A/HRC/4/33/Add.2 Page 49 247. According to non-governmental sources, before amendments were introduced to paragraph 1 of article 152 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 16 December 2005, the Code provided for several non-custodial preventive measures,8 although pre-trial detention had been the one mostly used9. The amendments reduced the list of alternative, non-custodial measures leaving bail and personal guarantee as the only options. Given the specific nature of these preventive measures, if a person cannot afford to post bail or find a reliable person who agrees to be his or her guarantor, the individual will be detained no matter how unreasonable this measure is in the given case. It is noteworthy, however, that the instances of applying bail as preliminary measure has slightly increased in 2006, though in comparison with the instances of applying preventive detention the number is still low. According to a letter of the Supreme Court of Georgia dated 20 September 2006, detention as a preliminary measure has been applied to 5160 persons,, while bail to 2740 and personal guarantee to 343 persons. Property of the accused in theory may also be used as bail, although the prosecutor’s office often refuses this option. Article 195 of the revised Criminal Procedure Code, to be adopted by the end of 2006, envisions a range of alternatives to detention for suspects. Paragraph 2 specifies a number of important measures, but states that they “may only be applied where the State has sufficient resources for encouraging its application.” This qualification suggests that the state has no actual obligation to implement these measures. 248. Furthermore, senior government officials have not publicly supported the use of noncustodial measures. In a February 2006 speech to newly-appointed judges, the President strongly discouraged the use of probation, even for those convicted of petty crime. He stated, “People should be sent to prison for every petty crime…. [P]robation sentence will be abolished and all culprits will go straight to prison, except when it is necessary for the investigation to get information from the person which will help open big and serious cases…” 249. Recommendation (j) stated: Recourse to pre-trial detention be restricted in the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly for non-violent, minor or less serious offences, and the use of non-custodial measures such as bail and recognizance be increased; 250. According to non-governmental sources, there are no data or public statements to suggest that preference is being given to non-custodial measures instead of pre-trial detention. The pre-trial population, according to the Penitentiary Department’s own statistics, remains at approximately 63% of the overall prison population. Anecdotic evidence suggests that many detainees have been charged with relatively minor first offences such as selling untaxed cigarettes, stealing without violence. Juveniles have been imprisoned for stealing a box of biscuits, a mirror, etc. Prison numbers have risen from 6654 in 2004, 9051 in 2005, 12,992 as of 3 August 2006, to 13,199 by 23 August and to 13,700 by 3 September 2006. 251. Authorities have not shown any interest in gathering figures in order to identify whether people are being inappropriately detained in pre-trial. Neither did the State take action upon suggestions that cases of mentally disturbed, allegedly trafficked women, first time 8 Including: placement under police surveillance, written undertaking not to leave place and behave properly, house arrest (although formally house arrest belonged in the category of non-custodial preventive measures, practically, it had nothing to do with the presence of an accused person at penitentiary institution and thus it was not a custodial measure). 9 According to the Letter of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Georgia dated April 4 2005, since July 2005 imprisonment as a preliminary measure was used in 3175 cases, while bail was granted in only 1071 cases.