Summary<\/b><\/p>\n
Lotfi Issa, Chief of Security at a hotel in Hammamet, was subjected to criminal prosecution and deprivation of liberty for a period of two years under Article 24 of Decree-Law No. 54 of 2022, following his sharing of a social media post critical of the 2024 presidential elections.<\/span><\/p>\n On 5 July 2024, his workplace was raided and he was taken to the Judicial Counter-Terrorism Unit, where he was held for nine days. His home was also searched.<\/span><\/p>\n A first-instance judgment sentenced him to two years\u2019 imprisonment. The judgment was upheld on appeal, with a suspension of the remaining sentence after he had served one year and three months at Borj El Amri prison. On 16 January 2026, he was summoned by his employer on grounds of unjustified absence and subsequently dismissed, despite the fact that his arrest had taken place at his workplace.<\/span><\/p>\n Personal Information<\/b><\/p>\n Name: Lotfi Issa<\/span><\/p>\n Age: 48 years old<\/span><\/p>\n Nationality: Tunisian<\/span><\/p>\n Governorate: Nabeul<\/span><\/p>\n Status: Chief of Security at a hotel in Hammamet<\/span><\/p>\n Charge: Use of information and communication systems to produce, publish, and transmit data containing personal information and false allegations with the intent to defame and harm others, where the targeted individual is a public official, pursuant to Article 24 of Decree-Law No. 54<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Facts of the Violation<\/b><\/p>\n Lotfi Issa shared a post critical of the 2024 elections that had originally been published by a social media page. On the following morning, 5 July 2024, his workplace was raided and he was taken to the counter-terrorism judicial unit, where he was held for nine days. The victim reported that, due to fear, he confessed to acts attributed to him without having knowledge of them.<\/span><\/p>\n During this period, his home in Sidi Jdidi, Hammamet, was raided at night. Officers reportedly forced entry by breaking the door, entered the premises, and ransacked the property while his daughter was asleep.<\/span><\/p>\n On 2 June 2025, a first-instance judgment sentenced him to two years\u2019 imprisonment with immediate enforcement under Article 24 of Decree-Law No. 54 of 2022. On 11 November 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld the same sentence, granting suspension of the remaining custodial sentence after he had served one year and three months.<\/span><\/p>\n According to the victim\u2019s testimony, four hearings were postponed. He further stated that he was subjected to humiliation despite not having committed any offense. On 14 October 2025, a hearing was held without notifying his lawyer, after which he was returned to prison. However, later that same night, he was informed that he would be released on provisional release, coinciding with the issuance of a death sentence against another detainee, Saber Shoushan, who had been held in the same facility.<\/span><\/p>\n The victim also indicated that he had an outstanding bank loan and was notified by a bailiff of the obligation to repay the debt. He reports living in a state of constant fear, reluctant to leave his home for fear of being re-arrested. His wife stated that he requires psychological preparation before being awakened due to his experience in detention.<\/span><\/p>\n To date, his mobile phone, which contains his personal data, has not been returned despite a request submitted to the Prosecutor General. He was later informed that the device would remain in State custody.<\/span><\/p>\n On 26 January 2026, he received a summons from his workplace to appear for questioning on suspicion of committing a serious offense. He was subsequently dismissed after 15 years of service without legal justification, effectively subjecting him to double punishment for the same acts.<\/span><\/p>\n Human Rights Violations<\/b><\/p>\n Based on the reported facts, the violations suffered by the victim in connection with his sharing of a social media post constitute a serious interference with his right to freedom of expression, fair trial guarantees, the inviolability of the home, protection against coerced confessions, as well as his labor rights.<\/span><\/p>\n The criminal prosecution of the victim and his deprivation of liberty for a period of two years solely for sharing a social media post, in the absence of any clear indication of a direct and serious threat to public security, raises concerns regarding the lack of proportionality between the alleged act and the custodial sentence imposed. This may undermine the essence of a right protected under international, regional, and national law.<\/span><\/p>\n The right to freedom of opinion and expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under international, regional, and national legal frameworks. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that: \u201cEveryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.\u201d This right is further enshrined in binding form under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees to every individual the freedom to hold opinions without interference and the freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether in writing, print, art, or through any other media of their choice.<\/span><\/p>\n At the regional level, Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples\u2019 Rights affirms the right of every individual to express and disseminate their opinions. This places a positive obligation on the State to protect this right and to refrain from imposing arbitrary or disproportionate restrictions.<\/span><\/p>\n The proceedings and measures adopted in this case are also inconsistent with the provisions of the 2022 Tunisian Constitution, in particular Article 37, which guarantees freedom of opinion, thought, expression, information, and publication, and prohibits prior censorship. Accordingly, the imposition of a two-year prison sentence on the victim for a social media post constitutes a serious interference with a constitutionally protected right, resulting in restrictions on freedom of expression beyond the limits of necessity and proportionality required by law.<\/span><\/p>\n The raid on the victim\u2019s workplace, his transfer to the judicial counter-terrorism unit, and his detention for nine days may also constitute a procedural violation under Article 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the legal safeguards governing custody were not respected.<\/span><\/p>\n Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantees a set of fair trial rights, including the right of every accused person to a fair hearing, to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense, to communicate with a lawyer of their choosing, and to be tried in their presence. The holding of a judicial hearing without notifying the defendant\u2019s lawyer directly undermines the rights of the defense and constitutes a breach of a fundamental fair trial guarantee as established by law.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, Article 7 of the ICCPR prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This principle is reinforced by the Convention against Torture, which obliges States parties to take effective measures to prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment. Article 15 of the Convention further provides that any statement established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings. If it is established that the victim\u2019s confessions were obtained under fear or psychological pressure during custody, this would constitute a violation of procedural safeguards, including the right to legal assistance and proper interrogation conditions, and raises serious concerns regarding the admissibility of such confessions.<\/span><\/p>\n With regard to the raid on the victim\u2019s home, Article 17 of the ICCPR provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy or home. This implies that any search or raid must be based on a clear legal basis and carried out in accordance with strict safeguards respecting the principles of necessity and proportionality. Accordingly, the forced entry into the victim\u2019s home and the breaking of the door, if not grounded in lawful authorization and due process, constitute a clear violation of the right to privacy and the inviolability of the home.<\/span><\/p>\n As for the termination of the employment relationship after 15 years of service, this constitutes a clear violation of the Labor Code, which requires the existence of a real and serious cause for dismissal, as well as respect for disciplinary procedures and the right to defense. The victim\u2019s dismissal may be considered abusive, giving rise to a right to compensation, particularly if it was based solely on criminal proceedings that did not establish serious professional misconduct, and where there is no direct link between the alleged conduct and his professional performance.<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, relying on \u201cunjustified absence\u201d in a situation where the employee was detained by the authorities from his workplace raises concerns of non-compliance with Article 14 of the Labor Code, if the relevant legal guarantees were not respected.<\/span><\/p>\n With regard to the seizure of his mobile phone and the refusal to return it after his release from prison, the continued retention of the device is only lawful if based on a clear judicial decision ordering confiscation or legally justifying its continued seizure, with the possibility for the individual concerned to challenge such measures in accordance with applicable legal procedures.<\/span><\/p>\n"},"free-categories":[54],"countries":[37],"state":[45],"class_list":["post-6182","freedom-faces","type-freedom-faces","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","free-categories-54","countries-37","state-45"],"yoast_head":"\n