Criminal Security Orders and Judicial Supervision in Canadian and Afghan Law

The main topics discussed in this article essentially include two points. First, the adoption of measures for the release of suspected and accused, which can be achieved through release with a verbal commitment, obtaining a summons guarantee (guarantee by another one), and financial guarantees. These measures, which are implemented in support of the freedom of the suspected and the accused, are prioritized in both the Canadian and Afghan legal systems. The second point concerns stricter measures, such as the detention of suspected and accused. This measure is applied for protecting the interest of the society. The difference lies in the fact that in Canadian law, a peace officer has the authority in criminal security measures, including the issuance of a summons, subpoena, and commitment. However, in the case of judicial supervision measures, such as ensuring compliance with conditions of release or pretrial detention of the accused, a peace judge or judge has the jurisdiction, and both the accused and the prosecutor have the right to object, agree with certain decisions, or disagree with some court decisions. Prosecutors in countries like Afghanistan and Iran have the authority to impose pretrial detention, but in Canada, this authority is not granted to prosecutors. The research method used in this article involved reviewing the laws of the countries under study and a number of related books. In other words, an analytical-descriptive (library-based) an approach has been adopted. The main question of this article is: How are criminal security measures and judicial supervision defined in the laws of Canada and Afghanistan? In response, it can be said that it seems these measures in both systems began with a lenient approach in favor of the suspect and accused and have moved toward stricter measures in the interest of society. In other words, the priority is to protect the freedom of the suspect and the accused.