Summary:

Issam Grimen, a Tunisian citizen, was sentenced to six months in prison under Article 226 bis of the Penal Code, a provision concerning offences against public morals, simply for expressing his objection to watching a televised segment featuring the President of the Republic. 

Personal Information:

Name: Issam Grimen
Nationality: Tunisian

Charges: Article 226 bis of the Penal Code – Offences against public morals

Violation incidents:

Issam Grimen, a Tunisian citizen, was held at Gafsa Civil Prison in connection with a public order case. He had previously spent two decades living in Italy before being deported to Tunisia around a year and a half ago. The court eventually dismissed the case and ruled that there were no grounds for prosecution.

However, while still in detention, an incident occurred that would lead to new charges. During the airing of the evening news, several prisoners had gathered to watch television. A segment was broadcast showing the activities of President Kais Saied. At that point, Issam expressed his objection to watching the report and asked for the channel to be changed. This displeased one of the inmates, the kabran, or prisoner responsible for the cell, who interpreted Issam’s remark as an insult to the President.

The Kabran filed a complaint with the prison administration, submitting a written report in which he alleged that Issam had insulted the President and his supporters. He also enlisted another prisoner as a witness to support his claims.

The prison director subsequently opened an internal investigation, during which both the accused and the witnesses were questioned. On 27 June 2025, the investigation report was referred to the public prosecutor. Rather than dropping the matter, the prosecution chose to proceed and reclassified the incident as a criminal offence under Article 67 of the Penal Code, which criminalises acts deemed offensive toward the President.

According to the testimony of Issam Grimen’s lawyer, his mother was informed during a prison visit that her son had been placed in solitary confinement for a period of seven days, from 21 to 27 June.

Six days later, the court once again ruled not to pursue the original case, meaning Issam should have been released. However, due to the new charge filed against him within the prison, he remained in custody. On 10 July 2025, the criminal chamber of the Gafsa Court of First Instance sentenced him to six months in prison, the maximum penalty permitted under Article 226 bis of the Tunisian Penal Code.

Human Rights Violations:

The sentencing of Issam Grimen for expressing a personal opinion about the President and refusing to watch a news broadcast constitutes a blatant violation of human rights. Particularly, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is enshrined in international treaties and the Tunisian Constitution.

This incident clearly falls within the legitimate exercise of free expression, as affirmed by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

“Everyone 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.”

This right is further reinforced by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), especially in Article 19, which obliges state parties to refrain from restricting freedom of expression except under narrowly defined circumstances, none of which apply in Grimen’s case.

At the national level, Article 37 of the 2022 Tunisian Constitution guarantees:

“Freedom of opinion, thought, expression, media and publication is guaranteed. No prior censorship may be imposed on these freedoms.”

Moreover, General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee, which interprets Article 19 of the ICCPR, underlines this point in paragraph 38:

“All public figures, including heads of state, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition. The mere fact that an expression is considered offensive to a public figure is not sufficient to justify restrictions or sanctions, even if such persons also benefit from the protections of the Covenant.”

Therefore, what Grimen said cannot reasonably be construed as a criminal offence, neither under domestic law nor international standards, but rather as a legitimate act of free expression.

The fact that the case was first framed under Article 67 (insulting the President) and later reclassified under Article 226 bis (offending public morality) raises serious concerns about legal manoeuvring aimed at suppressing dissent, and points to an attempt to circumvent protections on freedom of expression through the misuse of vaguely worded legal provisions.

Such practices not only contravene international human rights standards but also erode the foundations of the rule of law, embolden impunity, and serve to legitimise the use of state power to persecute individuals for expressing their opinions.