Summary
Since 2021, Kliaiya Moumen, a 26-year-old Tunisian woman from Gafsa Governorate, has been subjected to an ongoing campaign of threats, harassment, and technology-facilitated gender-based violence by a man who impersonated a security officer, following her refusal to enter into a relationship with him. The abuse included direct threats, online harassment, defamation, and intrusion into her private life, and later extended to members of her family. Despite filing several complaints and providing information and material evidence, she stated that she did not receive effective protection capable of ending the abuse or preventing its recurrence, leaving her at continued risk as of the date of this documentation. The case highlights the intersection between technology-facilitated gender-based violence and barriers to effective protection and remedy.
Personal Information
Name: Kliaiya Moumen
Age: 26
Nationality: Tunisian
Status: Citizen
Governorate: Gafsa
Nature of the violation: Technology-facilitated gender-based violence and concerns relating to protection and effective remedy.
Details of the Violation
The abuse experienced by Kliaiya Moumen dates back to 2021, when she began being targeted by a man who impersonated a security officer after she refused to enter into a relationship with him.
According to her testimony, the acts included direct threatening messages sent from the suspect’s personal phone number, as well as repeated defamation, harassment, and digital abuse aimed at intimidating her and intruding into her private life. She stated that these acts affected her psychological well-being and sense of safety.
Kliaiya reported that she had information and material evidence, including the threatening messages she received. However, from the time she began reporting the abuse, she said she encountered a security response that she perceived as dismissive of her complaints and skeptical of her account. She was reportedly told that the evidence was insufficient despite having submitted information and supporting material related to the incidents.
According to her testimony, Kliaiya filed three complaints concerning these acts. She stated, however, that these complaints did not result in effective protection measures or any action sufficient to bring the threats and harassment to an end.
She also reported being subjected at a police station to treatment she described as degrading, as well as verbal abuse and repeated responses that she considered to reflect victim-blaming and gender stereotyping. According to her account, she was confronted with statements such as: “Our daughter would not do something like this.”
In January 2025, the suspect was arrested and sentenced to one year in prison. However, he was released approximately one month later. Kliaiya stated that after his release, he resumed threatening and harassing her continuously.
According to the victim’s testimony, the targeting later extended to members of her family, including her sister, who were also subjected to threats and similar forms of digital abuse, creating a broader climate of intimidation and psychological and social pressure.
The abuse, which has continued since 2021, has had consequences for Kliaiya’s psychological well-being and social stability. She stated that she repeatedly went between police stations seeking protection and redress but, according to her account, did not receive effective protection, while the threats continued as of the date of this documentation.
It should also be noted that Kliaiya filed a new case, with the first hearing scheduled for 6 October 2026.
Human Rights Violations
The documented facts raise several human rights concerns relating to the protection of women from gender-based violence, the right to personal security, physical and psychological integrity, dignity, privacy, equality and non-discrimination, and the right to an effective remedy and access to justice.
The acts attributed to the suspect, as reflected in the documented facts, form part of a pattern of threats, harassment, and digital violence directed at the victim following her refusal to enter into a relationship with him. These circumstances raise concerns regarding the protection of women from gender-based violence under Organic Law No. 58 of 11 August 2017 on the Elimination of Violence against Women, which adopts a broad definition of violence encompassing physical, psychological, sexual, and economic harm based on discrimination on the grounds of sex, as well as threats of such acts, coercion, and deprivation of rights and freedoms.
Within this legal framework, the repeated threats, digital harassment, defamation, and psychological pressure described by the victim raise concerns that she may have been subjected to psychological and moral violence through digital means as a form of gender-based violence, affecting her psychological integrity, dignity, and personal security.
The fact that the targeting reportedly began after Kliaiya exercised her freedom to refuse a relationship also raises concerns regarding women’s right to make personal decisions freely and without being subjected to coercion, retaliation, or intimidation because of their personal choices.
The case further raises issues concerning the victim’s right to protection and remedy under Organic Law No. 58 of 2017, which adopts a comprehensive approach based on prevention, protection, prosecution, punishment, and support for victims. This framework guarantees women victims of violence access to protection appropriate to the nature of the risk they face, with a view to safeguarding their physical and psychological integrity and ensuring their rights to information, guidance, support, and redress.
According to the documented facts and the victim’s testimony, the number of complaints filed and the continuation of the threats despite judicial proceedings raise questions regarding the effectiveness of the measures taken to protect her and prevent the recurrence of the reported acts, particularly given the alleged continuation of the threats after the suspect’s release and their extension to members of her family.
The way in which the victim was reportedly treated when filing complaints also raises concerns regarding the right of women victims of violence to be treated in a manner that respects their dignity and psychological well-being. Kliaiya stated that she encountered responses that questioned her account and included victim-blaming and gender stereotypes, which may affect women’s ability to report violence and seek protection and access to justice.
The case also raises issues concerning equality and non-discrimination. Organic Law No. 58 of 2017 is grounded in the elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against women. It requires an institutional response that takes into account the specific nature of gender-based violence and ensures that victims are treated with respect and without stigma, humiliation, or gender stereotyping.
At the international level, the documented facts raise concerns under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), to which Tunisia acceded in 1985 and later withdrew its reservations. CEDAW requires States parties to take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women and ensure protection from gender-based violence. The CEDAW Committee has further affirmed, particularly in General Recommendations Nos. 19 and 35, that gender-based violence constitutes a form of discrimination against women and that States must exercise due diligence to prevent such violence, investigate it, prosecute perpetrators, provide effective protection, and ensure redress for victims.
The case also raises concerns under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right to security of person under Article 9, the right to privacy under Article 17, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 2. Accordingly, the continued threats and digital harassment described in the documented facts, together with the reported difficulties in obtaining effective protection, raise questions regarding the extent to which the victim has benefited from the guarantees of protection and effective remedy provided under national law and Tunisia’s international obligations.
Taken as a whole, the documented facts raise several human rights concerns relating to technology-facilitated gender-based violence, the effectiveness of protection mechanisms and institutional responses, and the right of women victims of violence to access justice and immediate and effective protection. These concerns should be assessed in light of Organic Law No. 58 of 2017 and Tunisia’s relevant international obligations, without prejudice to the outcome of the ongoing judicial proceedings.