Defining and Registering Criminal Offences and Measures - Oapen

Pre-Trial Detention and Other Compulsory Measures 231
In the prosecution chapter, data was provided by twenty countries, at least for
one item of the table (most of the time pre-trial detention), though five countries
mentioned that it was stock data. The stock may be the number of pre-trial detainees
(prison statistics) or the number of persons under warrant on a given day.
For fifteen countries data about pre-trial detention could be flow data but the
situation is not quite clear at least for four of them (no answer to the question).
Data collected in this table will be compared to correctional statistics which are
available for all countries in stocks.
In the convictions chapter, only 13 countries provided some figures at least for
the total of persons convicted. Two of them cannot give the number of convicted
persons held in pre-trial detention by offences. Some others are not able to collect
data for all offences. In four countries, even if the amount of convicted persons is
available for some specific offences, data about pre-trial detention are not collected
in the same way (they may be produced according to different offence classifications).
For two other countries the national correspondents put in this table stock
figures coming from prisons statistics. These figures will be removed from the
final data base.
4. Additional questionnaire and evaluation
The additional questionnaire featured the tables from the trial questionnaire which
were dropped while producing the final version. For the relevant parts, the structure
of these tables is identical to the one used in the trial questionnaire (see
above). Therefore, they are not reprinted again.
Although the additional questionnaire was answered by one more country
(Ukraine) than the trial version, data availability on measures of supervision remained
as poor as in the trial phase: only two countries were able to provide information
on telephone tapping (Finland, Germany). Different from the trial version, Poland
now stated that there are no data available at all, while before it had replied that
data on supervision of movement would be available (see above).
Three countries responded that they were able to provide data regarding the
freezing of assets. Finland stated that these data referred to police ordered freezing
measures, Poland stated these were prosecutor ordered and Germany: court ordered.
Still, most of the responding countries were unable to provide the data requested.
With respect to the confiscation of assets by the court (convictions chapter), as in the
trial phase, only Germany and France were able to provide data.
For international legal cooperation, now apart from the countries already having
responded this way in the trial version, Albania was also able to provide some
data. The new results were: