Summary:
Jihed Dridi, a Tunisian citizen who suffers from psychological disorders, was detained in prison with zero acknowledgement for his health condition and his disability card.
During his detention he was subjected to harsh treatment and gave up food and medicine, in a complete disregard for his condition, and despite his lawyer’s repeated requests to take him to Razi psychiatric hospital to receive treatment, these demands were eventually denied, leading to his death under suspicious circumstances.
Personal Information:
Name: Jihed Dridi
Occupation: Citizen
Nationality: Tunisian
Age: 42
Violation Incidents:
On September 22, 2025, Jihed was arrested by the police on suspicion of trafficking Class “A” drug pills along with several other individuals and was held in custody. However, he suffers from psychological disorders and has been a resident of Razi Psychiatric Hospital since 2010. He also carries a disability card, which requires that adequate conditions be provided for his specific health needs. Two days after his detention, Jihed was brought before the judiciary, where the investigating judge issued a detention order against him.
And ever since his detention, his lawyer stated that he had taken on the case since October 1, 2025, only to realize that his client had not been heard or questioned regarding the charges against him, and that his disability card had not been included in the file when it was presented to the court. Upon reviewing the victim’s file, he had verbally informed the investigating judge that his client was in a critical psychological state and suffered from disorders, and requested that he shall be subjected to a medical examination. The judge replied that this was not within his purview and advised him to address the public prosecution.
When he approached the prosecution, he was informed that it was no longer competent to handle the file, leaving Jihed in prison without consideration of his particular health condition.
On October 3, 2025, the victim’s lawyer demanded that Jihed needs hospitalization as well as a demand for medical examination, in addition to a notice of imminent danger of death. However, according to the lawyer’s testimony, the judge refused to consider these requests, arguing that hospitalization requests were not within his jurisdiction, and also rejected the request for a medical examination. The lawyer explained that he had opposed the judge’s decision based on Tunisian law, reminding him that the law issued in 1992 states that the investigating judge is the authority competent to consider this type of request.
However, according to his testimony, the judge replied that he would verify the matter and inform him of his decision next week. The lawyer of the victim of the violation also added that notification procedures are usually simple and typically require no more than a phone call to the prison where the detainee is held, after which the detainee is transferred to the hospital. He also pointed out that when lawyers submit requests to the judges, they do not receive any receipt or acknowledgment confirming that the request has been received.
In addition to this judicial procrastination, the victim of violation’s case did not get the seriousness it deserved, despite the urgent attention and responsibility it needed. The family of the victim of the violation told the lawyer that visiting Jihed was no longer helpful because his mental health kept getting worse. He stopped talking, eating, and drinking which is something the family noticed during their recent visits. They also said his hands were tightly cuffed, causing cuts and bleeding, and that he was punished and placed in solitary confinement.
The family added, through their lawyer, that the prison director called them and said he had sent two letters to the court about Jihed’s condition but got no reply, and also said that the prison no longer knew how to deal with his situation.
On October 5 2025, around 8 PM, Jihed’s family received a phone call from the prison administration to inform them of his death in the Abd el Rahmen Mami in Ariana. And when they went to the hospital, they were notified that he was taken to the hospital of Charles Nicolle for an autopsy. And on the next day, the lawyer states that when he turned to the Court to inquire whether the prison administration had sent a telegram regarding the death. He was told that his client had been taken out of prison while on oxygen and had died at Ben Arous Hospital and the lawyer confirmed that an investigation had been opened to look into the circumstances and causes of the death.
Human Rights Violations:
The case of Jihed Dridi represents a series of serious human rights violations that undermine human dignity and the right to life. It clearly breaches several international and regional human rights standards, as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenants, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).
These violations include the violation of the right to life, which is the most fundamental of all rights. Jihad died under suspicious circumstances after judicial and administrative authorities ignored repeated warnings from his lawyer about his deteriorating health.
The court also refused urgent requests to have him hospitalized at Razi Psychiatric Hospital or to undergo medical examination, despite clear risks to his life.
Official reports even conflicted regarding the place of death, between Abd El Rahmen Mami Hospital in Ariana and the hospital of Ben Arous, showing a lack of transparency in such cases, which are not isolated incidents.
This constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the UDHR, which states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person,” and of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which obliges the state to protect this right. Similarly, Article 4 of the African Charter guarantees every individual’s right to respect for their life and personal integrity.
Rule 1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules also stresses that all prisoners must be treated with respect for their inherent dignity , something that should have applied to Jihed’s case, which required immediate hospitalization.
According to his lawyer’s testimony, Jihed had suffered from mental health disorders since 2010 and had previously been hospitalized in a psychiatric institution. He also held a disability card. Despite this, he was imprisoned without any medical care or specialized treatment, the authorities’ refusal to respond to his lawyer’s requests to hospitalize him represents a clear failure of the state’s duty to protect the health of persons deprived of their liberty.
This conduct contradicts Article 25 of the UDHR, which recognizes everyone’s right to an adequate standard of living for their health and well-being, and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which ensures the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
It also violates Article 16 of the African Charter, which guarantees the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health, as well as Rule 24 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, which requires that prisoners receive health care equivalent to that available in the community.
Furthermore, Jihed was deprived of his right to a fair trial and to defense guarantees, as his lawyer reported that he was neither heard nor questioned regarding the charges against him, and that his disability card was not included in the case file. The judge unjustifiably refused to consider the legal motions submitted. This represents a violation of the principle of equality before the law and the right to defense, breaching Articles 9 and 10 of the UDHR, and Articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR, which ensure the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial judge. It also contradicts Article 23 of the Tunisian Constitution of 2022, which states that “citizens are equal in rights and duties and are equal before the law without discrimination.”
Jihad was also a person with a disability, yet the judicial and prison authorities failed to take his condition into account. He was treated like any other detainee, despite needing special care. This violates Article 1 of the UDHR, which affirms equality in dignity and rights, Article 18 of the African Charter, which obliges states to protect persons with disabilities, and Rule 5 of the Nelson Mandela Rules, which requires that prison administrations make reasonable accommodations to ensure prisoners with disabilities can live fully and effectively on an equal basis with others.
The case of Jihed Dridi is part of a broader pattern of suspicious deaths in Tunisian prisons, resulting from the state’s failure to fulfill its duty to protect the lives and dignity of detainees. It highlights the lack of coordination between judicial and prison authorities, weak oversight of human rights standards, and the absence of effective accountability mechanisms. Therefore, this case is not merely an individual tragedy but reflects a systemic failure in the justice and prison system, one that urgently requires reform to ensure that places of detention do not become sites of slow death, but institutions that uphold rehabilitation and human dignity.