When Karla Homolka is released this July, she will represent a rarity in the Canadian judicial system: she will have served her complete sentence to the day and will be a completely free woman.

It was a National Parole Board panel that ensured that Homolka would never be compelled to report to a parole officer or live in a halfway house. In 2001, they denied Homolka the statutory release that's normally given to offenders two-thirds of the way through their sentences.

They decided that Homolka should stay behind bars because she had not come to grips with her full role in her crimes, was at a risk to re-offend and posed a continuing danger to society.

Homolka herself always refused to participate in any of her parole hearings. Numerous reports over the last 12 years have suggested that she fears for her safety upon release and apparently chose at some point the relative safety of prison over the uncertainty of life on the outside.

When she is finally free this summer, many Canadians will be wishing Homolka's stay in prison could have been longer -- perhaps as long as her former husband, Paul Bernardo, who is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole.

But in what was probably the most contentious plea bargain in Canadian history, Homolka's date for release was decided 12 years ago.

'Deal with the devil'

In return for agreeing to testify at the murder trial of her husband, Homolka pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter for her role in the killings of Kristen French, 15, and Leslie Mahaffy, 14. She also admitted to a role in the drugging and death of her 15-year-old sister, Tammy.

Of course, many Canadians believe Homolka's "sweetheart deal" should never have been made. Before Homolka had Bernardo arrested in February, 1993, for beating her black and blue with a flashlight, Bernardo hid videotapes of the torture and rapes of French and Mahaffy in the ceiling above the bathroom in their St. Catharines house.

Police failed to find the tapes during a 71-day search of the house. Bernardo's lawyers entered the house on May 6, 1993, and left with the six tapes but didn't hand them over to police. Within a week, Homolka -- who knew about the tapes but not where they were -- had struck her plea bargain with the Crown.

It was not until September 1994, after Bernardo's original lawyer Ken Murray quit the case, that his new lawyer handed the tapes over to police. A year later, Bernardo was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. He was later declared a dangerous offender, making it unlikely he will ever leave prison.

Murray was later tried on obstruction of justice charges, but acquitted. He was also charged with professional misconduct by the Law Society of Upper Canada but the charge was later withdrawn.

While many Canadians accused prosecutors of incompetence in handling the Homolka case, when former Supreme Court Justice Patrick Galligan examined the deal in 1996, he deemed it fair for both sides.

His "Report to the Attorney General of Ontario on Certain Matters Relating to Karla Homolka" concluded that the bargain, while distasteful, was legitimate and "driven by sheer necessity."

So now, Homolka is preparing to re-enter society. Montreal's Elizabeth Fry Society says they will be there to help her reintegrate into society.

Bilingual and armed with a bachelor's degree in psychology from Queen's University, Homolka may choose to try to live a quiet life in Quebec, where her crimes are not as well known as they are in English-speaking Canada. Her father has said she will move to the Montreal neighbourhood of NDG, Notre Dame de Grace, not far from downtown Montreal.

Ontario to push for restrictions

But before then, Ontario prosecutors will try one more time to restrict Homolka's movements. Next week, on June 2, the Ontario Crown will ask a Quebec judge to impose conditions under Section 810 of Criminal Code on Homolka's release.

Section 810 covers peace bonds, which normally are used to divert offenders from the prison system. By their nature, peace bonds act as specific and limited restrictions on offenders and their contact with specific individuals who fear injury from the offender.

A team of Ontario prosecutors will seek a recognizance order against Homolka, requesting measures such as curfews, mandatory reporting to police and limits on with whom Homolka can associate. If she failed to comply with the order, she could be sent back to prison for up to two years.

It's unclear whether the application will succeed. The plea bargain Homolka struck specifically keeps the province from seeking any post-sentence restrictions.

As well, post-release conditions must be renewed every year. Even if an order were made, if Homolka refrains from further trouble with the law, judges may not be willing to renew the conditions year after year.

Nevertheless, there are also reports that two women who were friends of Homolka's sister, Tammy, and who were lured as teens by Homolka into rape by Bernardo will seek a restraining order against her.

Survivors Jane Doe, who was 15 when she was drugged, raped and sodomized by the pair in 1991, and another woman who was raped by Bernardo, want Homolka banned from contacting them after she's released.

The French and Mahaffy families want even tighter restrictions on Homolka, including asking that she submit to electronic monitoring or yearly psychological and psychiatric assessment.

Toronto lawyer Tim Danson admits that the conditions that the families want are not currently allowed under Section 810 because they cross the line between preventive justice versus punitive measures. That's why he believes the families want the government to amend the Section.

For now, at least one new law looks like it will affect Homolka. The Senate passed Bill C-13 last week which will force those convicted of murder, manslaughter and aggravated assault to give a DNA sample to a national databank.