The guilty verdicts and the shockingly harsh sentences, delivered on the night of 18 April 2025, after a sham trial of 37 defendants – an almost foregone conclusion to Tunisia’s so-called conspiracy case – are the culmination of a gross miscarriage of justice and provide stark evidence of the deepening erosion of the rule of law in the country, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) said today.
Draconian Sentences
Following its rushed guilty verdicts against 37 out of the 40 defendants initially on trial – three of whom had had their case severed for procedural reasons – on trumped-up charges, including “conspiracy against the internal and external security of the State” and attempting to “change the nature of the State”, under the Tunisian Penal Code and the 2015-26 “counterterrorism” Law, the Tunis First Instance Court imposed draconian sentences. For example, businessman Kamel Ltaief received the heaviest prison sentence, namely 66 years’ imprisonment; while eight prominent political opponents received similarly harsh prison terms: Khayem Turki was sentenced to 48 years’ imprisonment; Issam Chebbi, Jaouher Ben Mbarek, Ghazi Chaouachi, Ridha Belhadj and Chaima Issa were given 18 years each; Abdelhamid Jelassi was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment and Lazher Akremi to eight years’ imprisonment. Ayachi Hammami, a former Human Rights Minister and the lawyer of some of the defendants in the case, also received an eight-year prison sentence; while human rights defender Bochra Belhaj Hmida, who felt she had no choice but go into exile, and all the other defendants, who along her, were tried in absentia, were sentenced to a 33-year prison term each, with immediate effect.
“These mass trial convictions and abusive sentences cement Tunisia’s return to autocracy and reveal, once again, how the country’s justice system is politicized and absolutely intent on crushing any and all forms of dissent,” said Saïd Benarbia, ICJ MENA Director. “The conspiracy trial has been marred by a litany of grave violations of the defendants’ right to a fair trial. The wrongful convictions of the 37 defendants, and the prison terms imposed on them following this sham trial, must be promptly quashed, and those imprisoned must be immediately and unconditionally released.”
Blatant Fair Trial Rights Violations
The Court returned guilty verdicts after only three trial hearings on 4 March, 11 and 18 April 2025, which were marred by grave violations of the defendants’ right to a fair trial.
First, the Court’s preliminary decision, mandating video-conference appearance for the detained defendants, under the vague pretext of “imminent danger”, prompted a boycott by most of the defendants and even a hunger strike by some of the detainees. From the outset, the defence lawyers challenged this decision and, on several occasions, formally requested that their detained clients be brought to court to allow them to attend their trial in person. However, the Court consistently ignored these requests, without providing any “imperious public order” or “national security” reasons for its decision, in violation of the detained defendants’ right to attend their trial in person and, in practice, to hear the charges and the evidence against them to be able to defend themselves against them.
Second, a defendant’s lawyer formally requested the recusal of one of the judges based on a documented personal issue this judge allegedly had with their client. The Court ignored the request, casting further doubts on its impartiality.
Third, at the last trial hearing, the authorities barred the public, including families of the accused, journalists and civil society organizations’ representatives, from accessing the courtroom, undermining the defendants’ right to a public hearing. Furthermore, several of the defendants’ lawyers were subjected to unwarranted identity checks, and some were even denied access to the Court without reasons. The Court again ignored the defence lawyers’ requests to allow the public to attend the trial and for their colleagues to be allowed access to the courtroom. Thus, the proceedings were marred by:
- a clear violation of the right of each defendant to a public trial, which aims to ensure scrutiny over the fairness of the hearings, and is an essential safeguard of the independence of the judicial process and a means of ensuring public confidence in the justice system; and
- a gross violation of the defendants’ right to counsel, further tainting the integrity of the trial.
Wrongful Convictions
Throughout the entire trial, the Presiding Judge also failed to question any of the defendants and hear in open court the evidence presented against them. The defendants were therefore deprived of their right to examine or have examined the witnesses or the evidence against them and to present their defence. The Court withdrew to deliberate without having heard any adversarial submissions on the serious and complex charges faced by the defendants, in violation of their right to a fair trial, including, in particular the right to be presumed innocent. This, coupled with the clear absence in the case file of any reliable evidence implicating the defendants in any genuinely criminal activity, underscore the trumped-up nature of the charges, which appeared to be designed to silence any political opposition and critical voices.
The grave fair trial violations that punctuated the mass trial made the entire proceedings a travesty of justice, depriving them of any legitimacy and fatally undermining the safety of each of the convictions and excessively heavy sentences.
As documented throughout the pre-trial phase, the proceedings had already been marred by systematic violations of the defendants’ rights, including their right to a defence.
The ICJ urges the Tunisian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all those detained, and to quash all convictions and sentences imposed on each of the defendants in this case. The ICJ further calls for the public rehabilitation of all the defendants and the provision of reparations to them.
Background
The deeply flawed criminal proceedings in the “conspiracy case” against prominent political opponents, activists, lawyers, journalists, businessmen and former State officials began in February 2023, after the executive had dismantled the institutional and individual independence of the judiciary in Tunisia, and following the mass dismissal of judges and prosecutors. Since then, the erosion of judicial independence in the country has paved the way for the instrumentalization of the judiciary, which has been used to crackdown on critics and suppress political opposition through politically motivated charges under Tunisian Penal Code, the “counter-terrorism” law and the Decree-Law on Cybercrime.
Among the 40 accused referred to trial, eight were detained specifically in this case: six political opponents, a businessman, and a car broker, who was charged solely for parking near Khayem Turki’s home, while four other opposition figures were already in custody in distinct criminal cases. During the trial, ten defendants were at liberty, including two who had spent time in pre-trial detention and who had been subsequently released pending trial. Eighteen defendants did not appear in court, including some who felt that they had no choice but to go into exile abroad as a result of the arbitrary nature of these proceedings.
Download
Denial of Justice: An Analysis of Pre-Trial Proceedings
Contact
Saïd Benarbia, Director, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme; t: +41 22 979 3800, e: said.benarbia@icj.org
Nour Al Hajj, Communications & Advocacy Officer, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme; e: nour.alhajj@icj.org
