Opinion; Subjects: TUNISIA, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.24-17650 (E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its one hundredth session, 26–30 August 2024
Opinion No. 35/2024, concerning Mohamad Khayam ben Ibrahim ben
Mustafa al Turki, Chaima bent Issa ben Ibrahim ben Hoagui Issa,
Abdelhamid ben Abdelkader ben Mohamad al Jelassi, Issam ben
Abdelaziz ben Ahmed al Chebbi, Ghazi ben Mohamad ben al Hadi al
Chaouachi, Ridha ben al Bachir ben Mohamad Belhaj, Jaouhar ben
Ezzedine ben Mohamed al Habib ben M’barek and Mohamad Lazher
al Akremi (Tunisia)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 4 March 2024 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Tunisia a communication concerning Mohamad Khayam
ben Ibrahim ben Mustafa al Turki, Chaima bent Issa ben Ibrahim ben Hoagui Issa,
Abdelhamid ben Abdelkader ben Mohamad al Jelassi, Issam ben Abdelaziz ben Ahmed al
Chebbi, Ghazi ben Mohamad ben al Hadi al Chaouachi, Ridha ben al Bachir ben Mohamad
Belhaj, Jaouhar ben Ezzedine ben Mohamed al Habib ben M’barek and Mohamad Lazher al
Akremi. The Government has not replied to the communication. The State is a party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
General Assembly
Distr.: General
8 October 2024
English
Original: French
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
2
GE.24-17650
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability,
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Mohamad Khayam ben Ibrahim ben Mustafa al Turki is a Tunisian and Spanish
citizen born on 19 April 1965. A renowned political activist, he is said to have taken part in
several peaceful initiatives in opposition to the Tunisian President. He is the founder and
director of the Jusour think tank, dedicated to developing and advocating public policy before
the Government, with a particular focus on respect for democracy, the rule of law and human
rights. Through this group, Mr. Al Turki reportedly promotes dialogue between political
actors and civil society and facilitates civil society meetings on issues such as the political
situation in Tunisia since the President’s suspension of the parliament and the Constitution.
Mr. Al Turki usually resides in Tunis.
5.
Chaima bent Issa ben Ibrahim ben Hoagui Issa is a Tunisian journalist, poet and
political activist, born on 13 December 1979. In September 2021, along with other activists,
she is said to have launched the Citizens against the Coup d’État initiative to peacefully
oppose what they saw as a coup against democracy and human rights. She is also one of the
leading members of the National Salvation Front, formed in May 2022 to defend human
rights in Tunisia. She usually resides in the Ennasr district of the Ariana governorate in
Tunisia.
6.
Abdelhamid ben Abdelkader ben Mohamad al Jelassi is a Tunisian citizen and a
retired engineer, political activist and writer, born on 16 May 1960. He is said to have been
a member of the Ennahda political party and to have taken part in various peaceful political
activities in opposition to the measures taken by the President since July 2021. He usually
resides in Tunis.
7.
Issam ben Abdelaziz ben Ahmed al Chebbi is a Tunisian political activist, born on
23 December 1957. In 2012, he reportedly joined the opposition Al Joumhouri party, of
which he has been Secretary General since 2017. Mr. Al Chebbi is an outspoken opponent
of the President and was a member of the Executive Committee of the Progressive
Democratic Party between 2004 and 2012. Prior to his arrest, Mr. Al Chebbi criticized
government policies, which he claimed were aimed at silencing critics and weakening the
independence of the judiciary and democratic institutions. He usually resides in Tunis.
8.
Ghazi ben Mohamad ben al Hadi al Chaouachi is a Tunisian lawyer and member of
the opposition, born on 5 February 1963. He reportedly sat as an elected member of the
Tunisian parliament from December 2014 to February 2020 and served as Minister of State
Property and Real Estate. He is the co-founder of the Courant Démocrate opposition party
and usually resides in Ben Arous, Tunisia.
9.
Ridha ben al Bachir ben Mohamad Belhaj is a Tunisian lawyer and political activist,
born on 16 February 1962. He was reportedly Secretary General and Minister Delegate in the
transitional Government between February and December 2011 and head of the presidential
cabinet from January 2015 to February 2016. At the same time, he joined the Nidaa Tounes
political party, serving as spokesman and vice-president. Mr. Belhaj co-founded the National
Salvation Front in May 2022 and Citizens against the Coup d’État in 2021, two Tunisian
coalitions of peaceful opposition to the current Government. He usually resides in Nabeul,
Tunisia.
10.
Jaouhar ben Ezzedine ben Mohamed al Habib ben M’barek is a Tunisian academic
born on 19 June 1968 and a leading opposition figure. He is also reportedly a member of the
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
GE.24-17650
3
National Salvation Front and co-founder of Citizens against the Coup d’État. He usually
resides in Al Sharqiyya, in the Ariana governorate in Tunisia.
11.
Mohamad Lazher al Akremi is a Tunisian lawyer, journalist and politician, born on
6 March 1959. He reportedly sat as an elected member of the parliament from 12 December
2014 to 20 February 2015. Following the overthrow of the Government in 2011,
Mr. Al Akremi was appointed to the Ministry of the Interior to oversee security sector reform.
An outspoken opponent of the current Government, he is a prominent figure in the opposition
media. He usually resides in Tunis.
12.
The above-mentioned persons, hereinafter referred to as the “eight individuals”, were
reportedly arrested between 11 and 25 February 2023 by agents of the counter-terrorism
brigade of the Ministry of the Interior, as part of an ongoing investigation into a “case of
conspiracy against State security”. The eight individuals face various charges, including
membership of a terrorist group, conspiracy against State security and attempts to overthrow
the Government. According to the source, their arrest and the search of their homes were
ordered by the representative of the public prosecutor’s office within the Judicial Division
for combating terrorism.
(i)
Arrests
13.
According to the source, Mr. Al Turki was arrested at his home on 11 February 2023
by 15 members of the security forces in civilian clothes who did not give the name of their
unit. Mr. Al Turki was presented with a document issued by the representative of the public
prosecutor’s office within the Judicial Division for combating terrorism, but he was not
authorized to read its contents.
14.
During Mr. Al Turki’s arrest, the security forces reportedly scaled the fence of his
home and searched his residence. They seized electronic devices, books, business cards and
documents before arresting Mr. Al Turki and taking him to the El Gorjani barracks. The
security forces did not inform Mr. Al Turki’s family or his lawyers of his place of detention.
Mr. Al Turki’s lawyers reported his arrest to the public prosecutor’s office on the day it
occurred and asked where he was. The authorities claimed to have no knowledge of
Mr. Al Turki’s arrest.
15.
According to the source, following his arrest, Mr. Al Turki remained handcuffed to a
chair in a cell measuring four square metres, shared by 55 inmates, for 24 hours. On
12 February 2023, a police officer from the National Terrorist Crimes Investigation Unit of
the Ministry of the Interior questioned Mr. Al Turki, without his lawyer present, about his
political activities and affiliations. The questions included his relationship with various
Tunisian activists, lawyers, businessmen, politicians and diplomats. During his questioning,
Mr. Al Turki was not informed of the law he had allegedly broken, but he was asked about
his knowledge of Tunisian legislation criminalizing contact with agents of a foreign power,
organization or institution, directly or indirectly, in order to conspire against the country and
cause harm to its vital interests. Mr. Al Turki was unable to speak with his lawyers until
14 February 2023, when his whereabouts were revealed for the first time.
16.
On 12 February 2023, the representative of the public prosecutor’s office in the
Judicial Division for combating terrorism ordered Mr. Al Turki’s detention for 5 days, which
was renewed twice. On 24 February 2023, Mr. Al Turki was brought before the investigating
judge, who ordered his continued detention.
17.
Ms. Issa was reportedly arrested on 22 February 2023, while she was in a car with a
family member. A group of security force vehicles intercepted her and the officers seized her
cell phone and car before taking her to her home, where they carried out a search. They
confiscated three cell phones, a memory card, a laptop computer, nine notebooks, several
handwritten documents and eight letters of invitation from diplomatic missions in Tunisia.
The officers did not identify themselves, and they presented Ms. Issa with a document they
claimed to be an arrest and search warrant, without allowing her to read it.
18.
After her arrest, Ms. Issa was questioned by police about her participation in peaceful
meetings with Tunisian activists, aimed at discussing the backsliding of democracy in the
country and ways of peacefully resisting repressive measures. The police officers made no
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
4
GE.24-17650
mention of any legislation she may have broken, but the investigator stated that she was
suspected of the offences of belonging to a terrorist group, plotting against State security and
attempting to overthrow the Government. The questioning took place without the presence
of a lawyer. Ms. Issa was able to communicate with her lawyers for the first time on
24 February 2023.
19.
On 22 February 2023, the representative of the public prosecutor’s office in the
Judicial Division for combating terrorism ordered Ms. Issa’s detention for 5 days. On
25 February 2023, she was brought before the investigating judge, who ordered her continued
detention. She was held at the Bouchoucha barracks and subsequently transferred to the
Manouba women’s civil prison.
20.
Mr. Al Jelassi was reportedly arrested at his home on 11 February 2023 by
12 members of a security force who claimed to be affiliated with the Ministry of the Interior.
The officers entered his home at around 8 p.m. and searched it without presenting an arrest
or search warrant. They refused to specify which division of the Ministry had ordered the
arrest and did not identify themselves. They seized Mr. Al Jelassi’s laptop computer, tablet
and cell phone, as well as the laptop and phone of a family member. After a family member
insisted that he be shown an arrest and search warrant, a document was presented to him, but
he was not allowed to read it or examine its contents. Following the search, Mr. Al Jelassi
was arrested and taken to the Bouchoucha barracks.
21.
On 12 February 2023, a police officer from the National Terrorist Crimes
Investigation Unit questioned Mr. Al Jelassi, without his lawyer present, about his postings
on media platforms criticizing government measures, his participation in meetings with
members of the opposition and his discussions with foreign diplomats, researchers and think
tanks. The police justified Mr. Al Jelassi’s arrest by invoking a provision of the Criminal
Code criminalizing the act of contacting agents of a foreign Power, organization or
institution, directly or indirectly, to plot against the country and harm its vital interests.
22.
The same day, the representative of the public prosecutor’s office in the Judicial
Division for combating terrorism ordered Mr. Al Jelassi’s detention for 5 days, which was
renewed twice. Mr. Al Jelassi was not able to communicate with his lawyer until 14 February
2023. On 24 February 2023, Mr. Al Jelassi was brought before the investigating judge, who
ordered his continued detention.
23.
According to the source, Mr. Al Chebbi was arrested on 22 February 2023, while in
his car with a family member near a shopping mall in Tunis. Around 20 members of the
security forces affiliated with the Ministry of the Interior stopped him and proceeded to
search his vehicle, without identifying themselves. They then took him to his home to carry
out a search, seizing his cell phone and a surveillance camera from the residence.
Mr. Al Chebbi asked to see a warrant, but the security guards refused to produce it, stating
that they were only carrying out orders. They also did not provide Mr. Al Chebbi with any
information about the reasons for the arrest. Mr. Al Chebbi was then taken to the Bouchoucha
barracks.
24.
Mr. Al Chebbi was questioned without the presence of his lawyer about his contacts
with members of the Tunisian opposition, his visits to the headquarters of foreign embassies,
his talks with foreign diplomats, his organization of and participation in meetings with the
alleged aim of overthrowing the Government, his exchanges of messages with members of
the opposition and activists for an alleged plot against the State and his possession of
documents of a political nature. The police made no mention of the legal basis for
Mr. Al Chebbi’s arrest or of any applicable legislation.
25.
Following Mr. Al Chebbi’s arrest, his lawyers went to the headquarters of the National
Terrorist Crimes Investigation Unit and requested to visit him. Their request was denied
under Act No. 2015–26 of 7 August 2015 on counter-terrorism and the repression of money
laundering, which authorizes police to refuse visits to suspects for 48 hours.
26.
On 22 February 2023, the representative of the public prosecutor’s office in the
Judicial Division for combating terrorism ordered Mr. Al Chebbi’s detention for 5 days. On
24 February 2023, he appeared handcuffed before the public prosecutor’s office, which
referred him to the investigating judge. It was on this date that he was able to communicate
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
GE.24-17650
5
with his lawyer for the first time. The investigating judge ordered Mr. Al Chebbi’s continued
detention and he was transferred the following day to Mornaguia civil prison, where the
authorities installed surveillance cameras in his cell to monitor him continuously.
27.
Mr. Al Chaouachi was reportedly arrested on 24 February 2023, after the prosecutor
had added his name to the investigation the previous day, without his knowledge. According
to the source, 20 officers of the security forces, dressed in civilian clothes, barged into
Mr. Al Chaouachi’s home and proceeded to search his residence and arrest him.
Mr. Al Chaouachi and his family asked the officers if they had an arrest and search warrant,
and a member of the security forces presented them with a document that he claimed was a
warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office, but which Mr. Al Chaouachi was not
authorized to read. The authorities also did not provide Mr. Al Chaouachi with any
information about the reasons for the arrest.
28.
Because he is a lawyer, Mr. Al Chaouachi was not questioned by the police. On
25 February 2023, he had access to his lawyer for the first time and appeared before the
investigating judge, who ordered his continued detention. According to the source,
Mr. Al Chaouachi was not informed of the charges against him before his appearance before
the investigating judge.
29.
Two weeks after Mr. Al Chaouachi’s arrest, the prison authorities tried to transfer him
to another cell. As Mr. Al Chaouachi refused the transfer, his fellow inmates were replaced
by others, some of whom were accused of violent crimes. The authorities then turned off the
hot water in the bathroom used by Mr. Al Chaouachi, forcing him to wash with cold water.
30.
Mr. Belhaj was reportedly arrested on the morning of 25 February 2023 at his home
by members of the security forces in civilian clothes, who arrived at his home in five vehicles.
Five of these members searched Mr. Belhaj’s home and vehicle before taking him to an
unknown destination. They presented no arrest or search warrant and did not identify
themselves.
31.
The authorities did not tell Mr. Belhaj the reasons for his arrest and, in his capacity as
a lawyer, he was not questioned by the police. Indeed, the source points out that national law
prohibits the police from interviewing lawyers. Mr. Belhaj appeared before the investigating
judge on the same day, accompanied by his lawyers, who were authorized to see him for the
first time and to represent him. The judge ordered his continued detention and Mr. Belhaj
was informed of the reasons for his arrest for the first time.
32.
Mr. Belhaj has been suffering from sleep disorders since his arrest on 25 February
2023. The prison authorities rushed him to a psychiatric hospital once, and he has been under
the supervision of a prison doctor ever since.
33.
Mr. Ben M’barek was reportedly arrested on 23 February 2023, in the northern part
of Tunis, after the public prosecutor’s representative in the Judicial Division for combating
terrorism issued an arrest and search warrant on the same day. Before arresting Mr. Ben
M’barek, the authorities searched his home and seized seven documents and notes containing
information about his political activities and his contacts with other activists, and political
literature. They also seized two tablets and invitation letters from various embassies. No
arrest or search warrant was presented to Mr. Ben M’barek.
34.
After his arrest, Mr. Ben M’barek was held at the Bouchoucha barracks, where he was
questioned by police, without his lawyer present, about his participation in meetings with
members of the opposition, about handwritten notes seized from his home indicating his
involvement in opposition activities and about other activists’ names and telephone numbers
that he had in his possession. His questioning also covered meetings with diplomats, his
attendance at receptions held at embassies in Tunisia and his participation in political actions
aimed at unifying the opposition, and in discussions on the organization of demonstrations
against the authorities, in his capacity as a member of the National Salvation Front and
Citizens against the Coup d’État.
35.
On 22 February 2023, the representative of the public prosecutor’s office in the
Judicial Division for combating terrorism ordered Mr. Ben M’barek’s detention for 5 days.
The next day, Mr. Ben M’barek appeared handcuffed at the public prosecutor’s office, which
referred him to the Division’s investigating judge. The investigating judge ordered that
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
6
GE.24-17650
Mr. Ben M’barek should be held in detention. It was during his appearance before the
investigating judge on 24 February 2023 that Mr. Ben M’barek had access to his lawyers for
the first time.
36.
Mr. Al Akremi was reportedly arrested on 13 February 2023 at his home, by
15 members of the security forces in civilian clothes claiming to have an arrest warrant.
However, he was not allowed to read the document and was not informed of the reasons for
his arrest. The officers did not identify themselves.
37.
After his arrest, Mr. Al Akremi was taken to Bouchoucha barracks and held in a very
small cell alongside around 100 other detainees. Mr. Al Akremi was unable to sleep or carry
out any other activity due to the lack of space and overcrowding in his cell. As a lawyer, he
was not questioned by the police following his arrest, and he was kept in pretrial detention
until 24 February 2023, the date of his first appearance before the investigating judge. The
source notes that Mr. Al Akremi was authorized to communicate with his lawyers for the first
time on 16 February 2023.
38.
During his questioning by the investigating judge on 24 February 2023,
Mr. Al Akremi was informed for the first time of the charges against him. The investigating
judge ordered his continued detention and Mr. Al Akremi was transferred to Mornaguia civil
prison.
(ii)
Detention and procedure
39.
The source claims that neither the eight individuals nor their families were informed
by law enforcement of where they were heading after their arrest. Their lawyers had to find
out their whereabouts by contacting several police departments or security barracks serving
as detention centres, or the public prosecutor’s office.
40.
Lawyers for the eight individuals reportedly requested that the investigating judge
release them, but the request was denied. On 23 March 2023, the lawyers appealed to the
indictment division of the Court of Appeal, which on 30 March again denied the request. On
19 June 2023, the lawyers again requested the release of the eight individuals. On 13 July
2023, the authorities provisionally released Ms. Issa and Mr. Al Akremi pending the outcome
of the investigation, and they denied the request for the release of the other six individuals.
On 22 August 2023, the six completed 6 months of pretrial detention. The authorities decided
to extend their detention for a further 4 months. The source states that, due to the interference
of the executive branch in this case, national mechanisms did not constitute an effective
remedy to challenge the legality of the detention of the six remaining individuals.
41.
The source reports that Mr. Al Turki, Mr. Al Jelassi, Mr. Al Chebbi,
Mr. Al Chaouachi, Mr. Belhaj and Mr. Ben M’barek are currently being held in Mornaguia
civil prison.
(iii)
Legal analysis
a.
Category I
42.
The source argues that the detention of the eight individuals is not authorized by the
Constitution and is therefore arbitrary under category I. It notes that article 33 of the
Constitution prohibits arbitrary detentions and violations of due process and of the right to a
fair trial. It adds that the Constitution protects freedom of expression, assembly and
association.
43.
The source recalls that detention is arbitrary when it is impossible to invoke a legal
basis justifying the deprivation of liberty or when the arrest is made without a warrant or
judicial authorization, and when vague laws are used to support the detention of persons and
for their prosecution.2 It recalls that, according to the jurisprudence of the Working Group,
2 Opinion No. 11/2021, paras. 13, 16, 17, 67 and 72.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
GE.24-17650
7
national law must be designed and implemented in compliance with the relevant international
provisions.3
44.
The source affirms that the eight individuals’ detention occurred in the context of
measures taken by the President beginning in July 2021. The eight individuals were allegedly
detained under national regulations incompatible with international law, which would tend
to demonstrate the political motivation of their detention and the violation of their right to
participate in the public affairs of their country, protected under article 21 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 25 of the Covenant.4
45.
Furthermore, the detention of the eight individuals is contrary to the Constitution, in
particular article 26, which guarantees individual freedom, and article 33, which protects the
right of everyone to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, following a fair trial. In
support of this assertion, the source points out that in televised statements – and while none
of the eight individuals had been tried or convicted – the President repeatedly asserted that
they were guilty of membership of a terrorist group, plotting against State security and
attempting to overthrow the Government.
46.
In addition, the source claims that, following their arrest, Mr. Al Turki, Mr. Al Jelassi,
Ms. Issa, Mr. Ben M’barek and Mr. Al Chebbi were questioned by the police without the
presence of a lawyer and were denied the right to legal assistance for 48 hours, in violation
of article 35 of the Constitution. According to the source, the police claimed that anonymous
witnesses had supposedly made statements incriminating the individuals, but they presented
them with no evidence and did not allow them to see the statements.
47.
The source also claims that the eight individuals have been deprived of their right to
exercise their freedom of expression, thought and opinion, in violation of article 37 of the
Constitution. They were allegedly detained for expressing opinions critical of the President
in media interviews and were questioned by the police and the investigating judge about these
activities. In addition, the source claims that the detention of the eight individuals violates
their right to freedom of association, protected under article 40 of the Constitution. It claims
that: (a) Mr. Al Turki was deprived of his freedom to engage in peaceful activism within civil
society through the Jusour think tank; (b) Mr. Al Chebbi was detained because of his leading
role in the Al Joumhouri opposition party; (c) Mr. Al Chaouachi was detained for opposing
the President through the use of his position in the Courant Démocrate political party; and
(d) Ms. Issa, Mr. Ben M’barek and Mr. Belhaj were arrested for their membership of two
opposition groups: the National Salvation Front and Citoyens contre le Coup d’État. The
source claims that these groups represent peaceful initiatives to oppose the Government and
fight for human rights in Tunisia.
b.
Category II
48.
The source asserts that the detention of the eight individuals is arbitrary under
category II, as it constitutes a reprisal against them for peacefully exercising their right to
freedom of expression, association and assembly.
49.
The source recalls that article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights protect freedom of expression, which includes speech that is
critical of a government, as well as ideas and opinions that are likely to be offensive or
disturbing to the State or that do not agree with a government’s official policy.5
50.
The source adds that the detention of Mr. Al Turki, Mr. Al Jelassi, Mr. Al Chebbi,
Mr. Belhaj, Ms. Issa and Mr. Ben M’barek is contrary to article 20 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of the Covenant, since the entities to which they
belong are protected by the right to freedom of association. In this respect, it stresses that the
term “association” includes any group of individuals or legal entity formed to express,
promote, pursue and defend common interests collectively, including unregistered
associations,
civil
society
organizations,
clubs,
cooperatives,
non-governmental
3 Ibid., para. 62.
4 Opinion No. 47/2013, para. 32.
5 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 38; A/HRC/17/27, para. 37; and
opinion No. 57/2017, para. 57.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
8
GE.24-17650
organizations, religious associations, political parties, trade unions, foundations and even
online associations, since the Internet contributes, for example, to facilitating the active
participation of citizens in building democratic societies.6
51.
In addition, the source recalls that the scope of the right to peaceful assembly set out
in article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 21 of the Covenant
includes the right to organize and participate in meetings, whether public or private. It asserts
that the detention of the eight individuals for holding meetings and organizing activities
related to peaceful demonstrations constitutes a violation of their right to peaceful assembly.
It emphasizes that any restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of assembly must be
proportionate and justified,7 and it maintains that the Government has not put forward any
grounds for justifying the restrictions on the right of the eight individuals to peaceful
assembly.
52.
Lastly, the source asserts that the activities of the eight individuals are aimed at
maintaining democracy in Tunisia and fall within their right to participate in the public affairs
of their country, protected under article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
article 25 of the Covenant. It maintains that the political activism of the eight individuals is
unquestionably linked to public affairs and is implemented through various civil society
organizations.8 Their activities are aimed at improving the political, social and human rights
situation in Tunisia, preserving civic space and ensuring respect for democracy and the
separation of powers.
53.
In support of these claims, the source details below the activities of the eight
individuals prior to their arrest, along with the questions they were asked during their
questioning.
54.
Regarding Mr. Al Turki, the source claims that he was detained for stating critical
opinions, in public and in private, regarding the measures taken by the President since July
2021, including the dissolution of the parliament and the suspension of the Constitution, and
for exchanging messages with other activists, indicating his disapproval of those measures.
The messages were extracted from Mr. Al Turki’s cell phone, which the source claims was
illegally seized during his arrest. In addition, the investigating judge questioned Mr. Al Turki
about messages exchanged with embassy staff in Tunis with a view to organizing a meeting
with the Tunisian opposition. He is also said to have organized meetings between
representatives of other embassies and representatives of the opposition. When questioned,
Mr. Al Turki claimed to have organized the meetings in his capacity as chairman and founder
of the Jusour think tank, with the aim of getting to know these actors. The source further
claims that Mr. Al Turki is being held for exercising his right to peaceful assembly by inviting
members of the opposition, lawyers, journalists and human rights defenders to meetings to
exchange opinions on the measures taken by the President. On 24 February 2023, the
investigating judge questioned him about a message he sent to an activist prior to his arrest,
in which he invited the activist to a meeting to discuss the peaceful unification of the
opposition.
55.
With regard to Mr. Al Jelassi, the investigating judge reportedly questioned him on
24 February 2023 about an interview given to a Tunisian radio station, during which he
described the events of July 2021 as a coup d’état, in the face of which he foresaw another
coup, against what he considered to be the repressive and illegitimate measures initiated by
the President. Mr. Al Jelassi was also questioned about his relationship with Mr. Al Turki,
whom he said he knew because he was a member of the Democratic Bloc political party. As
a political researcher and author, Mr. Al Jelassi is said to have taken an interest in the work
of Jusour, publishing articles and conducting surveys on topics relating to Tunisian politics.
Mr. Al Jelassi was also questioned about his meeting with a foreign delegation. He was
quoted as saying that the meeting concerned researchers from the ORSAM Center for Middle
Eastern Studies, who had no diplomatic functions and were part of the research network of
the Institut de Réflexion Stratégique, whose board of directors includes Mr. Al Jelassi. This
6 A/HRC/20/27, paras. 52 and 56.
7 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 37 (2020), paras. 40 and 41; and opinion
No. 60/2013, para. 21.
8 Opinion No. 13/2007, para. 31.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
GE.24-17650
9
meeting took place in the context of discussions on the political situation in the region and
the writing of an article for the ORSAM Center.
56.
With regard to Mr. Al Chebbi, the investigating judge reportedly questioned him
about books dealing with Islamist extremist groups that had been sent to him by an individual
specializing in the critical study of such movements. These books were confiscated during
the search of Mr. Al Chebbi’s home. During his interrogation, Mr. Al Chebbi stated that he
was vehemently opposed to extremism and explained that he had received the books as part
of an effort to understand how to deal with the danger such groups represented to society. In
addition, Mr. Al Chebbi has headed the Al Joumhouri political party since 25 July 2021, as
part of his peaceful struggle against the exceptional measures adopted by the President and
the repression of political opponents. His arrest was apparently intended to punish the party
for criticizing the President, organizing demonstrations and collaborating with other
opposition parties. In addition, the investigating judge questioned Mr. Al Chebbi about his
relationship with Mr. Al Turki, whose house Mr. Al Chebbi claimed to have visited to take
part in discussions concerning the unification of the opposition and the defence of democracy.
57.
Concerning Mr. Al Chaouachi, on 22 December 2022, during an interview with the
media, he reportedly launched a political initiative inviting the various opposition groups to
adopt a political programme to campaign for democracy in Tunisia and to oppose the
suspension of the Constitution and the dissolution of the parliament, of which he was a
member. During his questioning, the investigating judge showed him an exchange of
messages with other militants, in which he criticized the President. Mr. Al Chaouachi stressed
that the accessing of those messages without his consent and his detention for such opinions
constituted violations of his rights to privacy and freedom of expression. According to the
source, the content of the messages demonstrates that Mr. Al Chaouachi’s peaceful activism
is unrelated to the charges against him and confirms that his arrest and detention are political
in nature and aimed at silencing the opposition.
58.
With regard to Ms. Issa, the source asserts that her arrest should not be seen as an
isolated incident, but as the culmination of a series of violations to which she was subjected.
The source reports that on 19 January 2023, she was issued with a travel ban by decision of
a military court after she criticized the President during an interview broadcast on a radio
station on 22 December 2022. The source adds that Ms. Issa was detained for attending a
meeting at Mr. Al Turki’s home on 1 April 2022 with a person representing an embassy in
Tunisia and a group of Tunisian activists. When questioned, Ms. Issa said that she knew the
person and that nothing in the legislation prohibited him from being in contact with her.
59.
Concerning Mr. Belhaj, a few days before his arrest, he reportedly expressed his
doubts about the President’s ability to lead the country, in an interview broadcast on a
television channel. Mr. Belhaj raised the possibility of challenging the President’s policies
by uniting the opposition. During his questioning, he was asked about his relations with
Mr. Ben M’barek, Ms. Issa and Mr. Al Turki. Mr. Belhaj is quoted as saying that he met them
regularly to discuss their peaceful resistance to the measures taken by the President.
60.
Concerning Mr. Ben M’barek, the source claims that he was targeted because of his
opinions expressed in various media interviews in the months prior to his detention.
Specifically, four days prior to his arrest, he reportedly told a radio station that the President
had obstructed political participation and the independence of the judiciary, using national
security as a pretext and intimidating opposition figures. Mr. Ben M’barek also expressed his
solidarity with political prisoners in Tunisia. During his questioning sessions by the police
and the investigating judge, he was asked about a meeting at Mr. Al Turki’s home in January
2023 for the organization of a demonstration on 14 January 2023 and about other meetings
with members of the opposition.
61.
According to the source, Ms. Issa, Mr. Belhaj and Mr. Ben M’barek were also arrested
for their membership of the National Salvation Front and Citizens against the Coup d’État
associations, which were involved in organizing peaceful demonstrations and rallies to
challenge what they perceived as a deteriorating situation of human rights and democracy in
Tunisia. Through these groups, Ms. Issa, Mr. Belhaj and Mr. Ben M’barek launched a
peaceful political initiative to coordinate and unify the opposition, which led to their arrest.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
10
GE.24-17650
62.
Lastly, concerning Mr. Al Akremi, on 13 February 2023 he reportedly participated in
interviews with various media outlets in which he criticized, among other things, what he
perceived as a deterioration of democracy and the lack of independence of the judiciary.
According to the source, Mr. Al Akremi had already been investigated in November 2022
for expressing opinions critical of the authorities during a radio interview. The investigating
judge questioned him about his meeting in a restaurant on 25 January 2023 with Mr. Al Turki,
which preceded another meeting to discuss opposition activities.
c.
Category III
63.
The source maintains that the right of the eight individuals to a fair trial and due
process has been violated and that their detention is therefore arbitrary under category III.
64.
The source claims that the eight individuals are being held in connection with a “case
of conspiracy against State security”. According to the source, this case involves interference
by the executive in the operation of the justice system and pressure from the Government on
the judiciary and the public prosecutor’s office to speed up investigations and prosecutions
against the eight individuals. On 10 February 2023, the President asked the Minister of Justice
to initiate proceedings against the eight individuals without delay. The President is quoted as
saying that they were condemned by their profiles, even before any conviction by the courts.
On the same day, the National Terrorist Crimes Investigation Unit, supervised by the
Ministry of the Interior, informed the Minister of Justice of an alleged plot threatening State
security. According to the source, such actions should have been reported to the public
prosecutor’s office, not the Ministry of Justice. However, the Minister of Justice instructed
the Tunis court of first instance to carry out an investigation on the basis of this information.
The source notes that the public prosecutor’s office is part of the judiciary, unlike the Ministry
of Justice, which is under the executive branch.
65.
The source adds that the eight individuals were all arrested between 11 and 25
February 2023 without being informed of the charges against them. Although the authorities
claimed to have arrest and search warrants, they did not allow the eight individuals to read
the documents, in violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant.9
66.
Furthermore, the source affirms that, following their arrest, Ms. Issa, Mr. Al Turki,
Mr. Al Jelassi, Mr. Al Chebbi and Mr. Ben M’barek were questioned without the presence
of counsel. In addition, the eight individuals were denied the right to seek legal assistance for
48 hours after their arrest. The source concludes that their rights of access to a lawyer and
contact with the outside were violated.
67.
According to the source, the authorities also violated article 9 of the Covenant, by
failing to inform the eight individuals of the reasons for their arrest. The source recalls that
the authorities are obliged to provide detainees with full information on the reasons for their
arrest and detention, as well as the charges against them. The source reiterates that the eight
individuals were not allowed to see the arrest and search warrants that the security forces
claimed to hold and were not informed of the reasons for their arrest or the search of their
homes.
68.
Lastly, the source states that the eight individuals were not brought before a judge
immediately after their arrest, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
69.
The source therefore concludes that the violations of the eight individuals’ right to
due process and a fair trial are of such gravity as to render their detention arbitrary.
(b)
Response from the Government
70.
On 6 March 2024, the Working Group transmitted a communication concerning the
eight individuals to the Tunisian Government, requesting it to provide detailed information
on them by 3 May 2024 and to guarantee their physical and mental integrity.
9 Opinions No. 30/2017, para. 58; and No. 35/2018, paras. 26 and 40.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
GE.24-17650
11
71.
The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government,
nor did the Government request an extension of the time limit for its reply, as provided for
in the Working Group’s methods of work.
2.
Discussion
72.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
73.
In determining whether the detention of the eight individuals is arbitrary, the Working
Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary
issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international law
constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the
Government if it wishes to refute the allegations.10 In the present case, the Government has
chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.
74.
The Working Group notes that, although the eight individuals were arrested between
11 and 25 February 2023, the authorities provisionally released Ms. Issa and Mr. Al Akremi
on 13 July 2023, pending the outcome of the investigation. However, in accordance with
paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group reserves the right to render an
opinion on whether the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, notwithstanding the release of
the persons concerned. In the present case, in view of the seriousness of the source’s
allegations and the fact that the investigation against Ms. Issa and Mr. Al Akremi is still
ongoing, notwithstanding their provisional release, the Working Group considers it necessary
to render an opinion concerning the eight individuals.
(a)
Category I
75.
The source adds that the eight individuals were all arrested between 11 and 25
February 2023 without being informed of the charges against them. It reports that, although
the authorities claimed to hold arrest and search warrants, they did not allow the eight
individuals to read the documents, and that they were not informed of the reasons for their
arrest and the search of their homes, in violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant.
76.
Under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, no one may be deprived of his or her liberty except
on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. As the
Working Group has stated, in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not
sufficient for there to be a law authorizing the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal
basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case. This is typically11 done through an arrest
warrant, an arrest order or equivalent document.12 Moreover, article 9 (2) of the Covenant
provides that anyone who is arrested must be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons
for his or her arrest and be promptly informed of any charges against him or her. Respect for
these rights is essential for the other rights set out in article 9 of the Covenant, since all
individuals must know the reasons for their arrest in order to challenge it effectively and must
be brought before a court or a judge in order to lodge an appeal.
77.
The Working Group takes note of the source’s unrefuted allegations that the eight
individuals were not informed of the reasons for their arrest at the time of their arrest.
Although the authorities apparently obtained arrest and search warrants, except for Mr.
Belhaj and Mr. Ben M’barek, the other six individuals were unable to read the contents of
the warrants and therefore to learn the reasons for their arrest. In the cases of Mr. Belhaj and
Mr. Ben M’barek, the source claims that they were not presented with warrants. Noting the
absence of any response from the Government to refute these allegations, the Working Group
concludes that the eight individuals were not informed of the reasons for their arrest at the
time of arrest, in violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant and article 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
10 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
11 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 23.
12 It is not usually feasible to obtain a warrant in cases of arrest in flagrante delicto.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
12
GE.24-17650
78.
Furthermore, the source claims that the eight individuals were not brought before a
judge immediately after their arrest, in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The
Government has chosen not to contest these allegations, although it had the opportunity to
do so.
79.
Under the terms of article 9 (3) of the Covenant, anyone arrested or detained on a
criminal charge must be brought promptly before a judge. As the Human Rights Committee
has noted, 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to satisfy the requirement to bring a detainee
“promptly” before a judge after arrest, and any longer delay must remain absolutely
exceptional and be justified under the circumstances.13 The Working Group has previously
emphasized that a public prosecutor cannot be considered a judicial authority for the purposes
of article 9 (3) of the Covenant.14 Judicial oversight of deprivation of liberty is a fundamental
safeguard of personal liberty and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis.15
80.
In this case, Mr. Al Turki, Mr. Al Jelassi, Mr. Al Akremi and Ms. Issa spent over 48
hours in detention before being brought before a judge. The Government has not provided
any justification for the period that elapsed between their arrest and their appearance before
the investigating judge. The Working Group therefore finds a violation of article 9 (3) of the
Covenant.
81.
As for Mr. Al Chebbi, Mr. Al Chaouachi, Mr. Belhaj and Mr. Ben M’barek, they were
brought before a judge within 48 hours of their arrest. The Working Group therefore is not
in a position to find a violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant in their cases.
82.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group finds that the detention of the eight
individuals has no legal basis, in violation of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant. Their detention is therefore arbitrary under
category I.
(b)
Category II
83.
The source asserts that the detention of the eight individuals is arbitrary under
category II as it constitutes a reprisal against them for peacefully exercising their right to
freedom of expression, association and assembly. The Government has chosen not to contest
these allegations, although it had the opportunity to do so.
84.
The Working Group recalls that article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights protect freedom of expression and opinion. Articles
21 and 22 of the Covenant and article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
respectively guarantee the right to organize and participate in meetings, whether public or
private, and the right to freedom of association. Article 25 of the Covenant and article 21 of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantee the right to take part in the conduct of
public affairs.
85.
The source claims that the eight individuals were detained for expressing critical
opinions, in public and in private, regarding the measures taken by the President and the
authorities; for organizing meetings between embassy representatives and opposition
representatives; for inviting opposition members, lawyers, journalists and human rights
defenders to meetings for an exchange of opinions regarding the measures taken by the
authorities; for organizing demonstrations on the same subject; and for their membership of
associations opposed to the authorities’ actions.
13 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 33; CCPR/C/DZA/CO/4, paras. 35
and 36; and A/HRC/10/21, para. 54 (d).
14 Opinions No. 14/2015, para. 28; No. 45/2019, para. 52; and No. 5/2020, para. 72. See also Human
Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 32.
15 Opinions No. 35/2018, para. 27; No. 83/2018, para. 47; No. 32/2019, para. 30; No. 33/2019, para. 50;
No. 44/2019, para. 54; No. 45/2019, para. 53; No. 59/2019, para. 51; and No. 65/2019, para. 64. See
also the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of
Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court (A/HRC/30/37, annex),
para. 3.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
GE.24-17650
13
86.
The Working Group notes that the Government chose not to refute the source’s
specific and detailed allegations, despite being given the opportunity to do so. In particular,
the Government did not provide any information that makes it possible to determine that the
eight individuals were arrested for committing violent acts rather than for the peaceful
exercise of their rights. In the absence of an explanation from the Government, the Working
Group considers that the source has demonstrated that the activities of the eight individuals
were aimed at maintaining democracy in Tunisia and that their arrest was linked to their
statements critical of the Government, as well as to their organization of meetings,
participation in demonstrations and affiliation with groups opposed to certain measures taken
by the authorities. Consequently, the Working Group considers that the detention of the eight
individuals results from the exercise of their rights under articles 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the
Covenant and articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that,
consequently, their detention is arbitrary under category II.
(c)
Category III
87.
Given its finding that the detention of the eight individuals is arbitrary under category
II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place.
88.
The source alleges that the eight individuals have been deprived of their right to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty following a fair trial. In support of this assertion, it
points out that in televised statements – and while none of the eight individuals had been tried
or convicted – the President repeatedly asserted that they were guilty of membership of a
terrorist group, plotting against State security and attempting to overthrow the Government.
89.
Article 14 (2) of the Covenant, article 11 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and principle 36 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment provide that everyone charged with a criminal offence
must be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law at a fair and public trial at
which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence. Noting the absence of any
explanation from the Government, the Working Group concludes that the right of the eight
individuals to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by article 14 (2) of the Covenant and
article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been violated.
90.
In addition, the source claims that following their arrest, Mr. Al Turki, Mr. Al Jelassi,
Ms. Issa, Mr. Ben M’barek and Mr. Al Chebbi were questioned by the police without the
presence of counsel and denied the right to legal assistance for 48 hours, in violation of article
35 of the Constitution.
91.
Article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant provides that every accused person must have
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his or her defence and to communicate with
counsel of his or her own choosing. In addition, article 14 (3) (d) guarantees individuals the
right to defend themselves in person, to have legal assistance of their own choosing or to
have legal assistance assigned to them, and without payment if the individual does not have
sufficient means to pay for it. These rights are also protected by principles 17 and 18 of the
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. It is therefore incumbent upon States to permit and facilitate access to a
lawyer, who should, in principle, be of the detained person’s choosing, and to do so from the
outset of his or her detention.16
92.
Concerning the application of the provisions of the Tunisian Constitution, the
Working Group recalls that it has refrained from taking the place of the national judicial
authorities or acting as a kind of supranational tribunal when it is urged to review the
application of national law by the judiciary or other authorities.17 That notwithstanding, and
noting the absence of any explanation from the Government, the Working Group concludes
that there has been a violation of the right of Mr. Al Turki, Mr. Al Jelassi, Ms. Issa, Mr. Ben
M’barek and Mr. Al Chebbi to legal assistance, which constitutes a violation of article 14 (3)
(d) of the Covenant and article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
16 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), paras. 34 and 35.
17 See, for example, opinions No. 40/2005; No. 15/2017; No. 16/2017; No. 49/2019; and No. 58/2019.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
14
GE.24-17650
93.
According to the source, the police claimed that anonymous witnesses had supposedly
made statements incriminating the eight individuals, but they presented them with absolutely
no evidence and did not allow them to see the statements. Article 14 (3) (e) states that accused
persons must be entitled to examine the witnesses against them or to have them examined
and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf under the same
conditions as witnesses against them. Noting the absence of a response from the Government
to contest these prima facie credible allegations, the Working Group considers that the
authorities have violated article 14 (3) (e) of the Covenant and the rights inherent in article
11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
94.
The source states that the proceedings do not meet the requirements of the right to a
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, guaranteed by article 14 of the Covenant.
It emphasizes that the President and the executive branch have interfered in the operation of
the Tunisian justice system, including in this case, in particular by means of pressure brought
by the Government so that the judiciary and the public prosecutor’s office would speed up
investigations and prosecutions against the eight individuals.18 The Working Group notes the
source’s allegations, unrefuted by the Government, that the Ministry of Justice became
involved in the case by ordering the judiciary to investigate certain crimes reported by the
National Terrorist Crimes Investigation Unit. In the absence of any explanation from the
Government, the Working Group concludes that the right of the eight individuals to the
presumption of innocence guaranteed by article 14 (1) of the Covenant and article 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been violated.
95.
In the light of all the above, the Working Group concludes that the violations of the
eight individuals’ right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give their detention an arbitrary
character under category III.
3.
Disposition
96.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Mohamad Khayam ben Ibrahim ben Mustafa al Turki,
Chaima bent Issa ben Ibrahim ben Hoagui Issa, Abdelhamid ben Abdelkader ben
Mohamad al Jelassi, Issam ben Abdelaziz ben Ahmed al Chebbi, Ghazi ben Mohamad
ben al Hadi al Chaouachi, Ridha ben al Bachir ben Mohamad Belhaj, Jaouhar ben
Ezzedine ben Mohamed al Habib ben M’barek and Mohamad Lazher al Akremi is
arbitrary in that it is contrary to articles 3, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9, 14, 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and falls within categories I, II and III.
97.
The Working Group requests the Government of Tunisia to take the steps necessary
to remedy the situation of the eight individuals without delay and bring it into conformity
with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the Covenant.
98.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release each of the eight individuals immediately
and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance
with international law.
99.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the eight
individuals and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of
their rights.
100.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
18 Opinion No. 50/2023, para. 71; see also CCPR/C/TUN/CO/6, para. 43.
A/HRC/WGAD/2024/35
GE.24-17650
15
4.
Follow-up procedure
101.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether the six individuals who remain in detention, namely Mr. Al Turki,
Mr. Al Jelassi, Mr. Al Chebbi, Mr. Al Chaouachi, Mr. Belhaj and Mr. Ben M’barek, have
been released and, if so, when;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to the eight
individuals;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of the eight
individuals’ rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Tunisia with its international obligations, in line with the
present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
102.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
103.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the
above-mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present
opinion. However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up
to the opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action
would enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as of any failure to take action.
104.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.19
[Adopted on 30 August 2024]
19 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.