s situation, if we look at the contents of Article 43, Part 8 of the Prison Code,^[27] it creates some ambiguity in terms of consideration of replacing it with a lighter punishment. In the mentioned norm, it is not explicitly stated that if the convicted person’s petition to change the remaining sentence to house arrest was rejected, he has the right to apply to the local council to change the remaining sentence to community service. The discussion on this norm can be taken in two directions: in the first case, we should equip the convict with the right of appeal in the sense that the petition of the beneficiary will be considered for community service despite the fact that 6 months have not passed since the refusal to change the remaining sentence to house arrest, and we should cite as an argument the fact that he They did not reject the request for commuting to community service, the fact that they did not replace the remaining part with house arrest does not mean that the local council will discuss commuting with community service at the next session. The second reasoning should be developed in such a way as to limit the right to review from the point of view that since both types of punishment are of a lighter type, it is mandatory to pass the term established by the prison code against the background that the norm itself offers a general record in relation to the given topic. If we carefully observe the content of the above-mentioned article, we will understand that the entry in the legal norm – “on the same charge” refers to all types of lighter punishment in general, and not to a specific one, therefore, we can conclude that if the convicted person refused to change to work useful for society, it is mandatory to go out six months after refusal to consider a motion to commute the remaining sentence to house arrest. The same reasoning was developed in the decision of the Administrative Affairs Board of the Tbilisi City Court of April 29, 2022, where the court shares the position of the defendant (local council) and notes that the legislator considers it possible to discuss the motion submitted to replace the unpaid part of the sentence with two different punishments of a lighter type by observing the 6-month period, When submitting the mentioned deadline in an exceptional manner or at the same time.^[28]

Acceptability is also taken into account as to what is meant by the entry specified in Section 8 of Article 43 of the Prison Code – “special circumstance”.^[29] Not a single legal act, like the Prison Code, contains a list of special circumstances or any kind of definition that would allow the council to consider the convict’s petition to change the remaining sentence to house arrest in violation of the deadline set by the legislation. It is recommended, from this point of view, to make appropriate changes in the Prison Code and to give an explanation to the “dead record” of the given norm, which will contribute to the development of practice in this direction. As one of the special circumstances, we can consider the case when the justice-executive body obliges the local council to issue a new individual administrative-legal act in connection with the motion to replace the remaining sentence with house arrest. From here on there shouldn’t be the waiting process, as to when the six-month period, established be the legislation, will pass after the refusal of house arrest. I think, that the above discussion will help the person interested in this topic to further develop the process of scientific research and expand the list of special circumstances.

It is also necessary to analyze whether it is possible for the local council at the request of the convict to simultaneously consider the petitions regarding the replacement of the unpaid part of the sentence with both types of light punishment. If we think about it, we will see that the convicted person petitions the council for the application of a specific type of light punishment, and the administrative body makes the decision within the framework of the submitted request. It is significant that the legislator does not limit the author of the petition to submit a request/petition regarding the use of only one type of punishment, which gives the Council the opportunity to discuss and make one or two different decisions if both petitions are submitted at the same time. Based on this, we conclude that it is quite possible to consider the issue of replacing the remaining sentence with community service and house arrest for one convicted person in one session.

That house arrest is an effective and real alternative to imprisonment in Georgia is evidenced by the above-mentioned provisions, as well as the statistical data that confirm the number of decisions taken by local councils to replace the remaining sentence with house arrest, as well as the number of appeals to the specified authority. In particular, during the 12 months of 2022, 2,580 petitions regarding the replacement of the unpaid part of the sentence with a lighter punishment - house arrest were considered. 270 convicts had the unpaid part of the sentence replaced by house arrest (7 women and 263 men, including 0 - minor men, 0 - minor women). 2310 convicts were not satisfied with the petition to replace the unpaid part of the sentence with house arrest.^[30] The only thing that emerged during the research process was the fact that until this stage neither the court nor the local councils produce such statistics, which would show the person interested in the issue the number of persons returned to the penitentiary institution in terms of gender and age, indicating the grounds of conviction. Based on this, it is necessary to develop such an accounting rule, which represents the mentioned concepts together, with one standard, in a broken form. The main goal is to assess how effective the form of punishment is and whether its use has harmed public and private interests, even in terms of not achieving the goals of the punishment.

Observing the practice of the local council, the need to issue an order of the Minister of Justice, which determines the procedure for making a decision on the change in the regime of execution of house arrest, was also highlighted. This will simplify the decision-making process for the decision-making body, as well as determine the rationale for the decision. It is necessary to write in the order the guiding standards - criteria for the change in the regime of execution of house arrest, as one evaluation sign we may consider the existence of an agreement signed between the released person and the employer, which states that the specified time objectively prevents the person from performing his work perfectly due to the specifics of the work, also the following criterion may be the person The degree of health condition, which proves the need to make a change in the decision made by the local council, because the beneficiary should be fully provided with the necessary assistance from the medical staff, etc. Sh. As much as possible, the time determined by the council should help the released person to rehabilitate in the society, however, such cases should not be overlooked, where it is necessary to define a relatively strict regime where both private and public interests should be balanced again and again, this applies to such cases when the court from the side, the local council was instructed to issue a new act on the release of the convict, the factual circumstances contained in the petition creating the necessity to establish the mentioned regime. This especially applies to cases when the position of the local council and the justice enforcement body is radically different from each other, the person meets 4 out of 5 criteria to refuse to change the sentence, while the court takes a completely opposite position in its decision. As we can see, a number of issues have accumulated for this stage, which have not been discussed in the scientific community until now. Most of the above statements are the first attempt at a complex study of the research topic.

1. Court practice more light facial Punishment - house arrest of use to the issue with regard to

In the present chapter, the issue of ordering house arrest will be discussed only based on judicial practice, only a part of the cases where small flaws have been identified has been selected, this does not serve to criticize or reprimand the court, but rather the process of avoiding violations and reducing the number of errors in the future, as the objective truth will be established.

1. Bilis, in one of the judgments, when determining the hours, the Chamber of Criminal Affairs refers to the first part of Article 69 of the Code of Juvenile Justice - according to the first part of Article 69, during the period of house arrest, he shall be obliged to stay at his place of residence from 22:00 to 07:00.^[31] Regarding the regime of house arrest, the court wrote only this in the verdict. Based on what the judge determined this period of time, to what extent specific factual circumstances were taken into account, which shows the necessity of its determination, nothing similar is clear from the judgment. It is advisable to include some argumentation in the justification part when discussing the use of house arrest.

The obligation to stay at the place of residence and the specified period of time when imposing house arrest as the main punishment is indicated by the judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal dated January 04, 2020, by which in the judgment of the Mtskheti District Court dated May 05, 2019 P. Regarding B, the part of the punishment was changed. P. B. He was found guilty of committing the crime provided for in Article 19,177, Part 2, Sub-paragraph “b” of the Criminal Code of Georgia, and the form and measure of punishment was determined to house arrest for 2 (two) years. P. B. He was released from custody in the courtroom. P. B.’s time in prison was included in the term of his sentence - from January 10, 2018 to January 14, 2018 and from May 5, 2019 to January 4, 2020. From the verdict, it is clear that Tbilisi Court of Appeal P. 2 years of house arrest was determined as the form and measure of the punishment for B.^[32] However, he did not indicate the regime conditions, during which period he should be in the residential area, and there is no established rule regarding the obligation to stay in the residential area. Based on this, we can conclude that the rule defined by the first part of Article 47¹ of the Criminal Code of Georgia was violated by the court.^[33]

According to the judgment of the Tbilisi City Court of October 20, 2017, L. J. He was found guilty of committing a crime under the first part of Article 177 of the Criminal Code of Georgia and was sentenced to house arrest for 8 months. L. J. was obliged to stay at the place of residence from 03:00 to 08:00. It is clear from the above judgment that the judge L. J. was ordered to stay at his residence from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.^[34] I believe that the imposed regime is unreasonable from the point of view that the rehabilitation of a person is completely impossible at the given moment, in this case it is pointless to even discuss the issue of the possibility of receiving an education. In addition, the given circumstance may facilitate committing a new crime.

As for the existing judicial practice regarding the decisions made by the local council, we cannot avoid discussing their non-uniformity. A clear example of this is the decisions of the Administrative Affairs Board of the Tbilisi City Court dated March 4, 2022^[35] and February 28, 2022,^[36] which were issued against the same person, based on identical factual circumstances, in one case the judge partially satisfied L. K. In the second case, he did not satisfy the claim, and the part of the justification is so well argued that an objectively thinking person will not even notice the special difference when reading them. L. K. He was convicted many times, in the past he was given the benefit provided by the law, although this was not found to be a positive circumstance that changed his behavior and was again implemented by L. Various types of crimes, including robbery, were committed by K. Accordingly, the justification of the decision of the Tbilisi City Court of March 4, 2022, only on the basis that the appealed act does not contain sufficient justification regarding the reason for the negative decision of the disputed issue by the administrative body is disputed, even in the sense that no reference is made as to what circumstances the review body left outside of the assessment. And why did he satisfy his claim in part, when there are 3 evaluation marks out of 5 guiding standards in his case. The argumentation that this was dictated by the inner conviction of the judge is not sufficient justification in this case. It is expedient, in the presence of similar circumstances, to develop the judicial practice in such a way that some common standard is formed and there is no place for non-uniform decisions to be made.

In the process of the research, there were also cases where completely unsubstantiated decisions were taken from the justice implementing body in relation to the results of the local council, which directly concerns the issue of replacing the remaining sentence of the convicts with house arrest. As an illustration, we present to you the decision of the Administrative Affairs Board of the Tbilisi City Court dated December 14, 2020, by which G.J.’s claim was partially satisfied. While considering the issue of changing G.J.’s remaining sentence to a lighter one - house arrest, the council took into account the convict’s attitude towards the institution's administration and other personal characteristics. The fact of encouragement during the serving of the sentence, although the attention was focused on the nature of the crime, there was a combination of crimes, in particular, the threat of harming health was carried out by G.J. In addition, domestic violence in the presence of a minor, which caused physical pain and suffering to the victim. In addition, the fact that G.J. In the past, he was convicted for committing a crime related to property - fraud. Accordingly, the nature of the committed crime, the circumstances and circumstances in which the crime was committed, as well as past convictions had a particularly negative impact on the consideration of the issue of the convicted person by the local council. Accordingly, for that moment, he considered that the negative opinions accompanying the criteria defined by the order of the Minister of Justice 320 could not be nullified and could not be outweighed by other positive context criteria. Against the background of these factual circumstances, Judge G. J. The claim was partially satisfied on the grounds that the wife G.J. He forgives the illegal act committed against him and has no complaints with him.^[37] In this case, as we can see, the judge rejected the criteria defined by the Council’s guideline standard and brought forward the notarized consent of the victim in the case, against the background that the position of the victim is not at all an evaluation mark established by the mentioned act. There is no understanding of the victim’s point of view, although partial satisfaction of the claim on this basis alone is completely unfounded. I think the Council rightly made a negative decision to change the remaining sentence of G.J. to house arrest, it is his positive obligation to take care of creating normal living conditions for minors. on living in a safe environment. The priority of the minor's best interest first of all involves taking care of his safety, health protection, normal physical, moral and mental development, therefore, the judge should take the mentioned circumstances into consideration.

As for the practice in the higher instance, the situation is as follows: the appellate court rarely changes the decisions made by the court of the first instance, in the legal assessment of leaving them unchanged it is mainly noted that the factual circumstances have been correctly assessed by the city court and the legal validity of the decision does not raise doubts. The amendment of decision No. 3/6450-19 of the Tbilisi City Court of November 21, 2018, by which the lawsuit of the convicted person was fully satisfied, is included in the exceptional circle. Based on the factual circumstances of the case, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal partially satisfied the appeal of the local council and ordered the administrative body to re-examine the case based on the investigation of the circumstances essential to the case.^[38]

In the case of the Court of Cassation, the practice of appealing the decision of the Court of Appeal has been introduced in the penitentiary system for several months, at this stage, the majority of the decisions of the Administrative Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court refer to leaving the cassator’s appeal against the decision of the Administrative Affairs Chamber of the Court of Appeals unconsidered, even the Supreme Court’s ruling of May 30, 2023, which e. The cassation appeal of E. was left unconsidered by the court of cassation and the ruling was issued using the first article of the Administrative Procedure Code, Articles 60, 396, 399 of the Civil Procedure Code.^[39]

1. Relative to house arrest - legal description

This chapter will discuss the peculiarities of using house arrest against the background of legal traditions and experience of foreign countries.

The electronic bracelet was first introduced in the USA in 1983 and immediately attracted the attention of criminologists from other countries. Its purpose was to relieve the overcrowded prisons. After the US, electronic surveillance was introduced from 1998 to 2000 in European countries, Sweden, Great Britain, and the Netherlands and later also in Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Belgium and Germany either as a codified obligation or punishment or as a pilot project. Electronic wristbands are particularly popular in Sweden, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium. In Southern European countries, they are used relatively less.^[40]

of some countries, the name of house arrest is simply changed and it is called house arrest. Slovakia is such a state. According to the Criminal Law Code of Slovakia, a person is liable to stay away from home for up to 1 year. Criminals sentenced to stay away from home are subject to the following conditions:

• The offender is obliged to stay at home for a certain period of time committed by a court decision;


• The offender is obliged to lead a decent life;


• The offender is obliged to submit the required report to the surveillance electronic monitoring, if he has been ordered to do so by a court decision;


• The offender has the right to leave his home only when it is based on urgent reasons for the necessary time.

Any breach of these terms may result in the revocation of any alternative penalty imposed. If this is the case, the court will change the two days of the unfulfilled curfew to 1 day of imprisonment. The Criminal Procedure Code of Slovakia does not provide for a special norm on electronic surveillance. Supervision of the offender is carried out by probation and mediation officers, perhaps through visits to the offender’s home. In the Slovak Republic, a special act is still under discussion - whether electronic monitoring will be used or not. There are many issues that need to be resolved before the bill can be passed. For example, what kind of electronic devices should be used, issues of the dignity of the offender, the scope of privacy of the offender and his family, the ethical aspects of the execution of a sentence of imprisonment, issues of sexual and domestic violence offenders.^[41]

In the home country of the electronic wristband, the US, as a rule, this device is used against people with a low risk of committing a crime. These are persons who have committed light health damage, light or medium crimes against property, who are characterized by a low risk of recidivism and appear to be part of a solid social background. This punishment is especially often used in the USA and Sweden for drunk drivers who have committed a crime.^[42]

In England, electronic bracelets are mainly used for property, traffic and drug crimes.

Pilot programs for the use of electronic wristbands have been implemented in the Netherlands since 1995. Electronic wristbands are used not only for those who are inevitably facing short-term imprisonment, but also for parole. In the Netherlands, e-mail we also find a combination of bracelet and community service.^[43]

In Spain, convicts are subject to house arrest (house arrest) for a maximum of 12 days. An offender who is sentenced to stay away from home is obliged to serve the sentence imposed on him in his home or in another place, as determined by the court order from the judge. The sentence may be executed in parts, that is, with one or more interruptions. The duration of the sentence remains the same, although it works intermittently, only on Saturdays and Sundays (staying away from home on weekends). Weekend (weekend) curfews are imposed during sentencing and they usually work in the prison closest to where the offender lives. A judge or court may, through sentencing, order indoor detention on other days of the week or in a different location. If the offender has two unauthorized absences (negligence) the superior judge can impose the sentence without any delay (termination). Currently, Spain will see a bill to repeal (weekend curfew) because it is ineffective, as shown by seven years of (unsatisfactory) experience with this type of punishment.^[44]

Of the German states, the state of Hesse has the most experience in using electronic wristbands. This party introduced this new means of control since 2000. The Hesse pilot project envisaged the use of an electronic bracelet in the following cases:

1. Imposition of duty in case of a conditional sentence;


2. Instead of revoking the conditional sentence;


3. Behavior control after preventive detention;


4. instead of pre-trial detention and later also;


5. When pardoning the land of Hessian according to the Law on Pardoning;


6. Later, the blood of minors was added to this list.

A special measure of law. “Preliminary release” of minors four months before the execution of the sentence, to adapt to the conditions of freedom.

In all these cases, an electronic bracelet can be used only and only when the use of imprisonment without it would be an urgent necessity. In this way, the electronic wristband in Hessen serves two functions. This is either an alternative to mandatory imprisonment, or a means of supervision for those released from preventive detention.^[45]

In some countries, part of the cost of electronic monitoring is reimbursed by the convict. In Austria, this amount is 22 euros per day.^[46]

The comparative analysis reveals that the existing system in Georgia is radically different from the point of view that house arrest is not divided into forms, as well as the amount of fees imposed in the case of execution of house arrest through electronic supervision is also different, as well as social. Exemption of vulnerable persons from payment of the said tax, during the research process it was not possible to find such a norm that regulates the circle of persons exempted from payment of 22 euros daily in Austria, the fact that the decision-making body for the appointment of house arrest and the manner of its activities, along with its functions, is radically different from our country should be taken into account.

Conclusion

As we can see, house arrest is an alternative form of imprisonment and is not alien to Georgian legislation, the court practice and the past period have clearly, with all clarity, presented its positive and negative aspects, which were discussed in the present article with a general legal description.

As a result of the study of practical and scientific materials, I consider it appropriate to formulate several provisions that include an innovative solution to the existing shortcomings in relation to the present topic:

• It is appropriate to interpret house arrest as a type of non-custodial punishment, which implies the obligation to stay continuously at the place of residence of the convicted person/minor during the corresponding period of the day and night established by the legal act. Execution of sentence using means of supervision.


• Georgian legislation offers different terms of house arrest for adult convicts and minors, in the case of an adult, a person without a conviction may be sentenced to house arrest for a period of six months to two years, and for a minor, six months to 1 year, as regulated by Article 69, Part 2 of the Code of Juvenile Justice. It is obvious that there is no difference between the lower limit of punishment for both minors and adults, and the upper limit is not identical, and this indicates disproportionality. Lowering the threshold has long been suspected of being disproportionately large.


• It is also acceptable to take into account the fact that until now there is no such legal record in the current legislation that would regulate the basic rules and conditions for determining the regime of house arrest, which would take into account the individual report of a person and various types of circumstances, which would clearly present the main grounds on the part of the decision-making body, which became The main argument for defining a specific time period.


• It is appropriate to write in the order of the Minister of Justice No. 320 as the 6th criterion such an assessment mark as failure to make a summary decision on another criminal case.


• It is important, when discussing the distribution of benefits provided by law, the invalid disciplinary punishment of the convicted person should be evaluated together with other factors with appropriate evaluation marks, after which the appropriate decision will be made by the council.


• It was determined that the local council is not limited to give priority to only one main criterion, for example, the nature of the crime, when making a decision on the issue of replacing the unpaid part of the sentence with a lighter one, here the council is authorized to assess how appropriate it is to replace the remaining sentence with house arrest. This should be dictated by the inner conviction of the members of the Council and should be based only on a qualified assessment of the objective and subjective circumstances of the disputed issue. Based on this, only one criterion may become the basis for making a negative or at least a positive decision.


• Writing mandatory criteria will lead to the consideration of an unreasonably large volume of cases at the oral hearing, which creates the risk of violating the legal deadline, as well as depriving the party of the opportunity to enjoy timely and quality justice.


• The legislator considers it possible to consider the motion to change the unpaid part of the sentence with two different punishments of a lighter type by observing the 6-month time limit, when the mentioned time limit is not protected in an exceptional manner or when it is submitted at the same time.


• Not a single legal act, like the Prison Code, contains a list of special circumstances or any kind of definition that would allow the council to consider the convict’s petition to change the remaining sentence to house arrest in violation of the deadline set by the legislation. It is recommended, from this point of view, to make appropriate changes in the Prison Code and to give an explanation to the “dead record” of the given norm, which will contribute to the development of practice in this direction.


• The legislator does not limit the author of the petition to submit a request/petition regarding the application of only one type of punishment, which gives the Council the opportunity to discuss and make one or two different decisions if both petitions are submitted at the same time.


• During the research process, it was revealed that until this stage, neither the court nor the local councils produce such statistics that would show the person interested in the issue the number of persons returned to the penitentiary institution in terms of gender and age, indicating the grounds of conviction. Based on this, it is necessary to develop such an accounting rule, which represents the mentioned concepts together, with one standard, in a broken form.


• Observing the practice of the local council, the need to issue an order of the Minister of Justice, which determines the procedure for making a decision on the change in the regime of execution of house arrest, was also highlighted.


• The article selects only a part of the cases where small flaws are revealed, this serves not to criticize or reprimand the court, but rather to the process of avoiding violations and reducing the number of errors in the future, as the objective truth is established.


• The presence of non-uniform practice regarding decisions made by local councils was highlighted.


• By comparison - by conducting a legal analysis, the existing system at the national level was compared with the models known at the international level, the peculiarities of the use of house arrest were highlighted against the background of the legal traditions and experience of foreign countries.

Bibliography

Georgian language literature:

1. Collective of authors, (2016), “Trends of Liberalization of Criminal Law Legislation in Georgia”, Tbilisi.


2. Benidze V., (2003) “Peculiarities of using arrest and house arrest as preventive measures'”, (diss.), Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi.


3. Vardzelashvili I., (2020), “Some issues of sentencing (analysis of judicial practice)”, Tbilisi.


4. Kherkheulidze I., (2014), “Probation Institute - Institute for Ensuring the Reintegration of Juvenile Offenders (Analysis of the Criminal Justice Approach of Georgia and the USA)”, Mzia Lekveishvili 85, Jubilee Articles Collection, Tbilisi.


5. Turava P., (2020), “General Administrative Law”, Tbilisi.


6. Pradel J., (1999) “Comparative criminal law”, Tbilisi.


7. Mchedlishvili-Hedrikhi K., (2017), “House arrest as an alternative to imprisonment in juvenile justice-historical, legal aspects and peculiarity of appointment”, Current issues of criminal law, N1, Tbilisi.


8. Tskhadadze k., (2016) “Relevance of constitutional-legal principles for administrative law”, scientific-popular journal of administrative law, Tbilisi.

Foreign literature:

1. Schmidt A., (1998), “Electronic monitoring: What does the literature tell us?” Federal Probation, 62(2).

2.Josine Junger-Tas ., (1994), “Alternatives to prison sentences, experiences and developments”, Copyright 1994 Kugler Publications - Amsterdam / New York.

3. Dodgson K., Mortimer E., (2000), “Home detention curfew _ The First Year Of Operation”, Research Findings.


4. Tobiasova L., (2007), “Development And Construction of the European Legal System, Alternative Penalties”, Bratislava.

5. Макалинский.П.В. ,(1907), “Практическое руководство для судебных следователей”, Изд-во б-е, СПб.

6. Люблинский П.Й., (1906) “Свобода личности в уголовном процессе”, СПб.

7. Ибрагимов Т., (2017), “ИСТОРИЯ РАЗВИТИЯ ДОМАШНЕГО АРЕСТА КАК МЕРЫ ПРЕСЕЧЕНИЯ В РОССИИ”, Новосибирск.

8.Kubik., (2001) “Strafen und ihre Alternativen im Zeitlichen Wandel”, Berlin.

9. Mayer M., (2004), “Modellprojekt elektronische Fußfessel”, Freiburg im Breisgau.

10.Önel., (2012)Verfassungsmäßigkeit und Effektivität der “Elektronischen Fußfessel”, in: Jahrbuch des Kriminalwissenschaftlichen Institutes der Leibniz Universität Hannover, B. 1.

Legal Acts (Normative material):

1. The Criminal Code of Georgia.


2. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia.


3. Administrative Procedure Code of Georgia.


4. General Administrative Code of Georgia.


5. Juvenile Justice Code of Georgia.


6. Prison Code of Georgia.


7. Order N320 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia dated August 7, 2018.


8. Order No. 146 of December 28, 2017 of the Minister of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia.

Recommendations :

1. 2022 special report of the Public Defender of Georgia , 2022 , Tbilisi.

Electronic resource (addresses of web pages):

1.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/16426?publication=253

2.https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/07-80478_ebook.pdf

3.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3957873?publication=0

4.http://chnm.gmu.edu/history/faculty/kelly/wciv/science/galileo.htm

5.https://ka.warbletoncouncil.org/aportaciones-galileo-galilei-17

6.http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/01/youre_grounded.html

7.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/16426?publication=253

8.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/4289728?publication=0

9.https://matsne.gov.ge/document/view/16270?publication=43

10.https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/91612?publication=39

11.http://sps.gov.ge/ka/public-information/2/

12.https://matsne.gov.ge/document/view/16426?publication=253

Court decisions:

1. Judgment of the Supreme Court of May 30, 2023 Nbs-283(K-23).


2. Decision No. 3b/295-19 of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal dated September 11, 2019.


3. Judgment of Tbilisi Court of Appeal of November 27, 2017, case No. 1a/g-27-17.


4. Judgment of the Criminal Chamber of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals dated January 04, 2020, case No. 1a/g-04-20.


5. Decision N3/7692-21 of March 4, 2022 of the Administrative Affairs Board of Tbilisi City Court.


6. Decision N3/3207-21 of April 29, 2022 of the Administrative Affairs Board of the Tbilisi City Court.


7. Decision N/8099-21 of February 28, 2022 of the Administrative Affairs Board of Tbilisi City Court.


8. Decision N3/4313-20 of the Administrative Affairs Board of the Tbilisi City Court of December 14, 2020.

Footnotes

[1] Criminal Law of Georgia Article 47¹ of the Criminal Code .

https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/16426?publication=253 [last access: 19.07.2023; 19:00]

[2] Benidze V., (2003), “Peculiarities of using arrest and house arrest as preventive measures” (diss.,) Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, p. 118.

[3] Pradel J., (1999), “Comparative criminal law”, “Sani”, Tbilisi, p: 431.

[4] https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/07-80478_ebook.pdf [ last access: 12.06.2023; 10:00]

[5] Önel., (2012)Verfassungsmäßigkeit und Effektivitat der “Elektronischen Fußfessel”, in: Jahrbuch des Kriminalwissenschaftlichen Institutes der Leibniz Universität Hannover, B. 1, S: 3.

[6] The first part of Article 4 of the rule approved by Order No. 146 of December 28, 2017, of the Minister of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia.

https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3957873?publication=0 [ Last access: 16.08.2023; 12:00]

[7] Josine Junger-Tas., (1994), Alternatives to prison sentences, experiences and developments, Copyright 1994 Kugler Publications - Amsterdam / New York, p: 31.

[8] Part 3 of Article 3 of the Rule approved by Order No. 146 of December 28, 2017, of the Minister of Penitentiary and Probation of Georgia.

https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/3957873?publication=0 [ Last access : 16.08.2023; 12:50]

[9] Mchedlishvili-Hedrikhi K., (2017), “House arrest as an alternative to imprisonment in juvenile justice - historical, legal aspects and appointment Peculiarities”, current issues of criminal law, N1, Tbilisi, p: 65.

[10] http://chnm.gmu.edu/history/faculty/kelly/wciv/science/galileo.htm [last access: 29.07.2023;22:40]

[11] https://ka.warbletoncouncil.org/aportaciones-galileo-galilei-17 [ last access : 25.07.2023; 21:00]

[12] Kherkheulidze I., (2014) “Probation Institute - Institute for Ensuring the Reintegration of Juvenile Offenders” (Analysis of the Criminal Justice Approach of Georgia and the USA), Mzia Lekveishvili 85, Jubilee Articles Collection, Tbilisi, p: 198.

[13] Schmidt A., (1998) Electronic monitoring: What does the literature tell us? Federal Probation, 62(2), P: 10.

[14]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/01/youre_grounded.html

 [Last Access : 18.05.2023; 23:00]

[15] Dodgson K., Mortimer E., (2000) “Home detention curfew - The First Year Of Operation”, Research Findings, P: 110.

[16] Mchedlishili-Hedrikhi K., (2017), “House arrest as an alternative to imprisonment in juvenile justice - historical legal aspects and the peculiarity of the appointment”, current issues of criminal law N1, Tbilisi, p: 64.

[17] Makalinskiy P.V., ( 1907 ), “Practical guide for judicial investigators, Изд-во б-е, СПб, с: 425.

[18] Lublinsky P.Y, ( 1906 ) “Freedom of personality in criminal proceedings”, СПб , с: 228 .

[19] Ibragimov T., ( 2017), “HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSE ARREST AS A PREVENTIVE MEASURE IN RUSSIA”, Novosibirsk , c: 57.

[20] Part 2 of Article 47 of the Criminal Code of Georgia.

https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/16426?publication=253 [last access: 12.07.2023; 14:00]

[21] Order No. 320 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia.

https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/4289728?publication=0 [last access: 01.08.2023; 15:00]

[22] Order No. 320 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia.

https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/4289728?publication=0 [last access: 01.08.2023; 15:20]

[23] Turava P., (2020), “General administrative law”, Tbilisi, p: 100.

[24] Tskhadadze k., (2016), “Relevance of constitutional-legal principles for administrative law”, popular scientific journal of administrative law, Tbilisi, p. 10.

[25] Article 2 of the General Administrative Code of Georgia, Article 2, Part 1, Subparagraph L.

https://matsne.gov.ge/document/view/16270?publication=43 [last access: 07.08.2023; 18:40]

[26] Special Report of the Public Defender of Georgia for 2022., (2022), Tbilisi, p:60.

[27] Section 8 of Article 43 of the Prison Code of Georgia.

 https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/91612?publication=39 [last access: 07.08.2023; 19:40]

[28] Decision N3/ 3207-21 of April 29, 2022 of the Administrative Affairs Board of Tbilisi City Court .

[29] Section 8 of Article 43 of the Prison Code of Georgia.

https://matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/91612?publication=39 [last access: 07.08.2023; 19:00]

[30] http://sps.gov.ge/ka/public-information/2/ [ last access: 21.08.2023; 12:00]

[31] Judgment of Tbilisi Court of Appeal of November 27, 2017, case No. 1a/g-27-17.

[32] Judgment of January 04, 2020 of the Criminal Chamber of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, case No. 1a/g-04-20.

[33] Criminal Code of Georgia. https://matsne.gov.ge/document/view/16426?publication=253 [ Last access : 21.09.2023; 10:00]

[34] Vardzelashvili I., (2020), “Some issues of sentencing (analysis of judicial practice)”, Tbilisi, p: 28-29.

[35] Decision N3/7692-21 of March 4, 2022 of the Administrative Affairs Board of Tbilisi City Court.

[36] Decision N/8099-21 of February 28, 2022 of the Administrative Affairs Board of Tbilisi City Court.

[37] The Board of Administrative Affairs of the Tbilisi City Court of December 14, 2020, Decision N3/4313-20.

[38] Tbilisi appeal Decision of the court No. 3 b / 295-19 of September 11, 2019 .

[39] Judgment of the Supreme Court of May 30, 2023 Nbs-283(K-23).

[40] Collective of authors, (2016), “Trends of Liberalization of Criminal Law Legislation in Georgia”, Tbilisi, p: 700.

[41] Tobiasova L., (2007) “Development And Construction of the European Legal System, Alternative Penalties” Bratislava,

p: 271.

[42] Kubik, (2001) “Strafen und ihre Alternativen im Zeitlichen Wandel”, Berlin , S:618.

[43] Önel., (2012)Verfassungsmäßigkeit und Effektivitat der “Elektronischen Fußfessel”, in: Jahrbuch des Kriminalwissenschaftlichen Institutes der Leibniz Universität Hannover, B. 1, S: 13 .

[44] Tobiasova L., (2007), Development And Construction of the European Legal System, Alternative Penalties, Bratislava,         p: 272.

[45] Mayer M. (2004), “Modellprojekt elektronische Fußfessel, Freiburg im Breisgau, S:16.

[46] Mchedlishvili-Hedrikhi K., (2017) “House arrest as an alternative to imprisonment in juvenile justice - historical, legal aspects and peculiarity of appointment, current issues of criminal law”, N1, p:70.