Summary
Hassan Dabbashi, a Tunisian national from the governorate of Sfax, was present on 22 February 2026 when he witnessed an individual filming a damaged motorcycle after a police vehicle had allegedly collided with it. He briefly stopped, along with other bystanders, to observe the situation.
At approximately 9:00 p.m. the same day, he was apprehended while sitting in a café and subjected to physical assault by officers from the Hay Bahri police station in Sfax. He was subsequently taken to the police station, where he was reportedly subjected to further ill-treatment, resulting in physical injuries. He was released at approximately 2:00 a.m. in a critical health condition.
He later sought medical assistance at Habib Bourguiba University Hospital in Sfax; however, he was reportedly denied access to a forensic medical examination unless authorized by the same police station.
Personal Information
Name: Hassan Dabbashi
Age: 42 years old
Governorate: Sfax
Nationality: Tunisian
Facts of the Violation
On 22 February 2026, Hassan Dabbashi encountered an incident involving a dispute in the street, where security officers were reportedly pursuing a motorcycle and collided with it. He briefly stopped to observe the situation before continuing on his way.
At approximately 9:00 p.m. on the same day, four police vehicles reportedly raided the café where the victim was seated. According to the testimony of his sister, several officers assaulted him using chairs from the café before taking him to the Hay Bahri police station without informing him of the reasons for his arrest or the nature of the suspicion against him.
His sister further reported that he was subjected to additional ill-treatment inside the police station, including being beaten and having water poured over him. While attempting to protect his head, he was struck by one of the officers, resulting in an injury to his ear and severe head pain. During his detention, he was questioned about his alleged relationship with the individual whose motorcycle had been struck earlier that day and about allegedly assisting him in moving the motorcycle. The victim denied any acquaintance with the individual and denied providing any assistance, contrary to the allegations made by the officers.
At approximately 2:30 a.m. on 23 February 2026, he was released after officers reportedly acknowledged that he had been mistakenly apprehended.
Due to ongoing pain and ear bleeding, his sister immediately took him to Habib Bourguiba Hospital upon his return home. He received initial medical care and was discharged at approximately 7:00 a.m. However, he was denied access to a forensic medical examination except upon authorization issued by the same police station where the alleged ill-treatment had occurred.
On 23 February 2026, the victim submitted a petition to the Public Prosecutor requesting access to a forensic medical examination to document his injuries, in accordance with Article 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows such authorization. He was asked to return the following day due to administrative office hours. On 24 February 2026, he was informed that the Public Prosecutor would respond to his request within two days from the date of submission, according to his sister.
On the same day, 24 February 2026, the victim requested that the café owner provide him with surveillance footage of the incident; however, the owner refused, stating that such access required official authorization. The victim subsequently submitted a request to the Public Prosecutor for authorization, but as of the date of this documentation, no response had been provided, neither regarding the forensic examination nor access to the recording.
On 1 March 2026, four police officers reportedly visited the victim’s home to apologize and to dissuade him from filing a complaint, claiming that they had been subject to disciplinary measures. On 3 March 2026, eight officers visited his home for the same purpose.
On 4 March 2026, the victim received a phone call from the regional director of the Hay Bahri district, requesting a private meeting.
Human Rights Violations
The treatment to which the victim was subjected constitutes a serious interference with fundamental rights guaranteed under both national and international law.
The physical assault and his transfer to the police station without being informed of the reasons for his arrest or the nature of the allegations against him constitute a violation of the arrest procedures set out in Article 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision requires that the suspect be immediately informed of their rights, including the right to contact a lawyer and a family member, as well as the right to a medical examination during custody.
This also constitutes a violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to liberty and security of person, prohibits arbitrary arrest or detention, and requires that individuals be promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest and any charges against them. It further contravenes Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which guarantees the right to liberty and personal security and prohibits arbitrary arrest or detention.
The acts described further constitute a violation of Article 23 of the 2022 Tunisian Constitution, which provides that “the State shall protect human dignity and the integrity of the body, prohibit physical and moral torture, and ensure that the crime of torture is not subject to any statute of limitations.” They also violate Article 7 of the ICCPR, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The physical assault inflicted on the victim, including beating and the pouring of water over him, constitutes an infringement of the right to physical integrity and a clear violation of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. Such acts violate the inviolability of the human body as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution, which stipulates that no person may be arrested or detained except in cases of flagrante delicto or pursuant to a judicial decision, and that they must be immediately informed of their rights and the charges against them, with full guarantees of the right to defense.
These acts also contravene Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, both of which affirm the right of every individual to respect for their dignity and physical integrity and prohibit all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Given the nature and severity of the acts committed, the treatment to which the victim was subjected may amount to torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention against Torture. This provision defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official for purposes such as obtaining information, punishment, or intimidation.
This qualification is consistent with Article 101 bis of the Tunisian Penal Code, which defines torture as any act causing severe physical or psychological pain or suffering intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official for purposes including obtaining a confession, punishment, intimidation, or for reasons based on discrimination, with aggravated penalties where serious harm results.
In addition, the denial of immediate access to an independent forensic medical examination, conditioned on authorization from the same authority accused of the abuse, undermines the principles of independence and impartiality in the documentation of violations. Such a requirement places control over key evidence in the hands of the alleged perpetrators.
The delay by the Public Prosecutor in responding to the request for a forensic examination constitutes an obstruction that may lead to the loss or alteration of evidence, thereby undermining the victim’s right to an effective remedy. The lapse of several days between the alleged ill-treatment (22 February 2026) and the potential authorization (26 February 2026) is sufficient to significantly diminish visible signs of injury.
This situation is inconsistent with Article 12 of the Convention against Torture, which requires prompt and impartial investigation wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that torture has occurred, including through independent medical documentation. It also contravenes Law No. 5 of 2016, which obliges judicial police officers to inform detainees, in a language they understand, of the reasons for their detention, its duration, and their rights, including access to a lawyer and the right to request a medical examination.