Sonia Dahmani, a Tunisian lawyer and media commentator, has been held in detention since May 2024. She was arrested and imprisoned over public remarks made on television and radio concerning migrants from sub-Saharan African countries, as well as her criticism of the conditions in Tunisian prisons. Her case takes place in a broader climate marked by escalating repression, the silencing of critical voices, and the undermining of fundamental freedoms. Sonia has not been spared from retaliatory legal action and malicious charges, becoming a target of the same vindictive campaign of harassment that has affected journalists, lawyers, and other outspoken figures. She currently faces five separate cases under Decree-Law No. 54, including four misdemeanors and one felony, in addition to enduring poor prison conditions and repeated violations of her basic right to a fair trial.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Methodology: <\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n This report is based on a comprehensive review and analysis of the legal proceedings initiated against lawyer and media figure Sonia Dahmani, taking into account the timeline of developments since the beginning of her case. It draws on information obtained from the testimonies of members of her legal defense team, as well as content published by official media outlets and credible online news sources. These accounts were cross-referenced with the Tunisian legal framework, including the Code of Criminal Procedure and relevant constitutional provisions. The report also evaluates the extent to which the authorities’ practices are consistent with Tunisia\u2019s international commitments, particularly those relating to freedom of expression, the right to legal defense, and the principles of a fair trial.<\/p>\n Circumstances and Violations<\/strong><\/p>\n Sonia Dahmani is a practicing lawyer who regularly appears on radio and television programs as a commentator on current affairs and public issues in Tunisia. During one such broadcast, which addressed the crisis surrounding the influx of irregular migrants and the response of Tunisian authorities and society, she made a satirical remark: \u201cLook at this great country.\u201d The expression is widely used among Tunisians and typically conveys dissatisfaction or irony in response to exaggerated or misleading narratives. In this context, her comment referred specifically to claims about migration intended for settlement and aimed at altering the country\u2019s demographic composition.<\/p>\n This remark became the basis for accusing her of deliberately using information and communication systems to produce, disseminate, publish, transmit, and prepare false news and rumors with the intention of harming public security and inciting hate speech. On 9 May 2024<\/strong>, she was formally notified that she was under judicial investigation. The Public Prosecutor at the Tunis First Instance Court ordered an investigation under Article 24 of Decree-Law No. 54 concerning cybercrime. Sonia Dahmani rejected the accusation. On 10 May 2024<\/strong>, the investigative judge at the same court issued an arrest warrant against her. In response, she went to the headquarters of the National Bar Association in Tunis, known as Dar Al-Mouhami, where she began a sit-in and publicly declared her refusal to comply with the decision.<\/p>\n On 11 May 2024<\/strong>, police forces raided the site of Sonia Dahmani\u2019s sit-in. The area was surrounded and cordoned off in a heavily violent operation[1]<\/a>. She was forcibly taken into a police vehicle, and several journalists present at the scene were assaulted, pushed away, and prevented from filming or reporting. This operation constitutes a serious violation of the law, as the headquarters of the National Bar Association is a protected legal space under Tunisian legislation, particularly Article 46 of the decree regulating the legal profession.<\/p>\n After two days in custody, on 13 May 2024<\/strong>, the investigative judge issued a detention order against the victim and transferred her to the Manouba Civil Prison for Women. According to her defense team, she was never interrogated. The investigating judge issued the detention order without providing even the minimum guarantees for defense or a fair trial. Since that date, Sonia has been deprived of her liberty and repeatedly confronted with new criminal cases based on her public commentary.<\/p>\n On 11 June 2024<\/strong>, the victim appeared once again before the investigative judge to be questioned in connection with two additional cases, both related to public remarks she made on the same topic: migrants from sub-Saharan African countries and the issue of racism in Tunisia[2]<\/a>. The investigative judge at the Tunis First Instance Court issued a new detention order against her.<\/p>\n Her lawyer, Sami Ben Ghazi, reported that she was questioned specifically about media statements concerning racism in Tunisia. He affirmed that the remarks under investigation were unrelated to any false news or rumors.<\/p>\n In one of the two cases, Sonia Dahmani was released pending investigation, while in the other, a new detention order was issued against her. Her lawyer noted that all legal proceedings were based on Article 24 of Decree-Law No. 54, and emphasized that these cases stem from public commentary different from the statements that led to her imprisonment in May.<\/p>\n The remarks in question were made during her appearance on a Tunisian radio program, in which she discussed the issue of racism in Tunisian society. She focused in particular on the discrimination faced by sub-Saharan migrants, who are often subjected to exclusion, marginalization, and mistreatment in various contexts.<\/p>\n The second case arose from another public statement she made on a private television channel, where she offered an analytical perspective on the worsening social climate at the time. In that appearance, she highlighted the human rights violations faced by sub-Saharan migrants, who were being targeted by incitement campaigns and widespread hate speech circulating on social media platforms.<\/p>\n On 6 July 2024<\/strong>, the Tunis First Instance Court sentenced the victim to one year in prison[3]<\/a> with immediate enforcement under Decree-Law No. 54, in the case known for the phrase \u201cthe great country.\u201d Sonia Dahmani\u2019s lawyers stated that they had requested the dismissal of the case on the grounds that no crime had been committed. Nevertheless, the court deemed the media statement in question to constitute a false rumor and misinformation, warranting a full year of imprisonment.<\/p>\n Later, during the appeal phase[4]<\/a>, and in the absence of her legal counsel in which constitutes a clear violation of her right to defense, she was sentenced to eight months in prison on 10 September 2024<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It is important to note that throughout her prosecution, the victim was subjected to a series of flagrant violations of her rights as a Tunisian citizen and as a detainee deprived of liberty. These violations were particularly evident during the appeal hearing initially scheduled for 20 August 2024, which was ultimately postponed. While being transferred to the courtroom for the hearing, Sonia Dahmani was subjected to a humiliating full-body search in a procedure that contradicted her right to dignity and humane treatment[5]<\/a>. Prison authorities also denied her the right to wear her own shoes and required her to wear a “safsari” as a condition for entering the courtroom. This traditional garment is typically imposed on female detainees in cases where authorities seek to enforce conservative appearances or invoke so-called public morality, particularly when there is an intent to obscure the identity of the defendant. Despite her initial objection, she was ultimately compelled to comply with this condition, reflecting the extent of the pressure and discriminatory practices she faced.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n Despite all this, she was informed by the prison director that she would not be allowed to proceed to the courtroom on the grounds that she had exceeded the allowed time for transfer. Her legal team, however, stated that the hearing began at 12:30 p.m. The prosecution requested that the trial proceed in her absence. Meanwhile, prison authorities asked her to sign documents affirming her inability to attend the hearing, which she refused to do as it would have constituted a further violation of her rights.<\/p>\n On 24 October 2024<\/strong>, the criminal chamber of the Tunis First Instance Court issued a first-instance judgment sentencing the victim to two years in prison in the same case related to her public statements on the existence of racism in Tunisia[7]<\/a>. The matter did not end there. Her defense team filed an appeal before the Court of Appeal, which on 24 January 2025<\/strong> decided to reduce the sentence to one and a half years in prison[8]<\/a>, while maintaining the immediate enforceability of the ruling.<\/p>\n In addition to the cases related to irregular migration and racism, Sonia Dahmani is facing further charges following a complaint filed by the General Directorate of Prisons and Rehabilitation. The complaint has been classified as a felony, also under the provisions of Decree-Law No. 54. This case carries particular significance given the identity of the complainant and the potential legal implications. As a public institution, the Directorate is legally considered a \u201cpublic official\u201d in this context, which opens the door to the imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed by law, up to ten years in prison[9]<\/a>, in what would constitute a dangerous precedent.<\/p>\n A member of the victim\u2019s defense team[10]<\/a> stated, in a testimony to Intersection Association for Rights and Freedoms, that the trial session had been scheduled before the Fourth Criminal Chamber, despite the serious legal objections surrounding the legitimacy of referring the case to that chamber, and even the legality of applying Decree-Law No. 54 to this situation. In this context, the Court of Cassation, which is the highest judicial authority in Tunisia, issued a ruling on 3 February 2025 overturning the decision of the Investigative Chamber. The court held that Decree-Law No. 54 could under no circumstances be applied to this case.<\/p>\n On 10 April 2025, the Investigative Chamber issued a decision to reclassify the facts of the case based on the same provisions of Decree-Law No. 54, completely disregarding the binding effect of the Court of Cassation\u2019s ruling. The case was referred directly to the Criminal Chamber, bypassing the awaited decision of the joint chambers of the Court of Cassation, which is expected to issue a final determination on the applicability of Decree-Law No. 54 to cases related to freedom of the press.<\/p>\n As for the most recent case, it remains under investigation and has not yet been referred to trial, with procedures still in the preliminary inquiry phase. Like the previous cases, this one also falls under the scope of Decree-Law No. 54 of 2022, marking a clear continuation of the pattern of judicial harassment against Ms. Sonia Dahmani.<\/p>\n On 30 June 2025, a hearing was held in the case concerning her statements about the existence of racism in Tunisia. Despite the defense\u2019s request to postpone the hearing in order to submit a certified copy of a previous appellate judgment confirming the accuracy of her statements, the court refused the request. In a statement to the Intersection Association for Rights and Freedoms, her lawyer explained that his client had already been tried for the same statements, but during a different radio broadcast.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, the court decided to reserve the case for deliberation and issue a verdict without oral arguments. This unprecedented move represents a further violation of the right to a fair trial and a blatant disregard for the defendant\u2019s right to present a defense. As a result, the entire legal team withdrew in protest at the biased nature of Sonia Dahmani\u2019s trial[11]<\/a>. She was ultimately sentenced to two years in prison[12]<\/a> with immediate enforcement, according to the judgment issued by the criminal chamber of the Tunis First Instance Court.<\/p>\n On July 11, 2025,<\/strong> the court of first instance ordered the postponement of the trial of Sonia Dahmani to September 30, 2025, awaiting the decision of the court of Cassation.<\/p>\n In addition to the legal violations that marked the course of proceedings against Sonia Dahmani, during her detention, she resorted to an open-ended hunger strike in March 2025 as a form of protest. This step reflected her firm rejection of the inhumane treatment she endured behind prison walls. The hunger strike was triggered by her deprivation of the right to receive family visits. Through her family and legal team, she repeatedly expressed her strong condemnation of the degrading and deteriorating conditions she faced in prison, which violate the most basic standards of humane and dignified treatment and are incompatible with the principles of justice and human rights.<\/p>\n Human Rights Violations:<\/strong><\/p>\n Sonia Dahmani was arrested over her media statements\u2014whether satirical, as in the phrase \u201cwhat a great country,\u201d or addressing sensitive issues like racism, migration, or criticism of Tunisia\u2019s prison system. The use of Decree-Law No. 54 to prosecute such opinions constitutes a direct suppression of freedom of expression.<\/p>\n This stands in clear violation of Article 37 of the Tunisian Constitution, which guarantees \u201cfreedom of opinion, thought, expression, media, and publication,\u201d and explicitly prohibits prior censorship of these freedoms.<\/p>\n It also breaches Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: \u201cEveryone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression\u2026 through any media and regardless of frontiers.\u201d The same protection is reaffirmed in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which allows restrictions only when prescribed by law and strictly necessary to respect the rights or reputations of others, or to protect national security, public order, public health, or morals. The prosecution of Sonia Dahmani falls outside these narrow exceptions and instead punishes the legitimate exercise of her rights.<\/p>\n In addition, Sonia Dahmani was subjected to a series of measures that entirely undermined her right to a fair and impartial trial. These included arbitrary detention and the issuance of a detention warrant without interrogation. She was also denied her right to a proper defense during her appeal trial, which took place in the absence of her legal counsel. Later, the case was reserved for deliberation, and a ruling was issued without hearing the defense\u2019s pleadings, after her lawyers withdrew in protest over the evident procedural bias.<\/p>\n The retaliatory and punitive approach described in the proceedings, alongside the disregard for the ruling of the Court of Cassation, constitutes a flagrant violation of the presumption of innocence, effectively stripping it of its substance and turning judicial procedures into a tool of pre-emptive punishment rather than justice.<\/p>\n This violation contradicts international conventions that guarantee the right to a fair trial. Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) stipulates that \u201cAll persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals,\u201d and ensures the right to self-defense or to be represented by a lawyer of one’s choosing, the right to be present at one\u2019s trial, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty according to law. Similarly, Articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantee the right to a public and fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and uphold the presumption of innocence as a core principle of criminal justice.<\/p>\n Human rights violations in this case extended beyond judicial procedures. The victim was subjected to degrading treatment that infringed upon her human dignity. This included a full body search, which constitutes humiliating treatment, and being forced to wear a \u201csafsari\u201d as a condition to enter the courtroom, an act of symbolic control aimed at erasing her identity and diminishing her humanity. Moreover, due to deteriorating prison conditions, she launched an open-ended hunger strike in protest against the inhumane treatment, the degrading conditions, and being deprived of her basic right to family visits. This serves as evidence of a broader violation of fundamental human standards.<\/p>\n These abuses constitute a clear breach of international human rights norms. Article 7 of the ICCPR asserts that \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture obligates state parties to prevent acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment that may not amount to torture. In addition, the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) stress the obligation to respect prisoners\u2019 dignity, ensure their right to contact with the outside world, including family visits and stipulate that body searches must be conducted in a manner that respects their dignity.<\/p>\n Sources:<\/strong><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> A video clip published on YouTube documenting the raid.<\/p>\n \u00a0https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=mOls6PwSrRM<\/p>\n [2]<\/a><\/p>\n Kashf Media (2024). \u201cSonia Dahmani heard in two new cases under Decree-Law No. 54.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0Published June 11, 2024. Accessed July 2, 2025.<\/p>\n \u00a0https:\/\/kashfmedia.com\/2024\/06\/11\/\u0627\u0644\u0627\u0633\u062a\u0645\u0627\u0639-\u0625\u0644\u0649-\u0633\u0646\u064a\u0629-\u0627\u0644\u062f\u0647\u0645\u0627\u0646\u064a-\u0641\u064a-\u0642\u0636\u064a\u062a\u064a\u0646-\u062c\/<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Ultra Tunisia (2024)\u00a0 \u201cLawyer: One-year prison sentence with enforcement for Sonia Dahmani under Decree-Law No. 54.\u201d\u00a0 Published July 6, 2024. Accessed July 3, 2025.<\/p>\n \u00a0https:\/\/ultratunisia.ultrasawt.com\/\u0645\u062d\u0627\u0645-\u062d\u0643\u0645-\u0628\u0633\u0646\u0629-\u0633\u062c\u0646\u064b\u0627-\u0645\u0639-\u0627\u0644\u0646\u0641\u0627\u0630-\u0641\u064a-\u062d\u0642-\u0633\u0646\u064a\u0629-\u0627\u0644\u062f\u0647\u0645\u0627\u0646\u064a-\u0639\u0644\u0649-\u0645\u0639\u0646\u0649-\u0627\u0644\u0645\u0631\u0633\u0648\u0645-54\/\u0627\u0644\u062a\u0631\u0627-\u062a\u0648\u0646\u0633\/\u0645\u064a\u062f\u064a\u0627\/\u0623\u062e\u0628\u0627\u0631<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>France 24 Arabic (2024)\u00a0 \u201cTunisian Court of Appeal reduces prison sentence for opposition figure Sonia Dahmani.\u201d\u00a0 Published September 11, 2024. Accessed June 20, 2025.<\/p>\n \u00a0https:\/\/www.france24.com\/ar\/\u0627\u0644\u0623\u062e\u0628\u0627\u0631-\u0627\u0644\u0645\u063a\u0627\u0631\u0628\u064a\u0629\/20240911-\u0645\u062d\u0643\u0645\u0629-\u0627\u0644\u0627\u0633\u062a\u0626\u0646\u0627\u0641-\u0627\u0644\u062a\u0648\u0646\u0633\u064a\u0629-\u062a\u062e\u0641\u0641-\u0639\u0642\u0648\u0628\u0629-\u0627\u0644\u0633\u062c\u0646-\u0628\u062d\u0642-\u0627\u0644\u0645\u0639\u0627\u0631\u0636\u0629-\u0633\u0646\u064a\u0629-\u0627\u0644\u062f\u0647\u0645\u0627\u0646\u064a<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> A phone conversation was conducted with the sister of the victim in September 2024.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Assabah News, August 22, 2024 \u201cThe Sonia Dahmani Case Raises a Question: Does Tunisian Law Require Female Prisoners to Wear a Specific Outfit During Court Appearances?\u201d Digital edition of the Assabah newspaper. Accessed on June 17, 2025.<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.assabahnews.tn\/ar\/\u0645\u0642\u0627\u0644\u0627\u062a-\u0627\u0644\u0635\u0628\u0627\u062d\/104526-\u0623\u062b\u0627\u0631\u062a\u0647-\u0642\u0636\u064a\u0629-\u0633\u0646\u064a\u0629-\u0627\u0644\u062f\u0647\u0645\u0627\u0646\u064a<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Jawhara FM, October 24, 2024. \u201cInitial Court Ruling Sentences Sonia Dahmani to Two Years in Prison.\u201d Published on the official website of Jawhara FM. Accessed on June 30, 2025.<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.jawharafm.net\/ar\/article\/\u0627\u0644\u062d\u0643\u0645-\u0627\u0628\u062a\u062f\u0627\u0626\u064a\u0627-\u0639\u0644\u0649-\u0633\u0646\u064a\u0629-\u0627\u0644\u062f\u0647\u0645\u0627\u0646\u064a-\u0628\u0633\u0646\u062a\u064a\u0646-\u0633\u062c\u0646\u0627-\/92\/265727<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Kashf Media, published on 24 January 2025, accessed on 21 June 2025. https:\/\/kashfmedia.com\/2025\/01\/24\/%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9\/<\/a><\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Article published on the official website of Le Maghreb (digital edition) on 25 June 2025, accessed on 29 June 2025<\/p>\n https:\/\/ar.lemaghreb.tn\/\u0645\u0642\u0627\u0644\u0627\u062a-\u0627\u0644\u0645\u063a\u0631\u0628\/item\/115204-4-\u0642\u0636\u0627\u064a\u0627-\u062a\u0645\u0651-\u062a\u0643\u064a\u064a\u0641\u0647\u0627-\u0643\u062c\u0646\u062d-\u0648\u0642\u0636\u064a\u0629-\u0643\u062c\u0646\u0627\u064a\u0629-\u06483-\u062c\u0644\u0633\u0627\u062a-\u0645\u062d\u0627\u0643\u0645\u0629-\u0641\u064a-\u062c\u0648\u0627\u0646-\u0627\u0644\u062c\u0627\u0631\u064a-\u0633\u0646\u064a\u0629-\u0627\u0644\u062f\u0647\u0645\u0627\u0646\u064a-\u0645\u062d\u0644\u0651-\u062a\u062a\u0628\u0639-5-\u0642\u0636\u0627\u064a\u0627-\u0639\u0644\u0649-\u0645\u0639\u0646\u0649-\u0627\u0644\u0645\u0631\u0633\u0648\u0645-54<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Direct interview conducted with Mr. Sami Ben Ghazi, lawyer of the victim of the violation, Ms. Sonia Dahmani, on 25 June 2025.<\/p>\n\n