Summary:
Human rights activist Ghofrane Binous is facing a default judgment sentencing her to three years in prison and a fine of 30,000 Tunisian dinars on charges including forming a criminal association for money laundering and illicit enrichment, in connection with her activities within the Mnemty Association.
Personal Information:
Name: Ghofrane Binous
Status: Human rights activist
Nationality: Tunisian
State: Gabes
Charges:
-Forming a criminal association for money laundering under the Anti-Terrorism and Prevention of Money Laundering Law.
-Illicit enrichment under Article 37 of the 2018 Law on the Declaration of Assets and Interests, Combating Illicit Enrichment and Conflicts of Interest.
Judgment:
-Two years’ imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 Tunisian dinars for money laundering.
-One year’s imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 Tunisian dinars for illicit enrichment.
Violation Incidents:
The case against Ghofrane Binous dates back to 13 May 2024, when the human rights activist received a phone call from the authorities summoning her in her capacity as a former project coordinator at the Mnemty Association, which was at the time subject to judicial proceedings following the arrest of its president, Saadia Mosbah.
She was requested to appear before the Central Unit for Combating Complex Financial Crimes of the National Guard in El Aouina on 14 May 2024, as part of an investigation involving allegations of illicit enrichment and money laundering.
On 16 May 2024, Ghufran Binnous appeared before the Public Prosecutor at the Tunis 1 Court of First Instance and subsequently before the investigating judge, who questioned her for more than 11 consecutive hours. According to the victim’s testimony, the conditions of the interrogation did not meet recognized legal standards, as she was subjected to negative psychological treatment aimed at influencing her and obtaining confessions. Her health condition was also not taken into consideration, despite her informing the officers and her lawyers having raised the matter.
The questioning focused on the nature of the association’s activities and the beneficiaries of its services, before she was released and allowed to remain at liberty.
Meanwhile, she was subjected to a widespread defamation campaign on social media, which forced her to leave Tunisia.
On 19 March 2026, a first-instance judgment was issued sentencing her to two years in prison and a fine of 20,000 Tunisian dinars for money laundering, and one year in prison and a fine of 10,000 Tunisian dinars for illicit enrichment. The judgment was considered a conviction in her presence despite the fact that she was not in Tunisia.
On 23 June 2026, the Tunis Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment against Ghofrane Binous while changing the classification of the judgment from a judgment in her presence to a default judgment.
Human Rights Violations:
The summoning of Ghofrane Binous by telephone, without following the usual formal procedures, followed by subjecting her to an interrogation lasting more than 11 hours, constituted an infringement of her right to liberty and security of person. This right is guaranteed under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention.
The prolonged interrogation also conflicts with fair trial guarantees provided for under Article 14 of the same Covenant and Article 13 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which require that accused persons not be subjected to exhausting or coercive investigative procedures.
According to the victim’s testimony, the interrogation was accompanied by negative psychological treatment intended to influence her and obtain confessions. Such treatment may amount to cruel or degrading treatment prohibited under Article 7 of the ICCPR and Article 16 of the Convention against Torture, in addition to violating Article 14 of the ICCPR, which guarantees every accused person’s right to not to be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt, as also affirmed by Article 15 of the Convention against Torture, which provides that any statement obtained through coercion shall not be invoked as evidence, and by Article 8 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and degrading treatment.
In addition, the victim’s health condition was not taken into consideration during the interrogation, despite the fact that both she and her lawyer had informed the authorities of it. This constitutes a violation of the right to health guaranteed under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the right to humane treatment that preserves dignity during detention and interrogation, in accordance with Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), which require the provision of necessary healthcare.
Furthermore, the focus of the interrogation on the activities of the association where the victim previously served as a project coordinator, as well as on the beneficiaries of its services, raises concerns regarding interference with the right to freedom of association, protected under Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 24 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. It also raises concerns regarding the right to privacy of the beneficiaries whose information was indirectly subject to questioning, as guaranteed under Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. At the same time, this suggests that the victim may have been targeted in her capacity as a human rights defender because of her previous associative work, contrary to the 1998 United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, particularly Articles 1 and 12, which protect human rights defenders from retaliation for their legitimate human rights activities.
At a later stage, the victim was subjected to a widespread defamation campaign on social media, which forced her to leave Tunisia. This constitutes an infringement of her right to protection of her person and reputation and reflects a failure by the State to protect human rights defenders from violence, threats, defamation, or retaliation, as provided for under Article 12 of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. It also indirectly affected her right to freedom of movement and freedom to choose her place of residence, guaranteed under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
When the first-instance judgment was issued on 19 March 2026, the victim was considered to have been convicted in her presence despite not actually being in Tunisia. This undermines her right to a fair trial, particularly her right to be present and to defend herself personally or through a lawyer of her own choosing, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 13 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights. These safeguards are further elaborated in General Comment No. 32 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee concerning the conditions required for the validity of trials conducted in absentia.
The subsequent decision of the Tunis Court of Appeal on 23 June 2026 upheld the first-instance judgment against the victim while simultaneously changing the classification of the judgment from one rendered in her presence to a default judgment. This raises questions regarding respect for her right to a two-tier judicial review and her right to have her conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher court, as guaranteed under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 13 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights.
Taken together, these facts, viewed in their chronological and substantive context, reveal what may be described as a systematic judicial targeting of a human rights defender because of her previous human rights activities. This pattern falls within what is internationally referred to as “legal repression” or “lawfare”, and calls for scrutiny of whether the measures taken are consistent with Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, which guarantees every person, individually or in association with others, the right to promote and protect human rights without fear of retaliation.