Home detention and its (non)enforcement in the light of general conditions for determing measures

By coming into force of the Law on Criminal Procedure, the measure of imposing a ban on leaving the place of residence and home, which existed in the previous Law, is now separated into two different measures of assuring the presence of the accused person in order to carry out the whole procedure more easily. The ban on leaving home, the conditions for its determination are all prescribed in the Articles 208-209 of the Law on Criminal Procedure. In the paragraph 63, item 1 of the Criminal Code it is stated that the time sent on serving the sentence of the home detention is included into the conviction of prison, fine and voluntary work. The ban on leaving home is considered to be a deprivation of freedom, which actually implies that in the case of bringing the judgment by which the accused who was given the measure is free or the accusation is denied as well as in the case of Public Prosecutor has given up on further investigation, he/she can file a claim against the unfounded deprivation of freedom. In addition to a home detention being a more humane way of imprisonment compared to detention, the state itself can have remarkable benefits of applying this measure primarily due to a direct reduction of accommodation capacities in prison institutions and their detention units. Although a home detention seems to be more comfortable than staying in custody itself, it is also quite a restrictive measure, which limits the defendant in many ways. The defendant is forbidden to use a mobile phone, PC…, to be visited by his/ her friends, relatives and the other people. There is not much difference in an actual ambience, but there is a lot of difference concerning the human rights. It is evident that the ambience itself is a lot more acceptable in regard to a person's mental health. Implementing the measure is controlled by the Commissioner's service with the Commissioner for performing alternative penalties. This Body is in charge of monitoring the implementation of the measure and it is also in a constant communication with the individual sentenced to a home detention. The judge in charge, police and the Commissioner's service have been informed of any breach of the given measure. In the case of electronic monitoring such a contact is not required as the system is more efficient. All the previously stated facts have no point if they only remain on paper in a form of a norm being valid, but not enforced. That is why, in this paper, there are presented some of the court sentences in regard to processing issues connected to a home detention measure.