Mohamed Khalil Tlili

Summary

Mohamed Khalil Tlili, a student at the Higher Institute of Transport and Logistics in Sousse, was arrested in August 2025 after his personal phone was searched and its contents examined, before being held in police custody for five days and then released. In June 2026, it emerged that he was wanted in execution of a judgment in absentia issued against him, and he was committed to prison before being released following an objection to the judgment, while the prosecution against him continues.

Personal Information

Name: Mohamed Khalil Tlili.
Age: 22.
Status: Student at the Higher Institute of Transport and Logistics in Sousse.
Governorate: Sousse.
Charge: Takfir (declaring others apostates) and advocating it, and inciting and advocating hatred between races, religions and doctrines, under Articles 1, 13 and 14 of Organic Law No. 26 of 2015 of 7 August 2015 on combating terrorism and preventing money laundering, as amended and supplemented by Organic Law No. 9 of 2019.

Incidents of Violation

Mohamed Khalil Tlili is a student from the town of M'saken in the governorate of Sousse, born in 2004.

On 21 August 2025, plain-clothes security officers arrested him while he was walking near his home. According to his father's testimony, the officers searched his personal phone and accessed his account on the social media site "Facebook" without stating the reason for the arrest, then took him to the Sousse Regional Security District before transferring him to the Bouchoucha detention centre.

The victim's father stated that the reason for the arrest was that the officers noticed the cover image on his son's "Facebook" account, which contained the phrase "There is no god but God", which the officers considered justification for taking action against him.

During the search, the police searched his phone and examined the content he posts on social media, where they found a video clip of a "rap" song he had posted in 2018, when the victim was a minor aged fourteen. His internet browser search history was also examined, where a search relating to the current Syrian president was found. According to his father, his son had asked him about the difference between the names "Mohamed al-Jolani" and "Ahmed al-Sharaa", and when he did not get an answer, he searched for the information himself. His father also affirmed that his son holds no extremist views and that he has a particular health condition consisting of a different cognitive profile, as supported by medical documents later submitted to the investigating judge.

After the end of the five-day police custody, the victim was kept at liberty and was summoned on subsequent occasions for questioning, attending together with his father and his lawyer in response to the summonses issued by the judicial authorities.

The case saw no developments until 29 May 2026, when the family received a call from the Judicial Counter-Terrorism Pole asking the victim to appear, without explaining the reasons. His father informed the caller that his son was away from home visiting relatives for Eid al-Adha and that he would appear as soon as he returned.

On 1 June 2026, the victim went with his father to the headquarters of the Judicial Counter-Terrorism Pole in Tunis, where they were informed that the victim was wanted and that he would be held in custody. According to his father's testimony, they were not informed that he would be committed to Mornaguia civil prison in execution of a judgment in absentia issued against him sentencing him to one year in prison.

The following day, the victim's lawyer lodged an objection to the judgment in absentia, but the court kept the victim in detention and set a hearing for 10 June 2026 to examine the objection.

The victim's father also stated that the prosecution had negative psychological effects on his son and directly affected his academic performance, as he received remarks from several of his teachers that he had become disturbed and was losing concentration during exams. He added that the coincidence of the judicial proceedings with the exam period increased the psychological pressure he was under, especially as he was required to sit the resit exams, which began on 11 June 2026, one day after the objection hearing.

At the hearing of 10 June 2026, the court decided to release the victim and postpone the case to the hearing of 8 July 2026, then deferred it to the hearing of 15 July 2026 scheduled for the pronouncement of the judgment, before postponing the pronouncement of the judgment again to the hearing of 30 September 2026.

Human Rights Violations

The facts reveal a number of potential violations of fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by national law and international human rights standards.

The first of these violations is the infringement of the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, as the facts indicate that the victim's personal phone was searched and his digital accounts and search history examined, without anything in the facts indicating the existence of a prior judicial authorisation or a legal basis justifying this interference. This raises suspicions of a breach of Article 30 of the 2022 Tunisian Constitution, Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all of which prohibit arbitrary or unlawful interference with private life, correspondence and personal data.

The facts also raise concerns about respect for freedom of thought, conscience and expression and the right to seek information, as the proceedings were based, according to the victim's father's testimony, on elements consisting of a religious image on his personal account, a music clip posted when he was a minor, and an online search history relating to obtaining information. If established, these facts may constitute interference with the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Articles 18 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as by Articles 37 and 38 of the 2022 Tunisian Constitution.

The circumstances of the arrest and police custody in turn raise issues relating to the right to liberty and security of person, as the facts indicate that the victim was arrested on a public road and held in custody for five days, while there is nothing in the file indicating a case of flagrante delicto or a prior judicial arrest decision, nor anything indicating that he was promptly informed of the reasons for his custody. These facts must be assessed in light of Article 35 of the Tunisian Constitution, Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibit arbitrary arrest or detention and guarantee everyone's right to be informed of the reasons for their deprivation of liberty.

The facts also highlight issues relating to fair trial guarantees, as a judgment in absentia sentencing him to one year in prison was issued without the facts indicating that the victim or his lawyer had been notified of the judgment before its execution, and he only learned of it when he appeared at the Judicial Counter-Terrorism Pole in June 2026. If established, these facts raise suspicions of a breach of the guarantees provided for under Article 124 of the Tunisian Constitution and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the right to be informed of judicial proceedings, to be present at trial, and to exercise the right of defence and to appeal judgments.

The facts further indicate that the victim's father submitted medical documents showing that his son has a particular health condition consisting of a different cognitive profile, yet the file contains nothing indicating that this condition was taken into account during the judicial proceedings. If established, this raises questions as to whether the obligations arising from Article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which guarantees the right of persons with disabilities to liberty and security of person on an equal basis with others, were respected.

Finally, the facts indicate that the prosecution coincided with the university exam period and had a negative impact on the victim's psychological state, concentration and academic performance, according to his father and to what was reported by several of his teachers. This information points to a direct impact of the measures taken on his effective enjoyment of his right to education, a right guaranteed by Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.