The Proportionality of House Arrest with Electronic Monitoring and Individual Freedom of the Accused: A Comparative Study between French and Iranian Law
https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2026.1.35.051-080
Abstract
The paper is dedicated to the relevant topic of applying electronic monitoring measures to individuals who have been placed under house arrest, using the experiences of two countries — France and Iran — as case-studies. The key issue explored in the study is the proportionality criteria of this measure in relation to the suspect’s or accused person’s right to privacy and freedom of movement The authors conclude that French legislation establishes the principle of proportionality between the aforementioned measure and the accused’s freedom of movement, as well as defines clear criteria for proportionality. In contrast, Iranian legislation does not establish the proportionality of this measure with the accused’s freedom of movement, nor does it address the scope and duration of this measure at the legislative level. The authors also point out that French law requires the accused’s consent to wear electronic bracelets in order to respect their dignity and ensure privacy. Iranian law does not clarify the status of the accused’s consent or the consequences of failing to comply with this procedure.
About the Authors
A. Qasem
Damascus University
Syrian Arab Republic
Syrian Arab Republic
Adnan Qasem, PhD in Criminal Law, Research Scholar, Faculty of Law
Damascus
M. J. Habibzadeh
Tarbiat Modares University
Islamic Republic of Iran
Islamic Republic of Iran
Mohammad Jafar Habibzadeh, PhD in Criminal Law, Research Scholar, Faculty of Law
Tehran
S. D. Mousavi Mojab
Tarbiat Modares University
Islamic Republic of Iran
Islamic Republic of Iran
Seyed Doraid Mousavi Mojab, PhD in Criminal Law, Research Scholar, Faculty of Law
Tehran
References
1. Alexy, R., (2012). The Construction of Constitutional Rights: Revue Française de Droit Constitutionnel, 91(3), pp. 465–477, doi: 10.3917/rfdc.091.0465.
2. Alexy, R., (2014). Constitutional Rights and Proportionality. Revusov kanon, 22, pp. 51–65, doi: 10.4000/revus.2783.
3. Anane, S., (2015). Assignation à résidence avec surveillance électronique et détention provisoire — Instruction. Dalloz Actualité. (In French). Available at: https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/assignation-residence-avec-surveillance-electronique-et-detention-provisoire [Accessed 12.02.2026].
4. Ashoori, M. and Saffari, A., (2023). Minimum standards for pre-trial detention in International instruments and Iran law. The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views, 24(86), pp. 1–20. Available at: https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_703565_en.html [Accessed 12.02.2026].
5. Baduel, A., (2020). L’effectivité des droits processuels dans le contentieux de la détention provisoire [PhD Thesis]. Universite de Aix-Marseille. Available at: https://hal.science/hal-04190132/document [Accessed 12.02.2026].
6. Ben Zarqa, Q., (2020). Electronic Monitoring: A New Mechanism for Implementing Punishment in Algerian Legislation. PhD Thesis. Abdelhamid Ben Badis University.
7. Bitton, A., (2021). L’assignation à résidence avec surveillance électronique de la personne mise en examen. Village de la Justice. Available at: https://www.village-justice.com/articles/assignation-residence-avec-surveillance-electronique-personne-mise-examen,40634. html [Accessed 12.02.2026].
8. Cabanel, G.-P., (1996). Pour une meilleure prévention de la récidive. Available at: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000795448731648 [Accessed 12.02.2026].
9. Chetard, G., (2019). La proportionnalité de la répression: Étude sur les enjeux du contrôle de proportionnalité en droit pénal français. PhD Thesis. Université de Strasbourg. Available at: https://theses.hal.science/tel-03697352/ [Accessed 12.02.2026].
10. De la Bâtie, A.D., (2013). La réparation de l’erreur judiciaire en France et au Royaume-Uni: Étude comparative. PhD Thesis. Université de Panthéon-Assas-Paris II. (In French).
11. Devresse, M.-S., (2013). Être placé sous surveillance électronique: Une forme originale de “peine situationnelle”? Déviance et Société, 37(3), pp. 375–388, doi: 10.3917/ds.373.0375.
12. Gable, R.S. and Gable, R.K., (2016). Remaking the Electronic Tracking of Offenders into a “Persuasive Technology.” Journal of Technology in Human Services, 34(1), pp. 13–31, doi: 10.1080/15228835.2016.1138839.
13. Gable, R.S., (2014). The Ankle Bracelet Is History: An Informal Review of the Birth and Death of a Monitoring Technology. Journal of Offender Monitoring, 27(1), pp. 3–9. Available at: http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/online/PDF/The%20Ankle%20Bracelet%20Is%20History.pdf [Accessed 12.02.2026].
14. Ghanim, S. and Rakaizi, W., (2017). The Electronic Bracelet — An Applied Topic. PhD Thesis. Arab Tebessi University.
15. Ghazwani, M., (2022). The Principle of Proportionality in the Case Law of the Tunisian Court of Cassation. Publications of the International Institute for Democracy and Elections. Available at: https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/principle-proportionality-case-law-tunisian-court-cassation [Accessed 12.02.2026].
16. Hajimolla, H. and Mohammadi, A., (2021). Evaluating the ratio of the Principle of Necessity and the Principle of Proportionality in the Realm of Limitation and Suspension of Human Rights. Journal of Legal Studies, 13(1), pp. 29–54. Available at: https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/m/article_6087.html?lang=en [Accessed 12.02.2026].
17. Harithi, A., (2021). The idea of necessity in criminal procedures. PhD Thesis. Mansoura University.
18. Kasāsiba, F.Y. al-, (2010). The Function of Punishment and Its Role in Treatment and Rehabilitation — A Comparative Study (aṭ-Ṭab’a 1). Amman: Wael Publishing House.
19. Khaleghi, A., (2023). Brief commentaries on: Code of criminal procedure. Tehran: The SD Institute of Law Research and Study & Study. Khaleghi, A., (2024). Criminal Procedure (Vol. 1). Tehran: The SD Institute of Law Research and Study & Study.
20. Lavric, S., (2021). Mandat d’arrêt européen: Mesure de sûreté subie à l’étranger et déduction de la peine privative de liberté. Dalloz Actualité (2021, Avril). Available at: https://actu.dalloz-etudiant.fr/a-la-une/article/mandat-darret-europeen-mesure-de-surete-subie-a-letranger-et-deduction-de-la-peine-pr/h/99c7df2786ee918a03295c8c51325185. html [Accessed 12.02.2026].
21. Lehzil, A.H., (2018). The electronic bracelet system according to Algerian judicial policy. Journal of Legal and Political Thought, 18(3), pp. 300–320. Available at: https://asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/73852 [Accessed 12.02.2026].
22. Masrouq, M., (2019). The Electronic Surveillance System “Electronic Bracelet” in Algerian Legislation. PhD Thesis. Kasdi Merbah University.
23. Mazmoumi, M. al-, (2020). Electronic monitoring as an alternative to custodial punishment: A study in light of the Saudi system and comparative systems. Sound of Law magazine, 7(2), pp. 856–894. Available at: https://asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/134325 [Accessed 12.02.2026].
24. Otani, S., (2009). The Status of Electronic Surveillance “Electronic Bracelet” in French Penal Policy. Damascus University Journal of Economic and Legal Sciences, 25(1), pp. 129–162. Available at: https://search.mandumah.com/Record/74286 [Accessed 12.02.2026].
25. Phillips, D., (2013). Probation and parole. Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9781315877365&type=googlepdf [Accessed 12.02.2026].
26. Plonquet, A., (2021). L’agent de surveillance électronique: Un surveillant comme les autres? PhD Thesis. Université de Bordeaux. (In French).
27. Poostchi, A. and Darabi, S., (2024). Supervision of Electronic Systems in Iran’s Criminal Justice System. Applied Criminology Research, 2(4), pp. 101–126, doi: 10.22034/aqcr.2025.2053253.1051.
28. Pradel, J., (2019). Du principe de proportionnalité en droit pénal. Les Cahiers de Droit, 60(4), pp. 1129–1149. (In French). Available at: https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/cd1/2019-v60-n4-cd05038/1066351ar/abstract/ [Accessed 12.02.2026].
29. Rajab, M.A., (2017). The Principle of Proportionality of Bails in Iranian Criminal Procedure. The Judiciarys Law Journal, 81(98), pp. 63–82. (In French). Available at: https://www.jlj.ir/article_26775.html?lang=en [Accessed 12.02.2026].
30. Recotillet, M., (2022). Assignation à résidence avec surveillance électronique à l’étranger: Déduction de la peine prononcée — Pénal. Dalloz Actualité. (2022). (In French). Avaialble at: https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/assignation-residence-avec-surveillance-electronique-l-etranger-deduction-de-peine-prononcee [Accessed 12.02.2026].
31. Robert, A.-G., (2020). La peine de détention à domicile sous surveil-lance électronique: Une fausse bonne idée? Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Pénal Comparé, 3(3), pp. 577–588. (In French). Available at: https://droit.cairn.info/article/RSC_2003_0577?tab=texte-integral [Accessed 12.02.2026].
32. Sauvé, J.-M., (2018). Le principe de proportionnalité, protecteur des libertés? Les Cahiers Portalis, 5(1), pp. 9–21. (In French). Available at: https://droit.cairn.info/article/CAPO_005_0009 [Accessed 12.02.2026].
33. Tadayon, A., (2008). Electronic Monitoring: A Step towards Prison Alternatives. The Judiciarys Law Journal, 72(64), pp. 56–66, doi: 10.22106/jlj.2008.11241.
34. Tully, J., Hearn, D. and Fahy, T., (2014). Can electronic monitoring (GPS “tracking”) enhance risk management in psychiatry? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 205(2), pp. 83–85, doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.138636.
35. Van Drooghenbroeck, S., (2019). La proportionnalité dans le droit de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme: Prendre l’idée simple au sérieux. Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles. (In French).
Review
For citations:
Qasem A., Habibzadeh M.J., Mousavi Mojab S.D. The Proportionality of House Arrest with Electronic Monitoring and Individual Freedom of the Accused: A Comparative Study between French and Iranian Law. Kutafin Law Review. 2026;13(1):51-80. https://doi.org/10.17803/2713-0533.2026.1.35.051-080
Views:
158
JATS XML
Email this article 
