Join on WhatsApp 
Join on Telegram Marrakech – Morocco has officially implemented its alternative penalties law as of Friday, in what is considered a substantial transformation of the country’s criminal justice system.
Law 43.22 and its implementing decree 2.25.386 introduce non-custodial sentences for certain offenses, aiming to reduce prison overcrowding while promoting rehabilitation and social reintegration.
The Supreme Council of Judicial Power (CSPJ) has issued detailed guidelines to courts nationwide to ensure uniform application of the new law.
These directives instruct court presidents to designate specialized judges for alternative penalties and emphasize the need for clear, precise sentencing that includes both the original prison term and all essential details about the alternative sanction.
The law enters into force exactly one year after its publication in the Official Gazette. On May 22, the Government Council approved the implementing decree, which aims to “implement the provisions of Articles 647-1 and 647-13 of the Criminal Procedure Law in a manner that addresses all aspects related to organizing the responsibilities of the prison administration at both central and local levels, as well as determining electronic monitoring procedures.”
The law represents an important evolution in Morocco’s criminal justice policy, introducing more humane alternatives that align with modern criminal justice requirements.
It aims to reduce the negative impacts of imprisonment on individuals, families, and society while ensuring the protection, rehabilitation, and reintegration of convicts. The reform also seeks to reduce the economic costs associated with custodial sentences.
Types of alternative penalties
The new law establishes four main categories of alternative penalties for offenses carrying prison sentences of less than five years.
Community service is one key alternative, requiring convicted individuals to perform unpaid work for state services, local authorities, public institutions, or charitable organizations. The sentencing judge must specify the nature of work, location, total duration, hours or days required, and the implementation schedule coordinated with the host organization.
Electronic monitoring via ankle bracelets represents another alternative, allowing authorities to track offenders’ movements. The judicial decision must detail whether the monitoring is fixed or mobile, the exact address of permitted locations, temporal or geographical restrictions, duration of supervision, emergency contact numbers, and reference persons.
Daily fines constitute a third option, ranging from MAD 100 to MAD 2,000 ($10 to $200) per day of the original sentence. This penalty requires proof of reconciliation with victims or compensation for damages caused by the offense. Courts must consider the offender’s financial capabilities, family obligations, crime severity, and resulting harm when determining the fine amount.
The law also includes restrictive, therapeutic, or rehabilitative measures as alternatives. These may involve requiring the convict to pursue a specific professional activity, educational program, or vocational training; reside in a designated location; or avoid certain places. Therapeutic alternatives can include psychological treatment or addiction recovery programs for drug and alcohol dependencies.
Offenders who violate their electronic monitoring obligations, flee, or damage monitoring devices face imprisonment of three months and fines ranging from MAD 2,000 to MAD 5,000 ($200 to $500), or one of these penalties.
Implementation framework
The CSPJ circular stresses that the successful implementation of alternative penalties depends on effective coordination between trial judges, sentencing enforcement judges, prosecutors, prison directors, and receiving institutions for work, treatment, or rehabilitation programs. This coordination aims to ensure clear obligations and proper daily monitoring of enforcement.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office has issued a guidance manual for prosecutors regarding the implementation of alternative penalties. This reference document explains procedures under Law 43.22 and addresses potential challenges in applying alternative sanctions.
Fifty-eight prisons have been selected for implementing the new law, according to Moulay Idriss Akelmam, Director of Social and Cultural Work for Prisoners and Reintegration at the General Delegation for Prison Administration (DGAPR). One facility per city with multiple prisons was chosen to concentrate efforts and optimize human and financial resources.
Selected prison staff have received general training on the new system and are undergoing specialized training based on the specific alternative penalties they will oversee.
The National Electronic Monitoring Center, stipulated in the implementing decree, is currently undergoing technical preparations to ensure operational readiness, with a specialized company currently providing necessary equipment, including electronic bracelets and management systems.
For community service penalties, concepts and proposals from relevant sectors are currently being studied by the central committee.
Eligibility and exclusions
The law applies to misdemeanors with prison sentences not exceeding five years and excludes repeat offenders. It specifically exempts serious crimes such as terrorism, embezzlement, influence peddling, bribery, public funds misappropriation, money laundering, military crimes, drug trafficking, psychotropic substances trafficking, human organ trafficking, and sexual exploitation of minors or disabled persons.
Implementation timeframes have been clearly defined. Community service, daily fines, and therapeutic or monitoring measures must be executed within six months, with the possibility of a one-time extension for an equal period.
For daily fines, when installment payments are authorized for non-detained convicts, 50% of the amount must be paid immediately, with the remainder eligible for scheduling according to Article 647-18 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Judicial oversight and monitoring
The CSPJ has instructed courts to “meticulously respect and manage the various legal deadlines related to execution phases, whether for judicial decisions, notifications, or appeals” in accordance with Criminal Procedure Code provisions.
The circular specifies a ten-day deadline for issuing enforcement decisions and a three-day period for contesting a sentencing judge’s order. It also requires explicit mention that failure to comply with alternative penalty obligations will result in immediate enforcement of the original prison sentence.
According to the CSPJ, proper management of these deadlines is “an integral part of the necessary guarantees for effective and balanced implementation of the alternative penalties system” to ensure legal security and strengthen public trust in the justice system.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office has called for establishing institutional coordination mechanisms to monitor alternative penalties implementation and evaluate practical effects. This includes creating joint committees at local and regional levels comprising various judicial stakeholders and prison administration representatives.
Prosecutors are also encouraged to develop specialized training programs for all actors involved in implementing alternative penalties, both within the prosecution service and externally, while developing an integrated strategic vision at the local level that considers judicial, logistical, and technical dimensions.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office has additionally recommended digital solutions to enhance monitoring of alternative penalties through dashboards and electronic tables that allow precise tracking of implementation phases.
They also urged public outreach to raise awareness about the importance and effectiveness of alternative penalties, helping to change the prevailing view that imprisonment is the only solution to crime.
The CSPJ circular notes that “pending the establishment of an integrated information system by the DGAPR for exchanging various documents related to the implementation of alternative penalties, judicial decisions must be referred to penitentiary institutions by those appointed for this purpose.”
