Electronic monitoring in Canadian Criminal Law: Experiences and recommendations for improving the Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam

Abstract: Electronic Monitoring (EM) has increasingly been recognized as an alternative to custodial sentences in many jurisdictions, including Canada. In contrast, in several Asian countries such as Viet Nam, the application of EM remains relatively nascent and has yet to be comprehensively examined from both legal and practical perspectives. This article provides in-depth analysis of the Canadian legal framework related to the EM application, from subjects and scopes of application, monitoring mechanisms, rights of monitored individuals to measures to prevent and address any abuse or violation, as well as advantages and disadvantages of EM application in the Canada’s context. Based on theses analysis, the author recommends to revise related provisions of the Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam in order to enhance the effectiveness of EM application in Vietnam.

Keywords: Electronic Monitoring, EM, Canadian criminal law, criminal enforcement, Canada, Viet Nam.

1. Introduction

In the context of globalization and rapid technological development, electronic monitoring has become an effective measure for managing offenders and reducing pressure on traditional prison systems. In accordance with the general principles of the laws of many countries, including Viet Nam, electronic monitoring is understood as the attachment of an electronic device to a part of the body of the monitored person by a competent authority as prescribed by law, for the purpose of managing and tracking the individual’s location[1]. With its advanced legal system, Canada has widely applied electronic monitoring to individuals serving suspended sentences, conditional probation, and parole. Through technological devices, competent agencies can supervise and track monitored individuals without direct detention. The Criminal Code of Canada and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act have established a clear legal basis for the use of electronic monitoring, contributing to the reduction of inmate management costs and supporting social reintegration. In Viet Nam, although the Draft Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments[2] (Second Draft, for public consultation in 2024) has referred to the measure of electronic monitoring, there remain certain legal gaps that need to be revised and supplemented. Therefore, studying the experience of Canadian criminal law on electronic monitoring is necessary in order to propose appropriate reforms to the Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam.

2. Electronic monitoring under Canadian Criminal Law

2.1. Subjects of application

According to the current provisions of Canadian criminal law, electronic monitoring (EM) is defined as a tool used to supervise and monitor compliance with specific geographical conditions when an offender is released, through the use of monitoring devices.[3] In addition, electronic monitoring is also understood as “a form of remote surveillance technology that flexibly regulates the spatial and temporal routines of an offender’s daily life”[4]. The electronic monitoring device is an electronic component attached to the offender’s ankle to track compliance with geographical restrictions imposed upon release. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) may require an offender to wear an electronic monitoring device to ensure compliance with geographical conditions related to temporary absences, work releases, parole, statutory release, or long-term supervision. Canadian criminal law affirms that electronic monitoring is a supervisory tool intended to complement rather than replace traditional supervision methods[5]. This means that not all offenders are subject to this measure. The application of electronic monitoring to an individual offender depends on various factors, including mental and physical condition, religion, culture, community support, occupation, and other personal circumstances. For instance, offenders residing in geographic areas where the technology cannot function effectively are not eligible for electronic monitoring[6]. Under Canadian criminal law, electronic monitoring may be applied to the following categories of offenders:

- Offenders sentenced to conditional probation or conditional sentence orders. Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada[7] stipulates that the Court may allow an offender to serve a term of imprisonment within the community rather than in custody. In addition, Sections 732.1(3)(h) and 742.3(2)(f) of the same Code authorize the Court to require electronic monitoring as part of the conditions of probation or conditional sentence orders, for the purpose of supervising the offender’s behaviour and movements within the community. The Court will generally impose a conditional sentence for non-violent offences, offences posing a low level of risk, or for first-time offenders. Therefore, under the spirit of the Criminal Code of Canada, the subjects eligible for electronic monitoring include offenders who are subject to probation or conditional sentence orders.

- Offenders on parole, temporary absence, statutory release, or long-term supervision. Section 57.1(1)[8] of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides that electronic monitoring may be applied to individuals who are granted parole, temporary absence, statutory release, or long-term supervision. This provision authorizes the Correctional Service of Canada to use electronic monitoring for the purpose of ensuring that monitored individuals comply with the conditions imposed upon them. This measure enhances the management and supervision of offenders, ensuring that they do not violate the terms of their release, thereby contributing to the maintenance of social order.

- Defendants temporarily absent or granted pardon, and defendants involved in bail hearings prior to conviction. In Canada, responsibility for criminal justice is shared among the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. The federal government is responsible for enacting criminal laws, while the administration of justice (including police and courts) falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. This division of authority enables the provinces and territories to exercise autonomy in managing the needs and objectives of their criminal justice systems and to implement reforms appropriate to local circumstances to ensure their suitability and effectiveness[9]. In particular, several provinces in Canada stipulate that electronic monitoring may be applied to defendants in one of the following cases: those sentenced to imprisonment of less than two years; those subject to probation or conditional sentence orders; defendants temporarily absent or granted pardon; and defendants involved in bail hearings who have not yet been convicted but whose release poses concerns for public safety[10]. At present, the Province of Ontario has replaced its conventional electronic monitoring program with a GPS (Global Positioning System) electronic monitoring program. Accordingly, Ontario judges may impose GPS monitoring as an optional condition for adult offenders released on bail[11]. The Province of British Columbia has adopted similar provisions, under which the court may order electronic monitoring as a condition of a community supervision order[12]. In such cases, for defendants on bail, electronic monitoring may be ordered by the court to ensure compliance with the requirement that defendants remain at approved locations. This regulation aims to reduce the burden on the prison system and limit the detention of individuals who have not yet been formally convicted.

Thus, under Canadian criminal law, individuals subject to electronic monitoring include offenders serving conditional sentences, those granted parole, those released on statutory release, and, in certain cases, offenders granted pre-trial release. The regulation of electronic monitoring under Canadian criminal law has effectively addressed the issue of prison overcrowding and mass incarceration, reflecting an effort to establish measures that are less punitive and more rehabilitative in nature.

2.2. Mechanism of electronic monitoring implementation

Electronic monitoring (EM) in Canada commonly employs technologies such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) or Radio Frequency (RF) devices to track the location of monitored individuals.[13] The monitoring mechanisms of these technologies are relatively similar and can be summarized as follows:

First, location tracking: GPS or RF devices enable real-time determination of the monitored person’s location. If the individual moves outside the authorized area or enters a restricted zone, the digital system will automatically alert the supervising authority[14].

Second, time control: the monitoring device records and supervises the times when the monitored individual leaves and returns home, thereby ensuring compliance with time-related restrictions (for instance, curfew orders)[15].

Third, automatic alerts: the system notifies competent authorities if it detects irregular behavior such as tampering with or damaging the device, entering or leaving designated geographical zones, or obstructing the device’s ability to determine the person’s location[16].

Fourth, periodic inspection: supervisory agencies periodically verify both the functionality of the device and the monitored person’s compliance with monitoring requirements[17].

Canadian criminal law provides for the operational mechanisms of electronic monitoring devices with the objective of preventing criminal behavior through enhanced accountability and supervision. As a result, social safety is improved compared to conventional probation or community supervision, and the rate of recidivism is expected to decline over the long term[18].

2.3. Rights of monitored individuals

TWithin the Canadian criminal law system, the protection of the rights of individuals under electronic monitoring (EM) is of paramount importance to ensure that this measure does not infringe upon fundamental human rights, particularly the rights to privacy and to fair treatment[19]. The Criminal Code of Canada and other relevant legal instruments establish a clear legal foundation for safeguarding the rights of those subject to EM. Accordingly, several specific rights of monitored individuals are particularly emphasized:

- The right to fair treatment. Pursuant to Sections 7, 9, and 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Charter”)[20], any measure restricting personal liberty — including EM — must be based on fairness, reasonableness, and non-discrimination on grounds such as race, religion, social status, or health condition. It must also conform to the fundamental principles of justice and the protection of human rights. EM is applied only under a judicial decision and must be carefully considered in light of each individual’s circumstances. This ensures that no one is subjected to this measure arbitrarily or without due regard to their particular situation.

- Right to Privacy and Dignity. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every individual has the right to be protected against violations of personal liberty and security, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. In the case of electronic monitoring, the collection of location data or the imposition of restrictive compliance requirements must ensure that the privacy and dignity of the monitored individual are respected. Section 8 of the Charter provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure, safeguarding individuals from being searched, examined, or having their property seized without lawful justification. In the context of electronic monitoring, continuous tracking and the collection of personal data must be authorized by the court and should only be carried out if there are clear and reasonable grounds, ensuring the legality and reasonableness of any interference with privacy rights.

The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA)[21] establishes rules governing the collection, use, and protection of individuals’ personal information, including those subject to electronic monitoring. Under PIPEDA, personal information must be collected lawfully, transparently, and used solely for the specific purposes previously disclosed. Data obtained through electronic monitoring must be kept confidential and may only be accessed by authorized individuals or agencies to ensure lawful implementation of monitoring regulations. The monitored individual has the right to access their personal information and to request corrections in case of inaccuracies. This framework safeguards the privacy of the monitored person and ensures that collected data remain accurate and are not misused.

In addition to the Charter and PIPEDA, the Criminal Code of Canada requires that all monitoring conditions be proportionate and commensurate with the gravity of the offense and the individual’s personal circumstances. Courts must carefully consider the rights of the monitored individual - including their rights to privacy and dignity - before deciding to impose electronic monitoring[22].

Thus, Canadian law requires that the competent authorities conducting electronic monitoring must respect the privacy rights of monitored individuals. Although electronic monitoring necessarily involves tracking the offender’s location, the personal information collected from monitoring devices must be kept confidential and used solely for monitoring purposes to ensure community safety. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of such information for other purposes may constitute a violation of the law.

- Right to legal counsel. Section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms stipulates that any person who is arrested or detained has the right to be informed promptly of the reasons for their arrest or detention. In the case of electronic monitoring, individuals also have the right to know why this measure has been imposed on them and the specific conditions of such monitoring. Pursuant to the same section, every individual has the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. Persons subject to electronic monitoring have the right to consult a lawyer to understand their legal rights and obligations, as well as to seek legal aid where necessary. This ensures that monitored individuals have the opportunity to receive proper legal guidance and a full understanding of their legal situation.

In addition to the Charter, provincial legal aid statutes also provide that individuals who are unable to afford legal representation may apply for free or low-cost legal assistance, including in cases involving electronic monitoring. A person subject to electronic monitoring has the right to be informed of the reasons for its imposition and the right to legal advice, both before and during its application. This enables them to clearly understand their rights and responsibilities and to challenge the measure if they believe it is unfair or unnecessary.

- Right to request review of monitoring conditions. CIndividuals under electronic monitoring have the right to request a review of their monitoring conditions, including the right to petition the court to reconsider the imposition of electronic monitoring if there has been a change in their personal circumstances. This ensures that electronic monitoring is not applied indefinitely and that there remains an opportunity for modification if the individual’s situation improves. The Criminal Code of Canada provides mechanisms for imposing and reviewing monitoring conditions in cases involving conditional sentences, probation, or bail. Specifically, section 742.6[23] (Conditional Sentence) authorizes courts to review and vary the conditions of a conditional sentence, including electronic monitoring, if the current conditions are no longer appropriate given the offender’s circumstances or if there has been demonstrable improvement in their conduct. Section 732.2[24] (Probation Order) provides that probation conditions, including electronic monitoring, may be reviewed by the court upon application by the monitored person, the probation officer, or when significant changes occur in the monitored person’s circumstances. These provisions allow both the monitored individual and supervisory authorities to request judicial review of monitoring conditions, ensuring flexibility and responsiveness to real-life developments.

In practice, judicial and law enforcement authorities in Canada must adhere to strict procedural safeguards to protect the rights of individuals subject to electronic monitoring. Before monitoring is imposed, the individual must be clearly informed of the reasons and conditions for such monitoring. They also have the right to participate in the review process to ensure that any measures applied are fair and appropriate. Furthermore, under Canadian law, monitoring is not a permanent measure but may be adjusted or terminated depending on the individual’s behavior and circumstances. When there is positive progress in the monitored person’s attitude and conduct, monitoring measures may be lifted[25].

It can be seen that Canada has established a legal framework that ensures electronic monitoring, while necessary for community protection, does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of monitored individuals. Human rights such as the right to privacy, the right to fair treatment, and the right to legal counsel are safeguarded through provisions in the Criminal Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other statutes concerning privacy and personal data protection. This legal approach maintains a balance between ensuring public safety and protecting the individual rights of monitored persons.

2.4 Measures for handling violations of electronic monitoring

The handling of violations committed by individuals under electronic monitoring in Canada is primarily governed by the Criminal Code of Canada, particularly in provisions relating to conditional sentences, probation orders, and bail conditions. These serve as guidelines for courts and other competent authorities to apply appropriate measures in response to breaches of pre-established conditions by monitored persons. The relevant legal provisions for handling such violations are as follows:

Conditional Sentence

A conditional sentence allows an offender to serve their sentence in the community rather than in custody, subject to specific conditions, which may include electronic monitoring. When a monitored individual violates these conditions, the court may impose certain sanctions under section 742.6[26] of the Criminal Code. First, the court must determine whether a breach occurred and whether the offender had a reasonable excuse for the violation. If a breach has occurred without justification, the court may take the following actions: if the violation is deemed minor, the court may choose not to impose any sanction; it may vary the optional conditions to better suit the offender’s current circumstances; it may suspend the conditional sentence order and require the offender to serve a portion of the sentence in custody before resuming it under modified conditions; or it may terminate the conditional sentence entirely and order the offender to serve the remainder of the sentence in custody.

Probation Order

If an individual breaches a probation condition, including electronic monitoring, the court may act under section 733.1[27] of the Criminal Code. The individual may be charged with the offence of breaching a probation order, which may result in penalties such as fines, imprisonment, or other sanctions deemed appropriate by the court. The court may also modify the probation conditions to reflect the individual’s current situation or to prevent further violations.

Bail Conditions

ĐFor individuals released on bail with electronic monitoring conditions, any breach may result in legal consequences under section 145[28] of the Criminal Code, which deals with failure to comply with bail conditions. Violations may lead to arrest and further prosecution. Upon conviction, the offender may face penalties including imprisonment, fines, or other forms of judicial control.

Procedure for handling electronic monitoring violations

The process for addressing violations of electronic monitoring in Canada follows the Criminal Code and the policies of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). The general sequence of procedures[29] is as follows:

1. Detection and Reporting of Violation: When a monitoring system or supervising officer detects a breach - such as tampering with the device or leaving the authorized area - the incident is reported to the relevant authority or court for review.

2. Risk Assessment and Verification: Supervising officers assess the risk level associated with the breach and verify any explanations provided by the monitored individual. According to CSC, a violation may trigger a reassessment of the offender’s risk level and result in measures such as the suspension or revocation of electronic monitoring.

3. Hearing: The court or supervising authority may convene a hearing to determine whether the monitored person has breached their conditional sentence, probation order, or bail conditions without reasonable excuse.

4. Implementation of Sanctions: Once a violation is confirmed, sanctions may include: taking no action if the breach is minor; amending or adding monitoring conditions; requiring short-term imprisonment before resuming monitoring; or revoking the monitoring order and requiring the offender to serve the remaining sentence in custody.

Additional measures

In addition to the general provisions of the Criminal Code and the Correctional Service of Canada guidelines, provinces may adopt specific regulations concerning electronic monitoring and the handling of violations, depending on local legislation and correctional policies.v

The handling of violations by individuals under electronic monitoring in Canada is therefore based on the Criminal Code, particularly the provisions governing conditional sentences, probation orders, and bail conditions. Sanctions may include the modification of monitoring conditions, suspension of the order, or imprisonment. The court bears the responsibility of considering each case individually and determining appropriate sanctions based on the seriousness of the violation and the offender’s personal circumstances.

3. The impacts of electronic monitoring in the criminal justice sector in Canada and some recommendations for improving the Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam

3.1 The impacts of electronic monitoring in the criminal justice sector in Canada

As mentioned earlier, under the current Canadian legal system, electronic monitoring serves as an alternative to incarceration, aimed at reducing the burden on correctional facilities and facilitating the reintegration of offenders into society. The provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada, as well as the policies of the Correctional Service of Canada, stipulate that electronic monitoring is applied to offenders whose level of risk is considered low to moderate, with the goal of protecting the community without resorting to imprisonment. Over years of implementation, electronic monitoring has demonstrated certain advantages as well as limitations.

3.1.1 Advantages of electronic monitoring

Electronic monitoring was first introduced in Canada in 1987 in the province of British Columbia, and subsequently expanded to other provinces in the 1990s. After more than 30 years of implementation, its most prominent advantage has been its contribution to reducing the burden on the prison system. By allowing offenders to serve their sentences outside correctional facilities, electronic monitoring has effectively alleviated the pressure on prisons.[30] Consequently, it has helped correctional institutions reduce costs associated with maintaining large numbers of incarcerated offenders. The implementation of electronic monitoring has also contributed to reducing the likelihood of reoffending. According to a 2019 study by the Correctional Service of Canada, when controlling for time-at-risk and other relevant variables, the control group was found to be 67% more likely to return to custody than participants in the electronic monitoring program[31].

Another advantage of electronic monitoring is that it is considered less intrusive to individual liberty compared to traditional incarceration, thereby enabling monitored individuals to maintain their social and professional relationships[32]. In this sense, electronic monitoring contributes to the protection of individual freedom and human dignity.

Electronic monitoring also plays a significant role in facilitating social reintegration. Participants in electronic monitoring programs can continue their studies and employment like ordinary citizens, thereby ensuring a smoother process of reintegration into society.

3.1.2 Limitations of electronic monitoring

In addition to its advantages, the implementation of electronic monitoring in Canada has revealed certain limitations. Although electronic monitoring was expected to be a cost-effective alternative to incarceration, many studies have shown that it has not produced the anticipated economic efficiency. Research conducted by the Correctional Service of Canadaindicates that electronic monitoring is actually more expensive than traditional supervision and does not significantly reduce recidivism or violations.[33] While electronic monitoring may extend the period during which offenders can live in the community before suspension or completion of their sentence, related costs remain high due to equipment expenses and the time required to address technical and administrative issues[34].

Another limitation of electronic monitoring concerns the potential infringement of the right to privacy of monitored individuals. Monitoring devices - especially GPS-enabled equipment - continuously collect data on offenders’ locations. Without robust safeguards, such information could be misused, posing risks of personal data abuse[35].

The use of electronic monitoring also affects the psychological well-being and reintegration of monitored individuals. Some offenders under electronic monitoring have reported feelings of stress and disruption to their daily lives, particularly in maintaining employment and social relationships. Although studies suggest that electronic monitoring does not substantially harm family or social ties, many participants perceive it as a form of continuous control that restricts their personal freedom[36].

In summary, although electronic monitoring holds the potential to alleviate the burden on correctional facilities and promote social reintegration, it still presents notable limitations. To optimize its use, adjustments are needed in terms of cost-efficiency, privacy protection, and the prevention of unnecessary expansion of monitoring measures.

3.2 Recommendations for improving the Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam

Electronic monitoring has become an alternative to incarceration within the Canadian criminal justice system. This measure is applied to supervise offenders within the community, thereby reducing the burden on prisons and supporting their reintegration into society. However, in practice, electronic monitoring is not a perfect solution and still faces various limitations, particularly in terms of cost, privacy protection, and feasibility. Although electronic monitoring has not yet been provided for in the current Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam, ongoing research and legislative efforts to introduce this measure into practice should be highly valued. To ensure the legal framework functions effectively in implementation, and drawing upon Canada’s practical experience, the author proposes several recommendations for improving the Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam with respect to electronic monitoring.

First, it is essential to clearly define the criteria and subjects eligible for electronic monitoring. The Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam should provide explicit provisions regarding the categories of offenders subject to this measure. Specific criteria may include: (1) offenders convicted of less serious or serious crimes; (2) offenders who did not employ violence or dangerous means in committing their offenses; and (3) offenders who are not recidivists and demonstrate the ability to reintegrate into the community. This approach would not only ensure the effectiveness of the monitoring program but also optimize administrative resources and minimize risks to society. Accordingly, the draft amendments to the Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam should incorporate detailed provisions identifying the eligible subjects for electronic monitoring.

Second, a mechanism for protecting the privacy and human dignity of monitored individuals must be established. One of the greatest concerns surrounding electronic monitoring is the potential intrusion into privacy, as monitoring devices such as GPS trackers can continuously collect data on the individual’s location. The Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam should include stringent provisions on the protection of personal data. Information collected through electronic monitoring devices should be limited in scope and storage duration and used solely for monitoring purposes. Privacy protection measures must be specified to prevent data misuse and violations of the monitored person’s right to privacy. Accordingly, the Supreme People’s Procuracy, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of National Defence should adopt a unified approach and develop a comprehensive legal framework for data protection in electronic monitoring, including provisions that: prohibit the collection, use, or sharing of data beyond the purpose of sentence enforcement; recognize the monitored individual’s right to access relevant information and request deletion of unnecessary data; and specify the responsibilities of competent authorities in safeguarding the confidentiality of such information.

Third, a procedure for handling violations of electronic monitoring conditions should be developed. Viet Nam needs to establish a clear and transparent process for addressing breaches of monitoring conditions. Monitored individuals should be informed of the reasons for the alleged violation and have the right to participate in the resolution process. This ensures transparency and protects their lawful rights, preventing disproportionate or unjustified sanctions. Currently, the draft Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam only provides general obligations for monitored persons to comply with electronic monitoring requirements, without specifying the types or procedures of sanctions applicable in cases of non-compliance. Therefore, during the drafting of the Government’s implementing Decree under the leadership of the Ministry of Public Security, attention should be given to developing detailed procedures and forms of sanction when electronic monitoring obligations are violated. Sanctions should be strictly imposed for acts such as tampering with monitoring devices, violating movement or curfew restrictions, or unlawfully using monitoring data. Possible measures may include fines, extension of monitoring duration, or, in serious cases, temporary detention. Importantly, monitored persons must be guaranteed the right to participate in the violation-handling process.

Fourth, efforts should be directed toward enhancing the efficiency and transparency of the electronic monitoring system. To achieve this, the Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments should combine electronic monitoring with other supportive measures such as psychological counseling, vocational guidance, and reintegration assistance. Furthermore, an independent oversight mechanism should be established for the operation of electronic monitoring, such as the creation of a supervisory council composed of representatives from local police authorities (at the commune, ward, or township level), social organizations, and information technology experts. Regular reports should be published to assess the system’s effectiveness, with aggregate data disclosed publicly (without infringing on privacy). Periodic evaluations should also be conducted to review the system’s transparency and efficiency, enabling timely policy adjustments where necessary.

Fifth, cost and feasibility considerations must be taken into account. Viet Nam should conduct pilot programs in selected localities to assess the cost-effectiveness of electronic monitoring before full-scale implementation. This would ensure practicality and prevent excessive financial burdens on the state budget. Pilot programs would also facilitate adjustments and technical improvements prior to nationwide application.

Sixth, a training and capacity-building policy for monitoring officers should be developed. Specialized training programs should be established for supervisory personnel on risk management and the use of electronic monitoring technologies. Enhancing staff capacity not only ensures the system’s operational efficiency but also guarantees the safety and integrity of the monitoring process.

In general, electronic monitoring is a modern measure with significant potential to alleviate the pressure on traditional correctional facilities and facilitate the social reintegration of offenders. However, to ensure its effectiveness within Viet Nam’s legal and practical framework, comprehensive adjustments are required—not only in the Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments but also within substantive criminal legislation, particularly the Criminal Code. Specifically, provisions concerning the conditions of application, the scope of subjects, and the legal consequences of violating obligations during electronic monitoring must be clearly defined and harmonized across relevant statutes to prevent overlaps or legal gaps in practical implementation.

4. Conclusion

The practice in Canada shows that the successful implementation of electronic monitoring is always accompanied by a solid legal foundation, including provisions in the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and other laws on alternative imprisonment, rehabilitative penalties, and the rights of monitored individuals. From this experience, Viet Nam should conduct in-depth legal research and comprehensively assess the existing provisions in the Criminal Code to consider appropriate amendments and supplements. Only when there is close coordination between substantive and procedural law - between the regulations on crimes, penalties, and enforcement procedures - can the provisions on electronic monitoring be effectively implemented, ensuring the dual objectives of state management and human rights protection, as well as the rehabilitation of offenders in the modern social context. Perfecting the legal system in this direction will not only enhance the effectiveness of the Law on Execution of Criminal Judgments of Viet Nam but also make an important contribution to building a fair, humane, and modern criminal justice system that aligns with the country’s goals of judicial reform and international integration.

REFERENCES

1. Shauna Bottos, An Overview of Electronic Monitoring in Corrections: The Issues and Implications, Research Branch Correctional Service Canada, 5 , (2014)

2. BRITISH COLUMBIA, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DIVISION, CORRECTION BRANCH, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND SOLICITOR GENERAL, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS POLICY MANUAL, CHAPTER 14: ELECTRONIC SUPERVISION, 14.1.4(1), (2014, 2019)

3. Jame Gacek, In the Era of E-Carceration: Criminal Justice Trends and Concerns with Electronic Monitoring, The Annual Review of Interdisciplinary Justice Research, Volume 9, 32-33, (2020)

4. Government of Canada, Commissioner's directive 566-11-1: Electronic monitoring of offenders, (2016-06-29), https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/acts-regulations-policy/commissioners-directives/guidelines/566-11-1.html

5. Government of Canada, Electronic Monitoring Program Pilot, (2021-02-15), https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/transparency/info-source/privacy-impact-assessments/electronic-monitoring-program.html

6. Laura Hanby, Thana Ridha, Rebecca Sullivan, Angela Smeth & Shanna Farrell MacDonald (Correctional Service of Canada), The Impact of Electronic Monitoring on Offender Supervision and Correctional Outcomes, Research Report, 51,(6/2019), https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/scc-csc/PS83-3-428-eng.pdf

7. Justice Laws Website, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (2025-02-13), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html

8. Justice Laws Website, Corrections and Conditional Release Act (S.C. 1992, c. 20, Assented to 1992-06-18), (2025-02-13), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44.6/FullText.html

9. Justice Laws Website, Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), (2025-02-13), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-126.html#docCont

10. Justice Laws Website, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (S.C. 2000, c. 5), (2025-02-13), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-8.6/FullText.html

11. Public Safety Canada, Electronic Monitoring in Canada, (2022-07-29) https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/lctrnc-mntrng-cnd/index-en.aspx

12. Ontario, GPS monitoring program, (September 22, 2022) https://www.ontario.ca/page/gps-monitoring-program

13. Angela Smeth, Laura Hanby, Thana Ridha & Shanna Farrell MacDonald (Correctional Service of Canada), The Cost-Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring, Research Report, 32,33,35, (8/2019), https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/scc-csc/PS83-3-430-eng.pdf

14. Kevin Sorenson, M.P., A Study of Electronic Monitoring in the Correctional and Immigration Settings, Report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, September 2012, 41st Parliament, First Session

* M.LL. Nguyen Phuong Anh, Lecturer, Faculty of Criminal Law, Hanoi Law University. Approved for publication on April 15, 2025. Email: phuonganhlawb@gmail.com

[1] Tue Van, Proposal to Supplement Regulations on Electronic Monitoring in the Execution of Criminal Judgments, Government Electronic Newspaper, (September 13, 2024, 17:59), https://baochinhphu.vn/de-xuat-bo-sung-quy-dinh-giam-sat-dien-tu-trong-thi-hanh-an-hinh-su-102240913164855232.html

[2] See Draft No. 2 for public consultation at https://chinhphu.vn/du-thao-vbqppl/du-thao-luat-thi-hanh-an-hinh-su-sua-doi-6908

[3] Government of Canada, Commissioner's directive 566-11-1: Electronic monitoring of offenders, (2016-06-29), https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/acts-regulations-policy/commissioners-directives/ guidelines/566-11-1.html

[4] Jame Gacek, In the Era of E-Carceration: Criminal Justice Trends and Concerns with Electronic Monitoring, The Annual Review of Interdisciplinary Justice Research, Volume 9, 32-33, (2020)

[5] Government of Canada, tlđd, 2

[6] Government of Canada, tlđd, 2

[7] Justice Laws Website, Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), (2025-02-13), https://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-126.html#docCont

[8] Justice Laws Website, Corrections and Conditional Release Act (S.C. 1992, c. 20, Assented to 1992-06-18), (2025-02-13), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-44.6/FullText.html

[9] Jame Gacek, tlđd, 3, 34

[10] KEVIN SORENSON, M.P., A STUDY OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING IN THE CORRECTIONAL AND IMMIGRATION SETTINGS, REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND NATIONAL SECURITY, SEPTEMBER 2012, 41ST PARLIAMENT, FIRST SESSION, 1-2, 1 (2012)

[11]Ontario, GPS monitoring program, (September 22, 2022) https://www.ontario.ca/page/gps-monitoring-program

[12]BRITISH COLUMBIA, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DIVISION, CORRECTION BRANCH, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND SOLICITOR GENERAL, COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS POLICY MANUAL, CHAPTER 14: ELECTRONIC SUPERVISION, 14.1.4(1), (2014, 2019)

[13]Government of Canada, Electronic Monitoring Program Pilot, (2021-02-15), https://www.canada. ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/transparency/info-source/privacy-impact-assessments/electronic-monitoring-program.html

[14] Government of Canada, tlđd, 2

[15] Government of Canada, tlđd, 2

[16] Government of Canada, tlđd, 2

[17] Government of Canada, tlđd, 2

[18] Shauna Bottos, An Overview of Electronic Monitoring in Corrections: The Issues and Implications, Research Branch Correctional Service Canada, 5, (2014)

[19] Public Safety Canada, Electronic Monitoring in Canada, (2022-07-29) https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/ cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/lctrnc-mntrng-cnd/index-en.aspx

[20] Justice Laws Website, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (2025-02-13), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-12.html

[21] Justice Laws Website, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (S.C. 2000, c. 5), (2025-02-13), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-8.6/FullText.html

[22] Justice Laws Website, tlđd, 6

[23] Justice Laws Website, tlđd, 6

[24]Justice Laws Website, tlđd, 6

[25] Government of Canada, tlđd, 2

[26] Justice Laws Website, tlđd, 6

[27] Justice Laws Website, tlđd, 6

[28] Justice Laws Website, tlđd, 6

[29] Government of Canada, tlđd, 6

[30] Public Safety Canada, tlđd, 18

[31] Laura Hanby, Thana Ridha, Rebecca Sullivan, Angela Smeth & Shanna Farrell MacDonald (Correctional Service of Canada), The Impact of Electronic Monitoring on Offender Supervision and Correctional Outcomes, Research Report, 51,(6/2019), https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/scc-csc/PS83-3-428-eng.pdf

[32] Government of Canada, tlđd, 2

[33] Angela Smeth, Laura Hanby, Thana Ridha & Shanna Farrell MacDonald (Correctional Service of Canada), The Cost-Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring, Research Report, 32,33,35, (8/2019), https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/scc-csc/PS83-3-430-eng.pdf

[34] Id 36

[35] Government of Canada, tlđd, 12

[36] Laura Hanby et al, tlđd, 30 p. 5, 6, 47