ENDNOTES 42 Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, establishing minimum standards for the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, 25th October 2012, eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012L0029&from=EN. 56 Open Society Foundation, Presumption of Guilt: The Global Overuse Of Pretrial Detention, 2014, Executive Summary, p1. 43 See European Forum on Restorative Justice, RJ Symposium and AGM in Bilbao, June 2019, www.euforumrj.org/euforum_ event/rj-symposium-efrj-agm-bilbao. 59 Penal Reform International, Community service and probation for women: A study in Kenya, 2016, p15. 44 The Scottish Government, Delivering for today, investing for tomorrow: the Government’s programme for Scotland 2018–2019, 4 September 2018, p106. 45 The Scottish Government, Delivery of Restorative Justice in Scotland Guidance, October 2017, p11. 46 Dr Mariana Semini-Tutulani, The restorative justice under the prospective of the new legal framework for juvenile justice in Albania, 14 June 2018, p7. 47 Law of Georgia, Juvenile Justice Code, Articles 38–48. 48 European Forum for Restorative Justice, Presentations from the EFRJ Conference 2018, www.euforumrj.org/news/ presentations-efrj-conference-2018. 49 ‘More Restorative Justice Centres to be Established’, Jamaica Observer, 9 March 2018, www.jamaicaobserver.com/ latestnews/More_restorative_justice_ centres_to_be_established_?profile=1228. 50 ‘Alberta Justice adding £4.5 million for services, tools to aid victims of crime’, Vancouver Sun, 19 October 2018, vancouversun.com/pmn/news-pmn/ canada-news-pmn/alberta-justice-adding4-5-million-for-services-tools-to-aidvictims-of-crime/wcm/da1fc359-d76d-402f866d-ef0be6db2b2e. 51 ‘From November, survivors of sex crimes can access restorative justice’, The Canberra Times, 19 September 2018, www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/act/ from-november-survivors-of-sex-crimescan-access-restorative-justice-20180918p504g7.html. PART 2 Trends in the use of imprisonment 52 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 9 and 14, see also United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), Rules 6.1 and 6.2. See also Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and security of person), 16 December 2014, and UNDoc. CCPR/C/GC/35.European Forum for Restorative Justice, Presentations from the EFRJ Conference 2018, 26th June 2018, www.euforumrj.org/news/presentations-efrjconference-2018. 53 Committee Against Torture, Eighth annual report of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, CAT/C/54/2, 26 March 2015, paras 76 and 77. 54 ‘Meeting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: a look at reducing pre-trial detention in efforts to achieve Goal 16’, Penal Reform International, 24 April 2018, www.penalreform.org/news/ meeting-the-2030-agenda-for-sustainabledevelopment-a. 55 Roy Walmsley, Institute for Criminal Policy Research, World Pre-trial/Remand Imprisonment List, third edition, 2017. 57 Roy Walmsley, Institute for Criminal Policy Research, World Pre-trial/Remand Imprisonment List, third edition, 2017. 58 Ibid. 60 Open Society Foundation, Presumption of Guilt: The Global Overuse of Pretrial Detention, 2014, pp3–4. 61 Juvenile Justice Advocates International, Children in Pretrial Detention: Promoting Stronger International Time Limits, 2018, Executive Summary, p1. 62 Raymund E. Narg, ‘Exploring the consequences of prolonged pretrial incarceration: evidence from a local jurisdiction in the Philippines’, International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, March 2018. 63 ‘Why remandees are granted bail but still rot in jail’, Daily Nation, 16 September 2018, www.nation.co.ke/newsplex/ remandees/2718262-4759170-12q39tl/ index.html. 64 ‘California scraps cash bail system ‘because it discriminates against poor people’’, The Independent, 29 August 2018, www.independent.co.uk/news/ world/americas/california-cash-bail-endstate-courts-discrimination-poor-jerrybrown-a8512211.html. 65 ‘ACLU Of California Changes Position to Oppose Bail Reform Legislation’, ACLU, 20 August 2018, www.aclusocal.org/en/ press-releases/aclu-california-changesposition-oppose-bail-reform-legislation. 66 European Court of Human Rights, Case of LAKATOS v. HUNGARY, Application no. 21786/15, 26 June 2018. 67 Juvenile Justice Advocates International, Children in Pretrial Detention: Promoting Stronger International Time Limits, 2018, Introduction, p7. 68 ‘Mexico: Reject Bill Expanding Pretrial Detention’, Human Rights Watch, 17 December 2018, www.hrw.org/ news/2018/12/17/mexico-reject-billexpanding-pretrial-detention. 69 Institute for Criminal Policy Research, World Prison Brief Database, www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/ occupancy-level?field_region_taxonomy_ tid=All. 70 ‘Supreme Court strikes down law on nonbailable offences’, MyJoyOnline, 5 May 2016, www.myjoyonline.com/news/2016/may-5th/ supreme-court-strikes-down-law-on-nonbailable-offences.php. 71 Fair Trials, The Disappearing Trial: Towards a rights-based approach to trial waiver systems, 27th April 2017, p23. 72 Ibid. 73 ‘The Great Escape – prison crisis eases after Corrections thinks outside the cell’, New Zealand Herald, 3 September 2018, www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article. cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12118589. 74 Jessica Jacobson, Catherine Heard, Helen Fair, Institute for Criminal Policy Research and Fair Trials, Prison: Evidence of its use and over-use from around the world, March 2017, p22. 75 See for example Julian V. Roberts, Mike Hough, Jessica Jacobson, Nick Moon, ‘Public Attitudes to Sentencing Purposes and Sentencing Factors: An Empirical Analysis’, Criminal Law Review, Issue 11, 2009, pp771–782. Penal Reform International and Thailand Institute of Justice | Global Prison Trends 2019 76 ‘A New Sensibility: An analysis of public opinion research on attitudes towards crime and criminal justice policy’, The Opportunity Agenda, opportunityagenda.org/explore/ resources-publications/new-sensibility/ executive-summary. 77 Giovanni Mastrobuoni and David Rivers, Criminal Discount Factors and Deterrence, 7 February 2016, p4. 78 Scottish Sentencing Council, Principles and purposes of sentencing, Sentencing guideline, Effective from 26 November 2018, p4. 79 ‘Community service for offenders with short sentences to alleviate prison overcrowding’, IOL, 7 December 2018, www.iol.co.za/ capetimes/news/community-service-foroffenders-with-short-sentences-to-alleviateprison-overcrowding-18413400. 80 Ministers consider ending jail terms of six months or less’, BBC News, 12 January 2019, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46847162. 81 The Cornell Centre on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Judged for More Than Her Crime: A Global Overview of Women Facing the Death Penalty, September 2018, Introduction, p6. 82 Ibid. 83 ‘Report: black men get longer sentences for the same federal crime as white men’, VOX, 17th November 2017, www.vox.com/ identities/2017/11/17/16668770/ussentencing-commission-race-booker. 84 UN General Assembly, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), 2 April 1991, Rule 7.1. 85 Centre for Justice Innovation, The changing use of pre-sentence reports, 2018. 86 Danielle L. Kehl, Priscilla Guo and Samuel Kessler, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School, Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System: Assessing the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing, 2017, p8. 87 ‘Computer says no bail – does AI reduce or increase human bias?’, Transform Justice, 6 October 2018, www.transformjustice.org.uk/ computer-says-no-bail-does-ai-reduce-orincrease-human-bias. 88 ‘Profile-based risk assessment for US pre-trial incarceration, release decisions’, Human Rights Watch, 1 June 2018, www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/01/q-profilebased-risk-assessment-us-pretrialincarceration-release-decisions. 89 Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu and Lauren Kirchner, ‘Machine Bias’, ProPublica, 23 May 2016, www.propublica.org/article/ machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminalsentencing. 90 Ibid. 91 European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment, Adopted at the 31st plenary meeting of the CEPEJ (Strasbourg, 3–4 December 2018). 92 Ibid. 93 The following countries voted against the resolution: Afghanistan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Ethiopia, Grenada, India, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Maldives, Nauru, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Singapore, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States, Yemen, Zimbabwe, www.un.org/en/ ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/ RES/73/175. | 45