Electronic Surveillance in Court Proceedings and in the Execution of Criminal Penalties: Legislative and Logistical Steps Regarding Operationalising the Electronic Monitoring Information System (EMIS) in Romania

Abstract

The latest innovations in the field of electronics and telecommunications have revolutionised and brought new dimensions to human activities. As well as in other sectors, we observe that a wide range of electronic means have also shown their utility in criminal justice. Undergoing continuous development, these means ensure efficient monitoring of subjects and contribute to higher efficiency of judiciary systems, and provide “more humane” conditions compared with traditional incarceration for offenders when they execute criminal penalties. In this context, this study discussed the main challenges faced by Romania in implementing electronic monitoring (EM) devices in court proceedings and in the execution of criminal penalties. These have been researched from different perspectives, including those related to the current legal framework, opportunities provided by today’s developments in electronics, and in terms of financial public resources allocated for such purposes. Our study is among the few articles published on this topic and it brings to light both the advantages of introducing the Electronic Monitoring Information System (EMIS) in Romania, as well as the limitations, and overviews the international experience in this area by assessing the measures that have been taken so far worldwide to implement EMIS effectively. The final part of the paper presents the study conclusions, its limitations, and future lines of research.

1. Introduction

It would be hard to imagine the today’s socio-economic life without the electronic devices and equipment that have been made available to society. Whether used for personal use or at home, for making purchases or payments, in education, transportation, in dealing with healthcare or public authorities, or by companies, banks, or other governmental institutions, these web-based devices (Nistor and Zadobrischi 2022; James and Abiola 2021; Lavric et al. 2022; Avătămăniței et al. 2021; Misra et al. 2016) could be seen as essential for most people in society. Evidently, the high pace of research and technological advancement has contributed to permanent appearance of new tools and electronic equipment—related to ICT (Information and communications technology), in addition to the upgrading of the already existent devices) (Nguyen and Doytch 2021; Miron et al. 2008; Tamaş and Năstase 2008; Isaila 2012; Vîrgolici 2014; Spiezia 2012; Karaman Aksentijević et al. 2021; Farhadi et al. 2012)—so that the process of extension of such facilities to new human activities (Tofan and Bostan 2022; Alhmiedat and Aborokbah 2021; Yeh 2010, 2015), some of them being unconceivable until recently, has been in full development.

In this context, this study focused on investigating the opportunity provided by effective implementation in Romania of EM in court proceedings and in the execution of criminal penalties. It refers to the use of ankle bracelets for monitoring convicted individuals under court rulings so as to prevent them from moving outside the allowed areas. Although not perfectly (Lima Machado et al. 2017; Dünkel 2018; Richter et al. 2021; Jones 2014), once the EMIS is operationalised, they could bring advantages if compared with the traditionally used devices (Graham and McIvor 2017; Wallace-Capretta and Roberts 2013; Nellis 2014; Daubal et al. 2013; Jakkhupan and Klaypaksee 2014; Oduor et al. 2014; Henneguelle et al. 2016), being a good alternative to overcrowded cost-incurring prisons.

This does not mean that the budgetary burden will decrease significantly, but due to the nature of the new system that brings a new type of logistics and a “novel” approach to human resources (shown by the author in Figure 1), there will appear new spending structures, which are sensitive to price changes caused by an optimal operation of such devices.

As it has already been mentioned above, the study aimed to identify the elements in the national statutes enabling the effective implementation in Romania over a reasonable time frame of EM in court proceedings and in executing sentences. It also attempted to estimate the time needed for reaching the expected parameters and outline the reasons for aligning to the latest European and international developments in the field in Europe. In this context, we discuss the main problems faced by Romania in the implementation of EM in such cases as judicial review (including on bail), home arrest and protection orders, and remote monitoring of criminal and custodial sentences as ordered by court. We outline the arguments for and against the introduction of electronic bracelets (

Table 1. Arguments for and against the introduction of electronic bracelets.

For

Against

It is not a coercive measure: the user always gives his/her consent before wearing the bracelet and the measure is never imposed by a Judge or a Prosecutor; The continuous evaluation of the technology which guarantees the progress in the field of criminal justice; Its efficiency and reliability are proven in developed nations with a tradition of respect for human rights and individual liberties; It guarantees the rehabilitation process of the user as it allows a person to continue living in their regular familiar environment; Continuous advances of technology; Reduced costs if compared with imprisonment; Protection of user’s intimacy (if compared to prison); The measure allows the user to work so as to pay compensation to the victim.

The measure might be considered as unconstitutional in most states; It promotes public humiliation and stigmatisation for the users; Bracelets only replicate other alternative measures, such as house arrest; Normally, it is difficult to operate and users are not familiar with the use of such devices; The possibility of failures, faults, and transgressions; It promotes the expansion of the state’s control; High costs of its implementation; It might be seen as a discriminatory measure due to the criteria used in the selection of users; Inability to reduce prison overcrowding.

Source: Made by the author using the text of the article “Technical Advisory Opinion” (Philip de Andrés and Rodríguez 2013).

) from different perspectives, ranging from current international good practices and regulation (European and national) to opportunities provided by the current advancements in electronics, and with the level of public financial resources allocated for such purposes by the national governmental decision-makers.

Our research, which is among the few studies studying this issue in Romania, is based on carefully selected studies that have been recently published in the most prestigious journals/volumes, reports of institutions, and support documents to legislation, including the content of fully-operational European and national laws whose terms of application have been mostly delayed.

We also discuss the opinions of experts (Dünkel 2018; Belur et al. 2020; Vitálišová et al. 2019) supporting the idea that the introduction of EM into court proceedings and during the execution of criminal penalties is not a viable option, an opinion which has been already reported by several recently published studies. In addition, technical challenges should not be neglected (interrupted connection, low signal, interferences, etc.), several cases of incidents having been reported. Other authors noted that “Technology may not work in particular locations due to availability of GPS satellite connections or interference. Due to the potential lethality of DFV continuity, monitoring is critical and sufficient time is needed to act in the event of a breach. This requires state-of-the-art hardware and software, including Wi-Fi and dual SIM capability. These features enable monitoring where satellite connection is not available, and there is the option of switching between mobile communications carriers in the event of a mobile network outage. Monitoring unit staff skilled in the analysis of EM data, and effective case managers will also assist in effectively responding to breaches” (Nancarrow and Modini 2018).

The prevention of risks due to technological limitations entails a significant increase of financial resources, highly-skilled personnel, and alternative plans to the above-mentioned shortcomings. All these make decision-makers be reserved in opting for the implementation of such monitoring systems.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 comprises a literature review. Section 3 divided into two main subsections, presents the requirements applicable for the implementation of the EM systems to individuals executing a criminal sentence, derived from the Recommendation of Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (No. 004/2014), and the main principles of operation of such systems. Section 4 reviews the first statues that provided for the introduction of EM in Romanian criminal law and shows in detail the motivations lying behind the support for a law on EM in court proceedings and in the execution of criminal penalties, and outlines the mandatory provisions adopted by the new law. This section also overviews technical and organisational issues on the operation of EMIS in a pilot system, and finally discusses the implications related to the adoption of this law and for the content of other laws.

Section 5 presents the conclusions, research limitations, and future lines of research on the issue of adoption of EM for individuals executing a sentence in the Romanian judicial system.

2. Literature Review

An alternative to classical imprisonment, EM of individuals during court proceedings and in the execution of criminal penalties has been implemented worldwide for over four decades. Specifically, the localisation/monitoring using such technology requires the use of specific devices indicating, in real time, where the individual/object is located, to which such devices are attached (Rusu 2021).

This measure was first introduced in the United States (1984), and five years later in some European countries (Vîrgolici 2014; Belur et al. 2020; Vitálišová et al. 2019; Mahu 2020). At the same time, the transition was made from RF to a more sophisticated GPS-monitoring system, which provided a better remote and around-the-clock monitoring of different subjects (Nellis 2014; Vitálišová et al. 2019; Renzema and Mayo-Wilson 2005).

Although several definitions were given to the monitoring system, they all converged to the content and meaning stipulated by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: “a general term referring to forms of surveillance used to monitor the location, movement and specific behaviour of persons undergoing criminal justice. The current forms of electronic monitoring are based on radio wave, biometric or satellite tracking technology. They usually comprise a remote device attached to a person” (Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 2014). From the same recommendation, it results that EM could be implemented for different cases as a pre-trial requirement and inside an open prison, or as a protection measure for victims against a suspect/offender.

Mainly the social motivation should prevail in the introduction of a monitoring system as an alternative to classical incarceration, which is a more advanced form of incarceration aimed “at ensuring higher security in society, which, this way becomes more protected due to lower antisocial behaviour of offenders, also contributing to a pro-social behaviour preventing the committing of new crimes” (Mahu 2020). It generates “society’s involvement in monitoring, assisting and counselling of offenders, and provision of more educational and job opportunities, as well as assurance of lower risks for offenders in terms of their labelling and rejection by a part of society; protection of victims or lower crime recidivism (…)” (Mahu 2020). The same author mentions that the economic motivation refers to “less people in prisons and lower costs, due to the fact that one day of imprisonment is more expensive than one day of electronic monitoring”. On the other hand, home arrest and release on bail by means of a monitoring system reported lower levels in the rates of recidivism among adults and minors.

Some researchers distinguish between tan EM “as a viable and more effective financial alternative compared with other ways of managing offenders” and as a “a crime-reduction initiative”. The respective authors state, in this sense, that cost-related issues become a concern: “(…) if prison and electronic monitoring are equally effective in reducing crime, while electronic monitoring is cheaper, it makes sense to fully evidence the competing costs of alternatives. It is clear that whilst our main interest is in electronic monitoring as an intervention aimed to reduce reoffending, clearly some of these programmes were intentionally set up to reduce costs (of prisons), so in the short-term, it has the benefit of having cost-saving potential. The tables and discussion above appear to suggest that on balance, reduced costs of electronic monitoring offer it an advantage over incarceration” (Belur et al. 2020).

In addition, high investments are needed in human resources and equipment due to the fact that GPS technology is used in monitoring high-risk offenders. Huge effort is also needed to adapt the legislation and train both the staff, and the justice system personnel, considering that the EM of offenders during court proceeding and in the execution of sentences aims to reduce recidivism, avoid prison overcrowding, and/or bring a cheaper solution for imprisonment (Vitálišová et al. 2019).

Still, this type of monitoring “cannot be viewed as a panacea for lowering recidivism or promoting the integration of offenders back into society” (Dünkel 2018). No matter how advanced it is, compared with traditional monitoring means, and leading to their humanisation (Figure 2 shows the differences), EM is still an intrusive measure that should be justified in case of sanctions for less serious offences.

This is the reason why monitoring individuals during court proceedings and in the execution of criminal sentences has a significant impact “on lowering recidivism, if the EM is incorporated into the activity of probation services and further care services in charge with rehabilitation” (Dünkel 2018).

Winter et al. (2021) showed that EM led to higher safety of women and children facing family violence during trials. In addition, it increased the level of responsibility of offenders. Still, the rate of recidivism situated around 50%, the same rate being found after traditional incarceration. The author contended that “a key issue in achieving lower recidivism is engaging in comprehensive risk assessment prior to fitting of an EMD regular, and ongoing monitoring of risk as these men are already engaging in escalating violent behaviour, which is why, they are deemed to be high risk (Winter et al. 2021).

It is true that EM could lead to less people in prisons, higher safety for domestic violence victims, better social ties for offenders, etc. (Nellis et al. 2013; Hucklesby et al. 2021), though the disadvantages should also be considered. One of these is the fact that the justice system network is extended, the family becoming part of it, the residential area becoming an isolation space (Granja 2021). In this context, Rafaela Granja (2021) argued that this monitoring system is “an example of technological benevolence. In other words, a technology legitimised by managerialism and economist arguments that aim to solve complex social and penal problems without looking deeply at their systemic roots, impossible to solve only with technological artefacts.” A short overview of the advantages of EM, based on the use of digital technology in coercion, can be found in the study of Borseková et al. (2020). The authors showed that the advantages lead to fewer burdens for taxpayers, less specific costs, offender safety, and maintenance of family and community ties. Then, the implementation of EM, aimed at lowering criminality through higher responsibility, will also lead to higher public safety “by using more traditional approaches or community supervision, based on probation supervision and parole, and it is hoped that this approach will reduce the number of repeat offenders in the long term” (Borseková et al. 2020). The authors also referred to the ratio between the cost of traditional incarceration and cost of E-incarceration (based on the implementation of EM); the 2012 ratio was 4.86 in Austria, 1.46 in the Czech Republic, 3.32 in Denmark, 3.13 in Latvia, and 2.83 in Norway.

Essentially, the states across the world apply a wide range of approaches to this matter, so any generalisation would be hard to make. It is not clear “whether EM should be primarily perceived as a standalone instrument of punishment as an alternative to incarceration (primarily to deal with prison overcrowding and/or to save public funds), or whether EM should be perceived primarily as a technical instrument supplementing various other non-technical instruments in national programmes of probation, custody, surveillance of dangerous offenders released from prison, etc.” (Borseková et al. 2018).

Due to a highly heterogeneous picture, regarding the adopted theoretical approaches and practical implementation of this system, we further discuss the issues related to EM of offenders during court trials and in the execution of sentences, and to the attempts/preparations made for the operationalisation of the EMIS in Romania.

3. EM of Individuals under Sanctions Imposed by the Justice System. Main Principles and Applicable Rules

Nowadays, there are two main lines adopted for EM of high-risk offenders: a legislative and a budgetary line. Both are justified by the need to keep the offenders under tight control (by respecting human rights) and the need to lower the rate of recidivism, requiring higher allocations of public funds for new equipment, software and specific utility costs, training and payment of necessary staff, etc.

We need to underline that when we talk about budgetary implications, on the one hand, there appear cost cuts in the operation of traditional prisons, which now face less prisoner-related burden as these are included into the “E-Incarceration” system, and, on the other hand, public budgets should ensure yearly growing expenses for a well-functioning system of EM for high-risk offenders.

Some calculations made up to now fail to show clearly whether the foreseen advantages would call for the massive extension of the “E-Incarceration” system within a reasonable time. Still, in the long-run, due to technological development with high impact on the monitoring system, and also due to the fact that the conditions could not be compared to traditional overcrowded prisons (with terrifying walls, high fences, the presence of metallic bars and armed guards, etc.) with what today, and especially in the future, “E-Incarceration” could mean, we may anticipate a higher spreading worldwide of this system.

3.1. The Requirements Applicable for Introducing the EM of Individuals Undergoing Criminal Justice Derived from the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (No. 004/2014)

As shown earlier, apart from the fact that Recommendation No. 004/2014 (Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 2014) clearly defines this monitoring system, it also indicates the principles and conditions of execution that should be complied with in the process of EM (

Table 2. Some principles of EM and conditions of execution.

Main Mandatory Principles of EM That Should Be Complied with

Execution Conditions of EM during Different Phases of Criminal Proceedings

The use, as well as the types, duration, and modalities of execution of EM in the framework of the criminal justice shall be regulated by law. Decisions to impose or revoke EM shall be taken by the judiciary or allow for a judicial review. Where EM is used at the pre-trial phase special care needs to be taken not to net-widen its use. The type and modalities of execution of EM shall be proportionate in terms of duration and intrusiveness to the seriousness of the offence alleged or committed, shall take into account the individual circumstances of the suspect or offender and shall be regularly reviewed. EM shall not be executed in a manner restricting the rights and freedoms of a suspect or an offender to a greater extent than provided for by the decision imposing it. When imposing EM and fixing its type, duration and modalities of execution account should be taken of its impact on the rights and interests of families and third parties in the place to which the suspect or offender is confined. There shall be no discrimination in the imposition or execution of EM on the grounds of gender, race, colour, nationality, language, religion, sexual orientation, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, association with a national minority or physical or mental condition (…).

In order to ensure compliance, different measures can be implemented in accordance with national law. In particular, the suspect’s or offender’s consent and co-operation may be sought, or dissuasive sanctions may be established. The modalities of execution and level of intrusiveness of EM at the pre-trial stage shall be proportionate to the alleged offence and shall be based on the properly assessed risk of the person absconding, interfering with the course of justice, posing a serious threat to public order or committing a new crime. National law shall regulate the manner in which time spent under EM supervision at pre-trial stage may be deducted by the court when defining the overall duration of any final sanction or measure to be served. Where there is a victim protection scheme using EM to supervise the movements of a suspect or an offender, it is essential to obtain the victim’s prior consent and every effort shall be made to ensure that the victim understands the capacities and limitations of the technology. In cases where EM relates to exclusion from, or limitation to, specific zones, efforts shall be made to ensure that such conditions of execution are not so restrictive as to prevent a reasonable quality of everyday life in the community (…).

Source: Made by the author based on the text of the recommendation of the (Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 2014).

).

Taking into account the important rules related to protection of human rights and freedoms, and supervision of criminals with suspension or conditional release, etc. (European Court of Human Rights 1950; Council of Europe 1964; Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 1992) and also depending on jurisdiction, the decision was made to use EM for covering multiple needs (Figure 3), during pre-trial proceedings and for “open” detention, and in the protection of victims from criminals and suspects.

According to the Recommendation of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (No. 004/2014), Mike Nellis compiled the Manual of Standards and Ethics for EM. It stipulates that “the mesures and sanctions should be proportional to the gravity of offence and/or degree of danger. It is not logical to say about electronical monitoring or GPS surveillance whether they are proportional or not as such” (Nellis 2015).

Therefore, the establishment of the EM system of persons during criminal justice proceedings could be implemented in any country in Europe through a national law, and as good practice, it will comply with the provisions comprised in the above recommendation, including those related to ethics, protection of information, staff or work with the public, investigation, and assessment. In fact, even in Romanian legislation, when the Principles of EM are mentioned, it is stipulated that EM “is an interference into the right to private life and the right to physical and psychic integrity, but this monitoring mechanism is designed in such a way as to reduce such interferences to the minimum needed to reach the objectives of justice” (Romanian Parliament 2021a).

The reduction of such interference is also ensured by the procedure applicable to the handling of the electronic file (Figure 4), which stipulates that its content should only be known to the monitoring agent, who, as long as the monitored person complies with the monitoring rules, has no access to the localisation data of such person.

In the same line of ensuring better the right to private life, objective rules have been established for operationalising the alert mechanism, being excluded any subjective judgement. Then, the access to localisation data of the monitored individual should also comply with the strict rules of data protection in compliance with the legislation of the European Union.

3.2. The General Principle of EM System Operation of Individuals under Restrictions Imposed by the Justice Systems

The operation of such systems involves the integration into a well-developed and tested system of several electronic components related to monitoring the behaviour of suspects or offenders, who should comply with the rules for the system to be operational.

In this scheme (Figure 5), the ankle bracelet is just one component, which is used only in case of offenders strictly prohibited to leave or enter specific areas, or staying at their residence, or, for example, in case of a “former, potentially violent husband, who is prohibited to approach the former wife’s house or workplace, or his children’s school.” (Deutsche Welle 2022).

Ankle electronic bracelets are part of a complex system for monitoring the behaviour of suspects/offenders, who should comply with the rules for the system to be operational, and are useful in supporting those who intend to be reintegrated in society. Being ergonomic and modern (Figure 6), these bracelets “could be used to help the suspect avoid imprisonment, to be used for investigations or allow the sentenced inmates to get to work when they are released during the day. Some inmates could also wear an ankle bracelet to do their sentence in home arrest” (Deutsche Welle 2022).

Technical features of the ankle bracelet are also very important as they ensure that it is “an incapsulated water-resistant device that is just a little bigger than a sports watch. In the house of the monitored offender, the authorities install a receiver detecting the signals from the bracelet at specific intervals. The area covered by the device could be later extended to include a part or the entire city or region where the person is located. The GPS system will detect the place where the person is located and will transfer the information on person’s movements to the central server” (Deutsche Welle 2022).

Evidently, the subject’s movements should be in line with the route set by the judge, and if the offender is allowed to leave the prison during the day to reach the workplace, the system confirms/ensures that the direct departure/return route is used. If there appear route deviations, the subject will receive ankle vibrations, together with a warning/an alarm being sent to a potential victim.

4. Attempts to Establish EM of Individuals under Sanctions during Criminal Justice Proceedings in Romania

The Romanian criminal justice system has been open for a long time to the introduction of EM for individuals under sanctions (Costea 2018a, 2018b). Still, as mentioned below, progress has been slow for several reasons.

4.1. First Rules Providing for the Introduction of EM into Romanian Criminal Law

Romanian criminal law regulated, some time ago (Romanian Parliament 1968; Romanian Government 2006), the possibility for a justice system body to order EM if a preventive measure involving deprivation of liberty is established for a person under criminal investigation or trial. Therefore, in cases with the obligation of not leaving the place/country, or with provisional deprivation of liberty on bail, or during sentence, a person shall permanently wear an EM system.

This system aimed to further complete the obligations under a sentence to life-long imprisonment, or if such sentence is interrupted, the offenders being obliged to wear monitoring devices. Even if this system was regulated, the courts have not ordered such obligations for over twenty years as the system has not been implemented.

With the criminal justice and criminal execution reform that occurred in 2014, when several laws were adopted in this sense in Romania, the use of EM systems was regulated in case of offenders under conditional release from prison, or not being allowed to talk or contact specific people, or be located in specific places/attend public events. The new Criminal Procedure Code (Romanian Parliament 2010) regulates that judicial bodies may order a person to permanently wear an EM system in case of judicial review or home arrest. Another rule (Romanian Parliament 2013) provides for the measure of EM also in case of release from prison for work.

It should be noted that this regulatory framework neither imposes the measure of mandatory EM, nor confers it autonomy. Moreover, in line with the analyses of the Romanian Government (2019), the law provides for a complementary measure that could be applied only if there is a specific infrastructure and the needed infrastructure.

4.2. Adoption of a Special Law on EM during Criminal Justice Proceedings and in Sentence Execution

In 2019, Romanian governmental institutions took steps strengthening the regulatory framework for EM. The reasons behind these measures included the desire to improve the efficiency of protection orders and prevent family violence, although as will be seen later, the final text of the law also refers to execution of judicial review, home arrest, and remote monitoring of offenders.

Right from the beginning, the law provided for the establishment of a “monitoring system enabling a clear assignment of responsibilities, on the one hand, the surveillance bodies empowered by law in force to perform the surveillance (the personnel in charge of the Romanian police and NAP), and on the other hand, the intervention bodies that shall intervene in case of alerts, based on the principle that the closest public order body should intervene” (Ministry of Administration and Interior 2019), whether a police officer or a gendarme (Figure 7).

In addition, the use of public infrastructure and services in use at that time (single national system for 112 calls) was suggested, and brought advantages related to costs and operation.

4.2.1. Motivations for Supporting a Law on EM during Judicial Proceedings and Sentence Execution

After researching the context of design and adoption of the Law on EM during judicial proceedings and sentence execution, we found the existence of several motivations as no legal standard, whether constitutional or of any other nature, the establishment/improvement of the institutional framework for EM in some cases to which we will refer below. In addition, clarifications were needed, as the body of some laws had not been coherent. These were related to terminology and level of regulation (law or legal act) stipulating the use EM systems.

A key role in the new body of the new law was played by the need to observe the trends in this area in some European states (more developed). In many states, we may find a diversity of regulations, involved institutions, application methods, and types of subjects/cases subject to EM.

As has been shown by several recent studies (Romanian Parliament 2021a), we may observe that, for example, in Denmark, the EM system is used only in relation with the execution of a sentence as an alternative to imprisonment, and the bracelets are not used as a monitoring system based on a court restriction, exclusion, or expulsion order. In addition, the offenders sentenced to imprisonment for up to six years could opt for the execution of penalty as home arrest. In the Netherlands, EM using bracelets is not applied in ensuring and enforcing the interdiction orders in case of domestic violence, but are used by the Probation Services based on the orders issued by a judge in situations such as suspension of preventive arrest, conditional sentences, conditional release from prison, home arrest, etc.

In Hungary, an EM phase not been applied for restriction orders issued in cases of domestic violence, although it is used as an alternative preventive measure to preventive arrest. Starting in 2014, the court may order the use of monitoring devices for home arrest of subjects under criminal investigation for committing crimes of violence, or against the subjects whose maximum time of arrest has been extended. The monitoring uses a track signal receiver able to identify the location through a combined system of GPS, RF, and LBS, which, depending on the location or place, could be equipped with a local RFT-type beacon receiver. In Sweden, the use of EM based on the issue of a restriction order (lately, up to three cases per year) is conditioned by the carrying out of a special investigation. The restriction order means that the aggressor is not able to contact the protected person, its aim being to prevent the commitment of a crime and provide safety for the harassed person.

In Norway, the establishment of a system based on electronic bracelet generated costs of around 5 million Euros even before the issue of any sentence; there were 18 court cases between 2013 and 2018, and just 14 sentences. Even in the future, it will be used in a limited number of domestic violence cases, although Norwegian experts have acknowledged the high potential of the system in preventing domestic violence and crimes related to intimate relations.

Table A1. Main features regarding electronic monitoring systems in some European states.

State	Electronic Monitoring Features
Austria	The aggressor monitoring system by means of an electronic bracelet applies especially to already sentenced offenders to custodial sentences, and who are under house arrest, but also to those in pre-trial detention. The Administration of Penitentiaries within the Ministry of Justice is the competent authority in charge of purchasing the electronic monitoring systems (leased), managing the computer system collecting data, and installing the electronic monitoring system. Monitoring is performed by radio waves transmitted to a fixed station, which is connected through GSM or to the monitoring system. In case of convicted persons, the monitoring measure using such a system is ordered by the head of the penitentiary where the person is imprisoned. For those in pre-trial detention, the measure is ordered by the court. All costs related to the purchase of the necessary devices and electronic monitoring are borne by the subject. If the subject does not have the money, their expenses are sometimes borne by the Austrian state. The request for electronic monitoring is approved if specific conditions are met, including: (i) the sentence or the remaining sentence to be executed does not exceed 12 months; (ii) the subject is domiciled in Austria and has a residence; (iii) the subject performs an independent activity/profession/trade near its residence; (iv) the subject generates its own income (unemployment benefit, welfare allowance, etc.); (v) the subject has a medical insurance and an insurance against accidents, etc. Since 2013, the legislation has also allowed the monitoring of sexual offenders at their domicile, provided that they have served at least three months of their sentence in prison, and have given an additional assurance.
Belgium	Electronic monitoring by means of a bracelet has been applied in Belgium since 1998, covering the following typology: pre-trial detention under electronic monitoring, execution of sentences of up to three years of imprisonment, execution of imprisonment sentences of over three years, additional punishment for some serious offences, electronic monitoring as an autonomous punishment. The measure may be ordered by the court (for sentences exceeding three years), or by the director of the penitentiary where the sentence is executed (for sentences of up to three years). The person monitoring the convict conducts a welfare report before the measure is ordered, and draws up a report if the conditions have been violated. The National Electronic Surveillance Centre (NESC) within the Ministry of Justice ensures the installation of bracelets and checks the presence (automatically, by means of a box installed at the domicile). Voice recognition (automated dialling) is also available as an alternative. To implement the measures and supervision, CNSE collaborates with the courts, the authorities in charge (sentencing court, the investigating judge, the general directorate of penitentiaries, the director of the prison); penitentiary clerks; police services.
Cyprus	In the Republic of Cyprus, the legislation regarding the issue of restraining orders stipulates no obligation for the aggressor to wear an electronic bracelet. In sentence execution, the electronic bracelet shall be used by the person who: (i) has been sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment and has served at least half of the sentence; (ii) has executed the sentence in an open system and entered into a detoxification program; (iii) has executed the sentence in an open system and has been granted an unattended leave or an educational release from prison; (iv) has executed the sentence in an open system and is aged over 70, is seriously ill, is able to execute the sentence at home wearing a bracelet, with the possibility of being granted a travel to work or to a medical centre. The system is managed by the Ministry of Justice and Public Order in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance.
France	French legislation does not have specific provisions on the types of offenses that may require the supervision of convicts by means of electronic bracelets. Electronic monitoring is ordered by the judge upon request after an investigation has been conducted on defendant’s financial, social and family situation in cases of crimes with a prison sentence not exceeding two years, and of less than one year for recidivists. Could be ordered also in cases of home arrest during trials, or at the end of the incarceration period for people who: (i) have the right for conditional release; (ii) are under arrest; (iii) are sentenced to imprisonment to no more than five years, of which, they still have to serve four months; (iv) are indicted awaiting trial. The magistrates inform the person about their obligations, and the time interval, during which, they cannot leave the home. In case of non-compliance, the measure of house arrest under electronic monitoring may be revoked. According to the French Code of Criminal Procedure, a set of offenses punishable by imprisonment of, at least, seven years or more, can lead to the immediate application of the electronic monitoring measure. The electronic bracelet is connected via Wifi or Bluetooth to the landline in the subject’s apartment, and automatically initiates an alert when it is disconnected from the system as a result of its removal from the emission source.
Germany	German law stipulates that the electronic monitoring tracking a person’s location is applicable only to sexual offenses, offences with violence or directed against the state. Electronic monitoring measures for the victims have not been stipulated. The Federal Bureau for Criminal Investigation may carry out electronic monitoring for the permanent monitoring of persons suspected of terrorism, or able to commit terrorist attacks in order to prevent the commitment of such acts. Electronic monitoring may also be used to check whether the monitored person is contacting persons with whom they are not allowed to maintain contact, or is traveling to unauthorised places. The maximum duration of the court order is three months. For all federal states, the Hesse State Administration provides a functioning federal monitoring system (Gemeinsame Uberwachungsstelle der Länder). The established mechanism is based on the services of a private company, a market leader in this field. The person receives an ankle bracelet, which have security features detecting possible attempts of unauthorised handling. It is tracked by means of GPS or by GSM. If the subject leaves the green area, a signal is sent to the central server, followed by the procedure imposed by the intervention rules depending on the alert type. Gemeinsame Uberwachungsstelle der Länder knows the place where the person is located only when the alarm is initiated.
Great Britain	British legislation does not expressly provide for the wearing of electronic bracelets in cases of domestic violence restriction orders, but refers to the maintenance of public order (in cases such as murder, sexual offenses, traffic offenses, home break-ins, vandalism, shoplifting, possession of firearms, possession of drugs, beatings, crimes against public order). The electronic monitoring system aims to mainly to supervise detainees released before the full sentence execution, and to maintain public order during trial or criminal investigation. Electronic monitoring can only be applied to those against whom an order has been issued by the court (in the trial phase or in the criminal investigation phase) after performing a risk analysis showing the consequences for public order. In addition, the subject should: (i) express its consent for wearing electronic bracelet and (ii) be present for the inspection carried out by the police officer. The system does not make an actual localisation, but only ensures that the assigned area has not been abandoned. While wearing the electronic bracelet, the subject shall not leave the assigned area for more than 15 min. Otherwise, the monitoring services contractor shall notify the police, which shall detect and arrest the subject. In case of non-compliance with court orders, the monitoring will be suspended and the person will be physically re-incarcerated.
Greece	Greek law stipulates that house arrest under electronic supervision may be approved for persons irrevocably sentenced to imprisonment only upon request and on the basis of an assessment made by a Judicial Council, if they have served: 2/5 of the imprisonment sentence, or at least 14 years in the case of a life sentence. In the case of an accumulation of penalties, the proportions will be taken into account, but the limit of 17 executed years shall not be exceeded. These shall not apply if the conviction has been given for crimes of treason, participation in a terrorist organisation, participation in a criminal organisation, murder, violation of sexual freedoms and drug trafficking, or if the person has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Persons in pre-trial detention may benefit from house arrest with electronic monitoring, without a final court order, if they have served a period equal to 1/5 of the sentence. These provisions do not apply to the crime of treason and intentional murder if it is committed against an official in the exercise of their powers. The Greek Criminal Code stipulates criminal sanctions for violating electronic custody at the domicile, as follows: (i) if the person during electronic monitoring intentionally removes, destroys, damages, interferes with the electronic monitoring system of the device or, modifies in any way the monitoring personal data, it shall be punished by one year imprisonment; (ii) any person participating in the above-mentioned acts shall be punished by at least two years of imprisonment. If the participant is an employee of a penitentiary institution, a police officer or an officer responsible for electronic surveillance, the penalty is up to eight years of imprisonment. The monitoring system is managed by a contractor who complies with the rules set by the Greek Ministry of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights.
Switzerland	Starting in 2018, the Enforcement Authority may order the use of an electronic device attached to the offender as to be localised (there is no specific list of offenses), upon their request: (i) for the execution of a custodial sentence, or of a custodial sentence from 20 days to 12 months; (ii) at the external workplace or at the external workplace and residence, for a period from three to twelve months. Electronic monitoring shall be applied if: (i) there is no suspicion that the convicted person will flee or will commit other offenses; (ii) the convicted person has a permanent residence; (iii) the convicted person carries out a regular activity, whether it is work, vocational training or permanent employment, for at least 20 h per week, or if it can be assigned to him; (iv) the adult persons living in common with the convicted person express their consent; (v) the convicted person approves the specially drawn up execution plan. If the conditions are no longer met or the convicted person violates the obligations set out in the execution plan, the transition from electronic monitoring to traditional execution, or semi-detention is ordered, or limited free time is granted to the convicted person. The Swiss Criminal Code also provides that the judge may order a contact ban or a geographical ban for a maximum period of five years against the perpetrator of a crime or of an offense committed against one or more specific persons or members of a particular group, if there are suspicions that they will commit a new crime or offense in the event of contact. The offender may be prohibited to: (i) contact, use, host, train, supervise, care for or otherwise attend directly, or through a third party, one or more specified persons or members of a group, including by telephone, in writing or by electronic means; (ii) approach a person or enter a certain perimeter around their home; (iii) visit some places, in particular specific streets, squares or neighbourhoods. The judge may order: (i) probation assistance during the interdiction and (ii) extension of the interdiction from five years to five years, at the request of the enforcement authorities prevent the perpetrator from committing a new offense, or an offense against a minor or another vulnerable person.

Source: Made by the author by summarising the information included in the Exposure of motives for Law No. 146/2021 (Romanian Parliament 2021a). Note: To implement the electronic monitoring system in criminal justice, the Romanian law-maker have analysed data related the situation in other European countries collected by the Romanian representatives for home affairs from competent authorities.

(Appendix A) shows the main elements discovered after having analysed the way in which the EM systems have been regulated, organised, and operationalised in some European states, besides those that have been mentioned above.

As results from what has been stated above, besides the diversity found in European states (in terms of regulations, involved institutions, methods of application, and types of subjects under EM), we should also notice the fact that EM has not been widely spread. For example, in case of Hungary, there are 10,000 devices/bracelets), over 200 in Luxembourg, around 2000 in Belgium, and Austria is able to monitor around 500 subjects, etc. (Romanian Parliament 2021a). Then, when we talk about daily monitoring costs per individual, we should observe in the case of Austria that “the person monitored by means of an electronic bracelet should pay 22 euro per day, out of which, 5 euro are allocated to technical supervision, and the difference is transferred to the Neustart Association”, and in Greece, the costs “of around 15 euro/person/ day are paid by the beneficiaries of this measure. The amount is paid six months in advance, and if, due to reasonable grounds, the person is not able to pay the costs, then these are incurred by the Greek state” (Romanian Parliament 2021a).

Concerning the obstacles in the functioning of EM, these are not significant, but could affect the short-term safety of the system (for a couple of minutes). Anyway, being aware of the fact that no equipment is perfect and could break down, and in some areas, GPS could lack coverage, and some subjects may not comply with the rules of a restriction order, it is hard to talk about a perfectly functioning system. For example, there were cases in Sweden when the GPS coverage was poor at the aggressor’s workplace, or when aggressors took off the electronic bracelet, or they left the batteries discharged. In Great Britain, we should note that the police “identified the system’s defects, which is efficient only if it is properly installed. There were frequent cases, when bracelets were loosely attached (being discomforting for the person), so the subjects could take them off and then leave the location and still appear as being under home arrest. Also, in some cases it was intentionally loosely attached after an illegal deal between the convicted person and the officer (…)” (Romanian Parliament 2021a).

Still, as Romania committed to aligning to the European trends, it regulated the implementation of such a system (Romanian Parliament 2021b), which required the allocation of funds from the state budget. It allocated a total amount of 3.5 mil. Euros (2021), the cost structure being divided into (Romanian Parliament 2021a) hardware, software, subscription feens and licensing—1.535 mil. Euros; hardware and alert generation software—0.43 mil. Euros, mobile devices for the intervention bodies—1.25 mil. Euros; EM devices/bracelets 500 items, for the pilot phase—0.275 mil. Euros.

As the EMIS depends on some SNSEC 112 (Single national system for emergency calls) resources, the legislative regulation aims to simplify the route of alerts by eliminating from it the single emergency call centre (operated by the personnel of the STS), which, in case of “classical alerts” ensures the receipt of calls and their transmission to specialised agencies, depending on the nature of the notified event (Figure 8).

So, we observe that the notification of the Police Emergency Dispatcher will occur automatically, with no human interaction, once the alert is initiated under EMIS.

4.2.2. Binding Provisions Included in the New Legislative Regulation

From the perspective of its scope, the Law of 2021 on EM during criminal proceedings and in the execution of criminal penalties (Romanian Parliament 2021b) regulates: (i) the establishment, organisation, and functioning of EMIS; (ii) the use of EM devices and the mode of their action in case of alert generation, and (iii) data protection measures under EMIS.

Evidently, under this system fall only the EM devices localised in Romania and used only for the following situations: (i) execution of court review (even on bail); (ii) home arrest; (iii) application of provisional protection order and protection order for preventing and fighting domestic violence; (iv) application of European protection order if Romania is the issuing state, and (v) remote monitoring of the execution of criminal sentences and custodial measures ordered by justice bodies.

EMIS is regulated as “an integral set of specialised software (ISSC and AGIS), applications, equipment and communication networks and information technology, as well as EM devices used for EM in court proceedings and in the execution of criminal sentences” (Romanian Parliament 2021b) compatible with SNSEC. The following bodies have been assigned roles in the development and operation of this system: the Romanian Police General Inspectorate and the NAP, which use funds from the state budget to jointly manage EMIS, and together with the Special Telecommunications Service ensure the integral nature of EMIS and its compatibility with SNSEC.

The above-mentioned law includes the general rules regarding the use of EM devices, their attachment (usually on the ankle of the monitored person), the handing over of the monitoring device to the monitored person and monitored person’s training, and device checking at different times and circumstances. Concerning the signal creation and localisation data collection, it has been regulated that these are created and introduced into ISSC (each signal is automatically allocated a unique identification code) by the monitoring body, and their content is separately set for each monitored and protected person.

Table 3. Types of alerts (A1–A5), reasons for their generation, and applicable procedures under EMIS.

Types of Alerts and Reasons for Their Generation	Applicable Procedures by Type of Alert
A1—Leaving the premises, generated after detecting that the EM device worn by the monitored person is located outside the building	The monitored person shall immediately: (a) remain and return to the place; (b) call the monitoring body and follow its instructions; To check the compliance with home arrest, public order bodies and the monitoring bodies have the right to enter the place where the measure is executed without the consent of the monitored person or of the other cotenants; If the monitored person is present at the monitored place, the report shall include its statement, and if needed, the statements of cotenants in relation with alert generation.
A2—Stepping outside the perimeter, generated after detecting that the EM device worn by the monitored person is located outside the set route or perimeter	The monitored person shall immediately: (a) appear at the closest public order body on service; (b) call the monitoring body and follow its instructions; Public order bodies have to go to the location indicated upon the receipt of the intervention data to find the monitored person; The public order body finding the monitored person, or where the monitored person appeared, shall make the report in this sense.
A3—Approaching, generated after detecting that the EM device worn by the monitored person is in close proximity to the EM device of the protected person, less that the set distance	The monitored person shall immediately: (a) appear at the closest public order body on service; (b) call the monitoring body and follow its instructions; (c) move away from the protected person; The public order body shall go immediately to the protected person’s place; The public order body finding the monitored person, or where the monitored person appeared, shall make the report in this sense.
A4—Defect generated after detecting the loss of signal of the EM device, or other defects related to optimal functioning of the device	The monitored person shall immediately: (a) remain and return to the place if they are under home arrest; (b) appear at the closest public order body (in other situations than those described above); (c) call the monitoring body and follow its instructions; (d) move away from the protected person; The protected person shall also be contacted; To check the compliance with home arrest, public order bodies and the monitoring bodies have the right to enter the place where the measure is executed without the consent of the monitored person or of the other co-tenants; If the monitored person is present at the monitored place, the report shall include its statement, and if needed, the statements of cotenants in relation with alert generation; The public order body finding the monitored person, or where the monitored person appeared, shall make the report in this sense; The public order body shall go immediately to the protected person place.
A5—Testing generated during device attachment to check its optimal functioning	The testing alert shall be sent to the monitoring body to check the functioning of the EM devices; Before each use, the EM device shall be tested; The EM device for the protected person shall be tested without contacting them.

Source: made by the author using the legislation in force at the date when the article was written (Romanian Parliament 2021b).

shows the types of alerts and procedure imposed when the alerts are generated under EMIS.

In addition, the law clearly regulates the access of the monitoring or judicial body to localisation data in case of alert generation. The aim is to check the compliance with legal provisions of those under the system, also comprising the rules for personal data protection.

Regarding the time of EMIS operationalisation, it should be finalised no later than 1 October 2022 (Romanian Government 2022d), with first a “pilot system” that should be applied only in cases of protection order (Romanian Parliament 2003).

4.3. Implications of the Law on EM on the Content of Other Regulatory Acts

The law establishing EM in Romania brought significant changes to the content of other regulatory documents. For example, the New Criminal Code (Romanian Parliament 2009) was supplemented with provisions related to the destruction of EM devices used for EM during court proceedings and in executing criminal sentences, and also in regard to the failure of the person under home arrest remaining at the place of arrest, or using the specified route or conditions of travel. In addition, criminal penalties related to the above-mentioned actions were included into the body of the law.

The Criminal Procedure Code was also supplemented regarding the establishment of the measure of permanent wearing of the devices, the appealing methods against the measure, the place/route set for the person under judicial review, the obligation to report to the police body in charge with the monitoring, etc. It is also stipulated here that “the monitoring has access under law to any documents, images, audio-video recordings or other documents found in possession of any public authority or institution, legal entity or individual” (Romanian Parliament 2010).

Finally, in the body of the law on prevention and fighting domestic violence (Romanian Parliament 2003), the phrase “electronic monitoring system” has been replaced with the phrase” electronic monitoring device”.

4.4. Technical and Organisational Aspects Regarding the Operationalisation of the EMIS Pilot System

After the adoption by the Romanian Government (2022a), the EMIS operationalisation was set for 1 October 2022, with first a pilot system for the application of protection orders (including provisional), and for the European protection order (Romanian Parliament 2003), if Romania is the issuing state.

Before the adoption of this decision, a governmental analysis (Romanian Government 2022c) showed that, nationally, at least 7000 individuals should be monitored only in cases of protection orders/provisional orders, this also being the reason why the technical specifications and the Necessity Report were approved. This figure was found to be accurate, departing from the fact that in 2020 there were 1607 domestic violence cases reported (tightly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic when the mobility of people was limited), with 8210 issued protection orders (valid for six months) and 8393 provisional orders (valid for 5 days) (National Agency for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men 2021).

For the next year, statistical data on domestic violence showed growth (2021, for the first eight months), with a total of provisional protection orders issued by the Police of 7121, and 10431 orders under way, out of which 6901 were issued by courts and 3530 were in progress at the start of the year. Until 1 September (2021), 6057 cases were finalised, with 4374 cases in progress (Romanian Government 2021a). Therefore, an estimated value of all equipment needed for the system amounted (15,000 kits including monitoring bracelets, software, hardware, license and maintenance for a period of five years) to 40,500,000 Euros, excluding VAT, and 48,195,000 Euros, VAT included.

The scheme below illustrates the response mode of the system in a scenario of domestic violence (Figure 9), assuming that the “approaching alert” is initiated, when the aggressor arrives into the proximity of the protected person (victim), including the members of its family, at a shorter distance than allowed.

Derived from the Law on EM in Romania (Romanian Parliament 2021b), the Draft Government Decision (Romanian Government 2022a) proposed the regulation of technical and organisational issues related to the functioning of the EMIS pilot system, EMIS operationalisation, and the conditions under which, during the EMIS pilot operation, a person could be forced to wear the EM device. In addition, due to necessity to make start the activity of a technical board having special roles in this area, a regulation was approved in this sense on 9 November 2021 (General Inspectorate of Romanian Police 2021).

After analysing the coverage of cases by administrative-territorial units, it was decided that EM should be implemented in three phases under a pilot system (Romanian Government 2021b):

• I (2022–2023)—in the capital and three other counties (Iași, Mureș and Vrancea);
• II (in 2024)—line the above-mentioned administrative territorial units, to which are added 19 counties (Bacău, Brașov, Caraș-Severin, Călărași, Cluj, Covasna, Galați, Giurgiu, Harghita, Ilfov, Mehedinți, Neamț, Prahova, Sibiu, Satu-Mare, Sălaj, Teleorman, Vaslui, and Vâlcea);
• III (in 2025)—in 19 other counties (Alba, Arad, Argeș, Bihor, Bistrița-Năsăud, Botoșani, Brăila, Buzău, Constanța, Dâmbovița, Dolj, Gorj, Hunedoara, Ialomița, Maramureș, Olt, Suceava, Timiș, and Tulcea), including the administrative territorial units included in phases I and II.

Given the desire of authorities to become efficient in using the global positioning technologies in this context (Yeh 2010, 2015), we may note that the contravention liability was established for the monitored person failing to comply with the rules. These stipulate that the monitored person should “inform in advance the monitoring body on their intent to leave the country, or return to the national territory, and contact and inform immediately, upon return, such body for having the device attached” (Romanian Government 2021b).

We should note that the budgetary effort for these measures (“a—developing the Romanian Police software solutions integrating the EMIS components; b—ensuring EMIS related hardware and software infrastructure, and its components; c—ensuring the needed number of EM devices; d—EMIS operationalisation” (Romanian Government 2021b, 2022b) is also amplified by the fact that more staff is needed by the national police, i.e., 6134 jobs, of which 497 are officers and 5637 agents (Romanian Government 2021b), determining higher growing allocations for public expenses on human resources.

So, with this set of measures in line with current European practices (Beumer and Øster 2016) increasing the citizens’ degree of safety, we believe that in the medium-term, Romania (maximum three years—after finalising phase) will develop its capabilities needed to significantly increase the action capacity of the national police. Certainly, this will create the premises for a more efficient control of compliance with the measures imposed through protection orders.

5. Conclusions

Our study brought to the fore the fact that the need is even stronger today for benefitting from the opportunities provided by technologically advanced electronic equipment in order to increase the degree of citizens’ safety. Being an interdisciplinary study providing a technical perspective and an international overview of good practices, as well as a legal perspective investigating the European and national regulatory framework (main principles and applicable regulations), a streamline of the opportunities provided by the progress of current technology, as well as an overview of financial resources, we believe we succeeded in offering to decision-making authorities an original and useful approach to understanding the case of Romania. It also presents a clarification of concepts and elements of history related to the development over time of EM and of people under restrictions imposed by the justice systems across the world.

We succeeded in providing a reasonable answer to a hypothetical question, i.e., “How urgent is the introduction/extension of the EM system today?” Specifically, as it has not up to now been proven that the advantages of EM are evident in all cases for people undergoing criminal proceedings and while executing a criminal sentence, there is no pressure for establishing this monitoring system. Moreover, just a few thousand people benefit from this system in countries that have introduced it several years ago.

Still, in the case of Romania, where this process has just started, having adopted just the regulatory framework and ways of ensuring the logistics (after finalising the needed financial allocations), the operationalisation of EMIS should be accelerated. Our findings showed that the system should be imposed, at least, for domestic violence cases, and in the application of protection orders (including the provisional orders) and the European protection orders in cases when Romania is the issuing state.

We found that the special legislation adopted for effective transfer to EMIS in Romania complies with the requirements applicable to setting up an EMIS for people undergoing criminal justice, which is derived from the Recommendation of Council of Europe Committee (No. 004/2014), and is in line with the technical specifications and with the necessity report for acquisitions, from which it results that the equipment matches the highest standards in the field.

We also put a special emphasis on the motivations for supporting a law on EM in court proceedings and execution of criminal sentences, departing from those aimed to bring terminological clarifications to those related to European and international requirements, and also underlined the mandatory provisions of such a law and the implications brought by its adoption in terms of the content of other regulatory acts. In addition, we looked into technical and organisational issues related to the operationalisation of the EMIS pilot system.

It resulted from studying the regulatory body that Romania has the institutional framework that could ensure a high standard of performance in EM of people under judicial justice, and, therefore, a high degree of safety for its citizens. In addition, the measures that have been adopted up to now match the mandatory regulatory standards of the national institutional framework.

The research limitations are linked to finding an answer to the following hypothetical question: “Does EM bring definite advantages to all areas (financial, prison overcrowding, recidivism, etc.) compared with surveillance/traditional incarceration?” In this sense, the available data and information (which do not include a longer timescale, or a systematisation by type of cases for a representative number of countries) could not be used to provide solid arguments for the rapid introduction of the EM system for people under the restrictions imposed by criminal justice. Still, we may anticipate a higher presence of this system in the world over time due to technological advancements affecting this area and also considering the fact that the conditions in an overcrowded traditional prison could not be compared to those provided by a modern prison, or eventually in the future, by “E-Incarceration”.

That is why a future study could concentrate on assessing the specific advantages of any kind of the EMIS compared with traditional surveillance/incarceration in order to be able to make recommendations, based on solid arguments, regarding the extension of EM or people undergoing court proceedings and executing criminal sentences.