Geneva Institute for Human Rights

On the last day of his official visit to Tunisia from 22 to 26 January 2010, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, issued the following statement:

“[…] Every State has the obligation to protect the life and integrity of its citizens and residents, including from threats emanating from terrorism. At the same time, international human rights norms have to be fully respected, including the rights of persons suspected of being involved in terrorist crimes. Tunisia has repeatedly made commitments to that effect, including by ratifying most international conventions related to human rights or to terrorism. I take the invitation extended to me as a significant step on this way and will report fully to one of the future sessions of the Human Rights Council. Herewith I would like to share some of my key observations at the end of the visit:
[…] As I have systematically emphasized, deadly or otherwise serious physical violence against members of the general population or segments of it should be a central element of any definition of terrorism. This is clearly not the case in Tunisia, where in the majority of cases since 2003 mere intentions are punished, be it in terms of “planning” or in terms of “membership”, the latter often within vaguely defined organizations or groups. I heard of numerous cases of – and saw several – young men whose main “crime” it was to have downloaded or watched certain programs online or having met to discuss some religious issues with others.
[…] Tunisian law prohibits torture, and the country is Party to the Convention against Torture. Nevertheless, there does not seem to exist a clear provision requiring judges to open investigations ex officio in cases of torture allegations presented in court, to motivate the rejection of a torture complaint or to exclude any evidence or statements obtained under torture. These shortcomings of the legal framework may result in a shield of impunity for those who engage in torture or other ill-treatment.
The most disturbing experience during my mission was the existence of serious discrepancies between the law and what was reported to me as happening in reality. While work towards a full report will continue in cooperation with the Government, I have chosen to speak out about my main concerns:
- It appears, and the authorities have admitted as much, that the date of arrest may be postdated, circumventing the rules about the allowed length of police detention and amounting to secret detention or disappearance of the person;
- The frequent use of confessions as evidence in court without proper investigation into allegations of torture or other ill-treatment;
- The inadequacy of guarantees against torture, such as access to independent medical examinations and access to a lawyer from the moment of arrest, instead of only after the first appearance before the investigative judge;
- The disproportionately low number of prosecutions or other clear findings related to torture, compared to the frequency of allegations.

While Tunisian authorities in many respects operated in the spirit of transparency during my visit, my repeated requests of access to the interrogation facilities of the Judicial Police (namely the Sub-directorate for Criminal Affairs), still known as “Directorate of State Security” were denied. This is all the more troubling, as the allegations of torture or ill-treatment focus on the role of the judicial police in what happens prior to officially registered police custody, during investigation/interrogation, or when a detainee awaiting trial is taken out of the prison for further investigation.”