Communications received

357. By letter dated 11 December 2000, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent on 29 November 2000 (see E/CN.4/2001/94, para. 82) and the press statement issued by the Special Representative on 7 December 2000. The Government expressed its concern that the press statement was released before the competent Tunisian authorities had had time to reply to the urgent appeal. The Government informed the Special Representative that some members of the Tunisian League for Human Rights had brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Tunis for the annulment of the General Assembly of the League held

from 27 to 29 October 2000. During a press conference on 1 December 2000, the plaintiffs asserted that there had been a number of breaches of the statutes and rules of procedure of the League, and that this undermined its principles, interfered with the activities of its bodies and violated the rights of several of its members. The plaintiffs have also submitted an application to the interim relief judge for the appointment of a judicial officer to protect the League's property and documents and to represent it at law until the court hands down a decision on the main case.

E/CN.4/2002/106 page 150

The Government informed the Special Representative that, on 27 November 2000, the court decided that all the activities of the League's present executive board should be suspended pending the court's decision on the main case and appointed a judicial official pending that decision. The Government assured the Special Representative that the provisional measures as decided at law were executed in accordance with the rules of civil procedure in force, which require the supervision of a notary acting as bailiff. The Government stated that these legal proceedings were purely an internal matter concerning the League, involving only certain members who contested the conditions under which the last General Assembly took place, and were not at all intended to bring about its dissolution.

358. By letter dated 8 February 2001, the Government informed the Special Representative that on 18 November 2000 the doyen of the corps of investigating magistrates declared the investigation proceedings closed and ordered the committal of Mr. Marzouki, without custodial detention, for trial by the Court of First Instance of Tunis on charges of support of an illegal association and dissemination in bad faith of false information prejudicial to public order. The Government added that on 30 December 2000 the Court of First Instance of Tunis sentenced Mr. Marzouki to eight months' imprisonment for support of an illegal association and four months for the dissemination in bad faith of false information prejudicial to public order. Since the Public Prosecutor's Office has lodged an appeal, the judgement given at first instance will not become executory until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. The Government assured the Special Representative that throughout these legal proceedings Mr. Marzouki had enjoyed all the rights of defence in accordance with the legislation in force. It followed from the foregoing that the legal proceedings instituted against Mr. Marzouki had been based on acts designated as criminal under the Tunisian legislation in force. The Government added that his alleged activism in the field of human rights could not place him above the law. According to the Government, Mr. Marzouki, who was employed by the regional public health directorate in Susa, submitted an application for 13 days of annual leave beginning on 12 June 2000. However, that period coincided with the holding of examinations and the meetings of examination boards in the Faculty of Medicine at Susa. The administration had to inform Mr. Marzouki that he could not take the leave applied for. Mr. Marzouki, immediately submitted to the above-mentioned regional directorate a medical certificate prescribing "30 days' sick leave". The administration, in application of the provisions of article 41 of the general regulations applicable to public officials, ordered a second examination. The inspecting physician went to the home of Mr. Marzouki but was unable to perform his task, since the official concerned was never at home. The administration later learned that he had left the country. The administration consequently decided to refer him to the Disciplinary Board, which recommended "the dismissal

E/CN.4/2002/106 page 151

of the person concerned without loss of pension rights". The Minister of Public Health accepted the recommendation and on 29 July 2000 issued an order dismissing Mr. Marzouki. The order of the Minister of Public Health, being an administrative decision, is subject to appeal before the administrative tribunal.

359. By letter dated 22 March 2001, the Government informed the Special Representative that Mr. Nejib Hosni drew up a contract dated 28 October 1989 for the sale of a property for his own profit, which he claimed had been agreed by Mr. Mohamed Moncef Rezgui.

On 3 January 1996, the Appeal Court of Kef sentenced Mr. Nejib Hosni to four years' imprisonment for forgery, two years for possession of false documents and two years for use of false documents. The Court also banned him from practising as a lawyer for a period of five years. In December 1996, Mr. Hosni was granted conditional release for humanitarian reasons. The additional sentence banning him from practising as a lawyer remained in force, as required by law. The Government asserted that, despite his sentence, Mr. Hosni had in fact defended cases in court, thereby violating the Criminal Code, article 315, under which "anyone failing to abide by the rules or decisions adopted by the competent authority is liable to punishment". As a result, on 18 December 2000, the court sentenced Mr. Hosni to 15 days' imprisonment. Following this sentence, and in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, article 359, the Minister for Internal Affairs, by a decision dated 3 January 2001, revoked the December 1996 decision on conditional release for Mr. Hosni. He will therefore have to serve the remainder of the sentence handed down on 3 January 1996. The Government stressed that the court banned Mr. Nejib Hosni temporarily from practising as a lawyer and stated that this was an additional sentence imposed in accordance with the law. The Bar Council's competence to decide whether one of its members should be disbarred or suspended is a disciplinary competence. The competence of a disciplinary body can never outweigh the competence of a court, which is defined by law. The Government stated that during the entire course of the proceedings against him, Mr. Hosni had been treated in accordance with the law and with strict regard for the right to a defence. The allegations that he was beaten at the time of his arrest on 21 December 2000 were completely without foundation.

360. By letter dated 18 May 2001, the Government informed the Special Representative that Nejib Hosni had been released on 12 May 2001 with a presidential pardon.

361. By letter dated 16 July 2001, the Government informed the Special Representative that Ms. Ben Sedrine was arrested because, in a programme broadcast by a London-based satellite television channel, she had made personal accusations concerning a magistrate, an act which constitutes an offence under Tunisian law. The Government added that Ms. Ben Sedrine was the subject of a complaint by the magistrate in question, who availed himself of his rights in the matter, claiming he was the victim of defamation. Court proceedings were immediately initiated

E/CN.4/2002/106 page 152

against Ms. Ben Sedrine, who was accused of defamation and malicious spreading of false information. On 26 June 2001, she appeared before the examining magistrate and requested a stay of proceedings in order to obtain legal assistance. The examining magistrate granted her request, deferred proceedings until 5 July 2001 and issued a warrant for her detention in accordance with the provisions of Tunisian law. According to the Government, under article 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge may order preventive detention where there are serious presumptions and as a security measure to ensure that further offences are not committed. On 5 July 2001, Ms. Ben Sedrine appeared before the examining magistrate, assisted by 32 lawyers. After informing her of the counts with which she was charged, the examining magistrate requested her to respond to them, but the accused insisted that she would respond only in the presence of all the lawyers she had appointed. In view of the physical impossibility of accommodating all the defence lawyers she had appointed and the obstinate refusal of the accused to respond except in their presence, the examining magistrate entered the accused's position in the record of proceedings and ordered the extension of the detention warrant.

Suivi

362. Le 28 decembre 2000, la Representante speciale a repondu a la lettre du Gouvernement tunisien datee du 11 decembre 2000. La Representante speciale assure que s'agissant de la pratique en matiere de publication de communiques de presse dans le cadre des procedures speciales des Nations Unies, si l'usage requiert que la publication de communiques de presse soit precedee par l'envoi de communications au Gouvernement, il n'est pas exige d'attendre une reponse du Gouvernement a cette communication avant d'emettre le communique. Apres avoir analyse les informations contenues dans la communication du Gouvernement tunisien, la Representante speciale indique que, d'apres les informations recues, les procedures judiciaires intentees contre la LTDH ne constitueraient pas une affaire purement interne a la Ligue. Les allegations, selon lesquelles les procedures intentees contre la LTDH seraient a l'origine d'une manoeuvre pour destabiliser le travail de Г organisation, sont serieuses. Considerant l'histoire personnelle des plaignants qui ont intente le proces, il serait difficile de discrediter les allegations et de considerer ce cas comme une affaire interne a la LTDH. La Representante speciale ajoute qu'elle est preoccupee par les procedures utilisees a l'encontre de la LTDH. De telles procedures n'auraient jamais ete utilisees auparavant pour regler des problemes internes a une telle association. Par ailleurs, s'agissant de la situation des membres de la LTDH, il a ete rapporte que, du fait que la Ligue soit sous "administration judiciaire" et du fait de la "suspension de toutes les activites de l'actuel Comite directeur", le President et les membres de ce comite risqueraient d'etre arretes et poursuivis. Il a aussi ete rapporte que les membres du Conseil national de la LTDH auraient ete empeches de se reunir a Bizerte le 3 decembre 2000 en raison d'un deploiement policier bloquant l'acces non seulement aux locaux de rencontres mais meme aux rues ou se trouvent ces locaux. La Representante speciale mentionne aussi sa preoccupation

E/CN.4/2002/106 page 153

quant a l'arrestation de Nejib Hosni, avocat et membre du CNLT, le 21 decembre 2000 chez lui a El Kef, suite a sa condamnation a une peine de 15 jours de prison pour avoir repris ses activites en tant qu'avocat, malgre Г interdiction d'exercer sa profession emise en 1994 contre lui. De plus, la Representante speciale rappelle a l'attention du Gouvernement la situation de Moncef Marzouki, porte-parole du CNLT, qui devait comparaitre le 30 decembre 2000, pour repondre a des accusations d'appartenance a une organisation non reconnue et la diffusion de fausses nouvelles de nature a troubler l'ordre public.

Observations

363. The Special Representative would like to thank the Government for its detailed replies. She welcomes the release on 12 May 2001 of Mr. Neijib Hosni following a presidential pardon. She remains concerned, however, about the situation of human rights defenders and the conditions under which they are exercising their activities in Tunisia. The Special Representative continues to receive allegations of violations targeting human rights defenders. These violations are believed to consist mainly of illegal searches, confiscation of property, anonymous and threatening telephone calls, surveillance by unidentified individuals, the cutting of phone lines, arbitrary detention, confiscation of passports, legal proceedings, physical violence, defamation in the media, and other acts which might constitute a pattern of intimidation against human rights defenders. According to the information received, a significant portion of those acts of harassment and intimidation have been marked by impunity as, even in the rare instances where incidents have been investigated by the judicial authorities, those responsible have not been brought to justice. Finally, the Special Representative sent a request on 19 October 2001 to the Government of Tunisia to visit the country and hopes for a positive reply.