E/CN.4/2006/7/Add.2 page 9 confidence in the administration of justice. Where an accused person is charged with certain particularly serious offences, however, the burden of proof shifts to the accused, i.e. the accused will have the burden of showing why he should not be detained before and during trial (sect. 516 (4)). 24. The bail court can order the release of an accused person subject to a variety of measures: undertakings by the accused, with or without conditions (such as reporting to the police at regular intervals, remaining within a specific territory or area, drug or alcohol treatment, etc.) imposed on him by the court, a cash deposit, or a “surety” (usually a friend or relative) who agrees to pay a certain sum in the event that the accused fails to attend a court hearing in his case or otherwise to comply with a release condition. 25. Sections 520 and 521 permit the accused person and the prosecutor to seek review of the bail court’s decision to order detention or release. The bail decision can be appealed before a superior court judge. A review hearing will also be held mandatorily at regular intervals, after 90 days in the case of an indictable offence and after 30 days in the case of proceedings by summary conviction. For some particularly serious offences, e.g. murder charges, there is no mandatory review of pretrial detention, but the accused may apply for review. (b) Detention while serving a criminal sentence 26. In 1996 Canada enacted a sentencing reform, embodied in Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. As stated by the Canadian Supreme Court, the reform “must be understood as a reaction to the overuse of prison as a sanction”. Section 718.2 (d) and (e) reads: “A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: … (d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.”1 27. To allow courts to put these principles in practice, the Criminal Code provides for a set of sanctions falling short of incarceration (most of which predate the Sentencing Reform Act). In ascending order of severity, these measures are alternative measures (also referred to as diversion), discharge, probation, fines, intermittent sentences, and sentence to be served in the community. 28. The provision allowing “alternative measures” instead of the criminal judicial process is the primary avenue by which provincial governments administer restorative justice programmes. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined restorative justice as an attempt to “(r)emedy the adverse effects of crime in a manner that addresses the needs of all parties involved. This is accomplished, in part, through rehabilitation of the offender, reparations to the victim and to the community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledgement of the harm done to the victim and the community”. Restorative justice approaches include