Summary: 

Following the protest of the “Zarzis movement 18/18”, where it was demanded to seek truth and justice concerning the case of several young people from Zarzis, who went missing at sea,  activist “Ali Kniss” along with other activists, were placed under surveillance, and proceedings were initiated against him based on Decree 54 by the public prosecution.

The case was later reclassified under Article 86 of the Telecommunications Code, and further charges were filed under Articles 125, 127, and 237 of the Penal Code.

Personal Information: 

Name: Ali Kniss

Occupation: Researcher and activist

Nationality: Tunisian

Case: Article 24 of Decree 54: “to deliberately use information and communication networks and systems to disseminate news containing personal data or to attribute false information to defame others, tarnishing their reputation, or causing them material or moral harm.”

Article 86 of the Telecommunications Code: “to offend others through public social media networks.”

Articles 125, 127, and 237 of the Penal Code: “to mistreat a public officer, detain them, and assault them with extreme violence. “

Violation Incidents: 

“Ali Kniss”, an activist and researcher, is being prosecuted due to his involvement in protests demanding the truth concerning the fate of the 17 young people from Zarzis who went missing at sea.

This case dates back to September 21, when these young people left the shores of Zarzis in a boat, after which all contact was lost for 48 hours, and the uncertainty about their whereabouts continued for three weeks, until bodies were found on the shores.

As a result of this incident, the families learned that some of the bodies had been buried as “unidentified” and as  “Sub-Saharan Africans” in the “African Gardens” cemetery, without any prior notification from the authorities.

This tragedy sent shockwaves across the city of  Zarzis and Tunisia, sparking widespread public outcry. Fueled by resentment and frustration, citizens organized demonstrations and protest gatherings, demanding clarity on the whereabouts of the missing young people and the truth behind the events. Initially, authorities summoned several activists to testify about the incident. However, over two years later, their roles shifted from witnesses to defendants in multiple legal proceedings.

On November 21, 2024, “Kniss” contacted one of his friends to inquire about his legal situation and was informed that his case, along with another activist, had been referred by the Public Prosecutor under Article 24 of Decree 54. The judge later decided to reclassify the case under Article 86 of the Telecommunications Code, and a default judgment was issued against him, sentencing him to three months in prison.

“Ali kniss” then mentioned that he hired a lawyer to appeal the judgment issued in his absence, and a new session was scheduled for January 2, 2025. 

And on January 23, 2025, the final judgment was issued, and he was notified on January 25, 2025, due to an administrative delay from the court registry. The court sentenced him to three months in prison, with the execution of the sentence postponed. The victim of this violation stated that his friend was removed from the courtroom even though the session was public. He also added that he found himself facing an old case that had been reopened, dating back to 2018, concerning a financial violation related to a motorcycle. He considered these actions as an attempt to suppress freedoms, restrict social movements, and intimidate activists to prevent them from continuing to defend the case of the young people from Zarzis.

He also mentioned that, by coincidence, he discovered a third case against him, where he learned he was wanted for investigation and questioning, and that he went to receive the official summons for this matter, but the relevant authorities refused to give it to him without any justification. It later turned out that the hearing was scheduled for March 24, but he was later surprised to find it had been changed to March 28 without any official notification. After his lawyer intervened, the hearing was rescheduled again to April 2.

Upon reviewing the charges against him, “Ali” stated that the background of the case was related to the “Zarzis Movement 18/18,” where residents and activists staged a sit-in and blocked the gates of the commercial port and free zone in Zarzis for 21 days, protesting the authorities’ procrastination of ignoring their demands. One night, a person who was not part of the movement started taking photos and videos of the protesters and the car plates of those supporting the cause from the region, without showing any identification or representing any official entity. This caused frustration among the protesters, who asked him not to photograph them, but he refused to comply. He then claimed that he was a “citizen” and not a security officer. However, the head of the security region arrived shortly after and intervened, stating that he was a security officer and had sent the person, which led to verbal clashes between the head of the security region and some of the residents, who were insulted and cursed by the security officer. Following this, the Public Prosecutor initiated a lawsuit at the request of the head of the security region against “Ali Kniss”, along with three other individuals who were charged with the same offense.

Human Rights Violations: 

“Ali Kniss”, a human rights advocate and researcher, has been subjected to blatant violations of human rights, forming part of a broader pattern of intimidation aimed at deterring individuals from defending human rights. The legal pursuit of “Ali” and several others due to their participation in peaceful protests demanding the truth  represents a violation of the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly, both of which are constitutionally guaranteed by the Tunisian Constitution in Article 42, which states: “Freedom of peaceful assembly and demonstration is guaranteed.”

This right is also protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 20: “Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and association,” as well as Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states: “The right to peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are imposed in conformity with the law and are necessary in a democratic society to safeguard national security, public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Furthermore, his prosecution under articles that violate the essence of these rights, along with the procedural irregularities in his case, including the refusal to provide him with an official summons, the delays he faced, represent a violation of his right to a fair trial,w hich is one of the fundamental human rights. 

In addition, Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him,” while Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, established by law.”

The Constitution of the Republic of Tunisia, in Article 33, declares that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair trial that guarantees all the rights of defense during the investigation and trial stages.

And Based on what is outlined in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Constitution of the Republic of Tunisia, Intersection Association for Rights and Freedoms, emphasizes that the trial must be impartial, not discriminatory for any reason, and conducted in a way that ensures the accused’s rights, and free from any intention of abuse.

In light of this situation, the treatment of “Ali Kniss” reflects a systematic pattern of violations aimed at restricting and undermining freedoms, particularly against civil rights defenders and human rights activists.