Tunisia: From Victims to Accused | WPN World People News

Tunisians who complain or question police conduct may find themselves facing retaliatory charges of insulting the police, Human Rights Watch said on Jul 04, 2017.

Human Rights Watch has documented a pattern of cases against people who filed a complaint or announced their intention to do so, after police officers allegedly insulted, arbitrary arrested, or assaulted them. The people who allege abuse find themselves facing charges of “insulting a public officer during the performance of his duties,” punishable by up to one year in prison, under article 125 of the Penal Code. Parliament should reform this law, Human Rights Watch said.

“Tunisian authorities are using the accusation of insulting the police to intimidate citizens who dare to complain about police behavior,” said Amna Guellali, Tunisia director at Human Rights Watch. “Tunisia’s nascent democracy needs to encourage well-founded complaints of police misconduct, not punish them.”

In one recent case, Salam and Salwa Malik, two journalists, were sentenced in May 2017 to six months in prison, later reduced to a fine. They were accused of insulting the police during a raid on their house seeking to arrest their brother, during which a policeman threatened to “blast” their 7-year-old nephew. The judge relied exclusively on the police statement, which the Maliks disputed, to convict them.

In 2012, authorities prosecuted a human rights lawyer, Mariem Mnaouer, and in 2014, a blogger, Lina Ben Mhenni, in separate cases for “insulting” a state official, shortly after they had filed complaints against police officers for violence, supported by forensic documents describing injuries. After numerous hearings, their prosecutions continue.

Human Rights Watch is concerned that authorities may be bringing these charges as a tactic to undermine the complainants’ case, or in retaliation for challenging police behavior. The cases against the complainants tend to be based mainly, if not entirely, on the statements of law enforcement officials.

In four of the eight cases that Human Rights Watch documented, the judiciary quickly processed the complaint filed by the police officers, while the complaint filed by their alleged victims appeared to stall. In four other cases, the court merged the police and the citizen complaints into a single case, but then proceeded very slowly.

Tunisia’s parliament should eliminate article 125 of the penal code because of the various ways that it can threaten human rights, Human Rights Watch said. The absence in Tunisian law of a definition of what constitutes an insult under the article allows authorities to interpret it broadly and to criminalize legitimate expression. In principle, laws that criminalize insulting public figures violate freedom of expression. In addition, the abusive application of this law deters people from exercising their right to seek remedies when they believe the police have abused them.

Until article 125 is abolished, prosecutors and judges should scrutinize carefully any charges filed under that provision, looking at the full context, including whether the accused parties filed complaints against, or alleged abuse by, the police with whom they had contact. Prosecutors and judges should diligently seek out, and evaluate in an even-handed manner, evidence beyond the statements by police officers who allege the “insult.”

In some cases, the failure of Tunisian authorities to prevent the filing of charges as retaliation against or intimidation of complainants could violate Tunisia’s obligations under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That treaty, to which Tunisia is a party, requires that “Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses [in cases involving torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment] are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given” (Article 13).

The UN Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment on article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, stated that, “The mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties […]. Moreover, all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state and government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition.”

Source:Human Rights Watch