Filenews 4 April 2022 - by Michalis Hadjivasilis
Diametrically opposed are the views of the Cyprus Bar Association from those of the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Service, for the expansion of the institution of electronic monitoring (wristband) of indictees in their home instead of in prisons.
In view of the imminent submission of a relevant bill to Parliament by the ministry, "F" sought the views of the lawyers. According to the chairman of the Criminal Law Committee of the P.D.S. Michalis G. Pikis, the first issue concerns the amendment of article 117 of the Criminal Procedure Law Law, so that the Court can reduce the serving of the prison sentence of a convicted person (in addition to the period during which he was in pre-trial detention) for the period during which he was under house arrest with electronic surveillance. The Legal Service and the Ministry of Justice took a negative view of this amendment. The position of the P.D.A., is that the 24-hour house arrest with electronic monitoring, constitutes a deprivation of liberty under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and should therefore be taken into account for the purposes of reducing the length of the prison sentence.
As Mr. Pikis mentioned in "F", the period for which the suspect is under 24-hour house arrest with electronic surveillance, should be deducted from the extent of the prison sentence, as it constitutes deprivation of liberty
The second issue concerns the Ministry's position that cases of serious or very serious offences should be exempted from the court's power to place a case under house arrest with electronic surveillance. According to the case-law of the ECtHR, Mr. Pikis mentions, the restriction of the right of the accused to be released on parole in cases of very serious offences, solely on the basis of the seriousness of the offence for which he is being prosecuted, violates Article 5(3) of the ECHR.
"I am of the opinion that the statutory restriction of the way in which the court's discretion is exercised, by excluding the house arrest of a person under electronic surveillance in cases of serious or very serious offences, constitutes interference with the work of the judiciary, and is therefore contrary to the principle of the separation of powers. The decision of whether a person will be released on parole or will be interned by electronic surveillance is inherently a judicial issue in which there can be no interference by the legislative power", stresses Mr. Pikis.
The third issue concerns whether the Directorate of Prisons or the Police should have the responsibility for the implementation and control of electronic monitoring. The Directorate of Prisons already has the equipment and know-how for electronic surveillance under house arrest since this measure is already applied to convicted persons. The recommendation of the Cyprus Bar Association is that the Directorate of Prisons also has the control of house arrest with electronic monitoring of suspects.
