{"id":15811,"date":"2010-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-29T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/29-avril-2010\/"},"modified":"2010-04-29T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-04-29T00:00:00","slug":"29-avril-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/29-avril-2010\/","title":{"rendered":"29 avril 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><html><head><meta content=\"text\/html\" description=\"TEXTE INTEGRAL DU JUGEMENT PRONONCE PAR \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLA COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L\u2019HOMME \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(\u00e0 STRASBOURG) LE 13 AVRIL 2010 DANS \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tL\u2019AFFAIRE OPPOSANT LE CITOYEN TUNISIEN \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMALEK CHARAHILI A LA REPUBLIQUE DE \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tTURQUIE\" http-equiv=\"Content-Type\"\/><\/head><body><body><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\" dir=\"ltr\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><b><a href=\"http:\/\/www.tunisnews.net\/\"><span>Home<\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\"> &#8211; Accuei<\/span><\/a><span lang=\"FR-CH\">l<\/span><\/b><\/font><\/p>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div onclick=\"return Control.invoke('ReadingPane', '_onBodyClick', event);\">\n<div><meta content=\"Microsoft SafeHTML\"\/><\/p>\n<style>.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P{padding:0px;}.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}<\/style>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div align=\"center\" dir=\"ltr\"><font size=\"7\"><strong>TUNISNEWS <\/strong><\/font><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\" dir=\"ltr\">\n<div><strong><font>9\u00a0\u00e8me ann\u00e9e, <span lang=\"FR\">N\u00b0\u00a03628 du 29.04.2010<\/span><\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><span><font><strong>\u00a0archives : <\/strong><\/font><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font><strong>www.tunisnews.net<\/strong><\/font><\/a><\/span><font><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/font><span lang=\"FR\"><strong><\/strong><font><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/div>\n<p><font size=\"2\"><span><font><span><font size=\"2\"><span lang=\"FR\"><\/p>\n<div><font size=\"2\"><strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p><\/strong><\/font><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><strong><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>La Cour de Strasbourg ordonne \u00e0 la Turquie de ne pas extrader M. Malek Charahili en Tunisie et de payer environ 30000 Euros de d\u00e9dommagements \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9ress\u00e9<\/font><\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font> <font>Libert\u00e9 et Equit\u00e9: Nouvelles des libert\u00e9s en Tunisie<\/font> <\/font><\/span><\/font><\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Le TMG salue la lib\u00e9ration du journaliste Taoufik Ben Brik mais condamne la politique de sanctionner les journalistes critiques<\/span><\/font><\/span><font><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font><span lang=\"FR-CH\"> <font>Yahyaoui Mokhtar : Tunisie: La journ\u00e9e noire du net<\/font> Sami Ben Gharbia: Tunisia: flickr, video-sharing websites, blogs aggregators and critical blogs are not welcome <font>Foreign Policy: Le mythe d\u2019une Tunisie mod\u00e9r\u00e9e<\/font> Foreign Policy: The Myth of a Moderate Tunisia <font>Turquie: Les premi\u00e8res dames ont le droit de porter le voile<\/font><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/strong><\/font><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font><\/font><\/span><\/div>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<p><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><\/font><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<p align=\"center\"><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">TEXTE INTEGRAL DU JUGEMENT PRONONCE PAR LA COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L\u2019HOMME (\u00e0 STRASBOURG) LE 13 AVRIL 2010 DANS L\u2019AFFAIRE OPPOSANT LE CITOYEN TUNISIEN MALEK CHARAHILI A LA REPUBLIQUE DE TURQUIE<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">La Cour de Strasbourg ordonne \u00e0 la Turquie de ne pas extrader M. Malek Charahili en Tunisie et de payer environ 30000 Euros de d\u00e9dommagements \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9ress\u00e9.<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><span lang=\"TR\">EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS <\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><span lang=\"TR\">SECOND SECTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><span><b><span lang=\"TR\">CASE OF CHARAHILI v. TURKEY<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><span><i><span lang=\"TR\">(Application no. <b><span>46605<\/span><\/b>\/<b><span>07<\/span><\/b>)<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><span><span lang=\"TR\">JUDGMENT<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><span><span lang=\"TR\">STRASBOURG<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><span><span lang=\"TR\">13 April 2010<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span><i><span lang=\"TR\">This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article\u00a044 \u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <span>In the case of<span><b>Charahili v. Turkey<\/b><\/span>,<\/span> \u00a0<\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">Fran\u00e7oise Tulkens,<span><i> President,\u00a0<\/i><\/span><i> <\/i>\u00a0Ireneu Cabral Barreto,<span><i>\u00a0<\/i><\/span><i> <\/i>\u00a0Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,<span><i>\u00a0<\/i><\/span><i> <\/i>\u00a0Danut\u0117 Jo\u010dien\u0117,<span><i>\u00a0<\/i><\/span><i> <\/i>\u00a0Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3,<span><i>\u00a0<\/i><\/span><i> <\/i>\u00a0I\u015f\u0131l Karaka\u015f,<span><i>\u00a0<\/i><\/span><i> <\/i>\u00a0Nona Tsotsoria,<span><i> judges,<\/i><\/span>\u00a0 and Fran\u00e7oise Elens-Passos,<span><i>Deputy Section Registrar<\/i><\/span>,<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">Having deliberated in private on 23 March 2010,<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">PROCEDURE<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. <b><span>46605<\/span><\/b>\/<b><span>07<\/span><\/b>) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Tunisian national, Mr Malek Charahili (\u201cthe\u00a0applicant\u201d), on 25 October 2007.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">2.\u00a0The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr.\u00a0Abdulhalim Y\u0131lmaz, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">3.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 October 2007 the acting President of the Chamber to which the case had been allocated decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to the Government of Turkey, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be deported to Tunisia until further notice.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">4.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 September 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided that the admissibility and merits of the application would be examined together (Article\u00a029 \u00a7 3) and that the case would be given priority (Rule 41).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">THE FACTS<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1986 and is currently held in the K\u0131rklareli Foreigners&rsquo; Admission and Accommodation Centre in Turkey.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">A.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant&rsquo;s arrival in Turkey and the criminal proceedings brought against him there<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">6.\u00a0\u00a0In 2003 the applicant left his home country and, via Libya, arrived in Syria, where he received religious training. Six months after his arrival in Syria, the applicant was detained for two months under the Syrian Government&rsquo;s policy of detaining and deporting nationals of North African countries. After his release from detention in Syria, the applicant left that country in March 2005 and arrived in Istanbul. He then went to Hatay, a province in the south of Turkey, where he began working. His identity documents were stolen and subsequently the applicant obtained a false passport.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">7.\u00a0\u00a0On 15 August 2006 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Hatay police headquarters on suspicion of membership of an international terrorist organisation, namely Al-Qaeda. The search carried out in the apartment he had shared with another person revealed some materials used for manufacturing bombs. During his questioning by the police, in the presence of an interpreter, the applicant stated that he was not a member of Al-Qaeda but of Ennahda, an illegal organisation in Tunisia.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">8.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 August 2006 the applicant made statements before the Adana public prosecutor and subsequently the Adana Magistrate&rsquo;s Court, which remanded the applicant in custody.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">9.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 August 2006 the applicant lodged an objection against the detention order, which was dismissed on the same day.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">10.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 September 2006 the Adana public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Adana Assize Court charging the applicant with membership of Al-Qaeda under Article 314 of the Criminal Code and section\u00a05 of Law no. 3713. In the indictment the public prosecutor noted,<span><i>inter alia<\/i><\/span>, that an arrest warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant in Tunisia for membership of Ennahda and that the applicant had left his country for that reason in 2003.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">11.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 September 2006 the Adana Assize Court allowed the bill of indictment lodged against the applicant and decided to hold the first hearing on the merits of the case on 9 November 2006.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">12.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 November 2006 the applicant made statements before the Assize Court. He contended,<span><i>inter alia<\/i><\/span>, that he did not have any connection with Al-Qaeda and that the material found in his apartment did not belong to him but to his flatmate.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">13.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 January 2007 the applicant&rsquo;s representative requested the first-instance court to order the applicant&rsquo;s continued detention. He submitted in this respect that the applicant had applied to both the Turkish authorities and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to be granted refugee status and that, if he were released, he might be deported to Tunisia. The applicant himself also requested that he be kept in detention until the outcome of his application for refugee status. On the same day, the Assize Court ordered the applicant&rsquo;s continued detention, taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the applicant&rsquo;s request.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">14.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 April 2007 the Adana Assize Court ordered the applicant&rsquo;s release pending trial.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">15.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 February 2008 the Adana Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charge of membership of Al-Qaeda.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">16.\u00a0\u00a0Appeal proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">B.\u00a0\u00a0Administrative proceedings<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">17.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 January 2007 the applicant applied to the Ministry of the Interior requesting asylum.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">18.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 April 2007 the Ministry of the Interior dismissed this request. According to a document addressed to the Adana public prosecutor&rsquo;s office by the Ministry of Justice on 24 April 2007, the applicant&rsquo;s temporary asylum request was dismissed in view of the offences with which he had been charged and the fact that his presence in Turkey constituted a threat to public safety and public order. It was considered that the applicant had not been sincere in his request but had attempted to use the temporary asylum system in order to avoid deportation to Tunisia.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">19.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 April 2007 the decision of the Ministry was served on the applicant. In the documents so served, he was told that he could lodge an objection with the Ministry against this decision within two days.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">20.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date the applicant objected to the decision of 16\u00a0April 2007. On 18 May 2007 he was notified that the Ministry had dismissed his objection. The decisions of 25 April and 18 May 2007 were served by a police officer who spoke Arabic.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">21.\u00a0\u00a0In the meantime, on 3 May 2007 the applicant was recognised as a refugee under the UNHCR&rsquo;s mandate.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">22.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 October 2007 the applicant was served with a deportation order.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">23.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 October 2007 the applicant addressed a petition to the Adana police headquarters. He maintained that his request for temporary asylum had been rejected on 18 May 2007 and that he had learned that he would soon be deported to Tunisia. The applicant requested that his deportation be suspended since his lawyer intended to challenge the deportation order before the administrative courts.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">24.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day the applicant&rsquo;s lawyer lodged an application with the Supreme Administrative Court. He requested the setting-aside of the decision rejecting the applicant&rsquo;s asylum request. The applicant&rsquo;s representative further requested the setting-aside of the deportation order.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">25.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 October 2007 the applicant&rsquo;s representative filed a petition with the Adana police headquarters and informed the latter of the application he had lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court. He requested the police not to deport the applicant.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">26.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 October 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction over the case and transferred the petition to the Ankara Administrative Court.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">27.\u00a0\u00a0On 14 February 2008 the Ankara Administrative Court requested the Ministry of the Interior to submit a copy of all documents relating to the applicant&rsquo;s case.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">28.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 March 2008 the Ankara Administrative Court, after receiving the documents concerning the applicant, rejected the application, holding that the applicant had not complied with the time-limit of sixty days stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577). The first-instance court held that the applicant had been notified of the Ministry&rsquo;s decision rejecting his temporary asylum request and ordering his deportation on 18 May 2007, and that the applicant should have challenged this decision by 17 July 2007 at the latest. The court noted that the applicant&rsquo;s petition dated 17 October 2007 to the Adana police headquarters and his application to the Court would not stop the running of the sixty-day time-limit.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">29.\u00a0\u00a0On 20 June 2008 the applicant&rsquo;s representative lodged an appeal against the decision of 20 March 2008. In his petition, the representative noted that the Ministry&rsquo;s decision rejecting the applicant&rsquo;s objection had not been served on his lawyer, who had found the document dated 25\u00a0April 2007 in the criminal case file by chance.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">30.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 July 2008 the applicant&rsquo;s representative was informed by the president of the Ankara Administrative Court that he had failed to pay the court fees and that he had to pay a total of 161.80 Turkish liras (TRY) by postal order within fifteen days. The representative was warned that if he failed to pay this sum, the applicant would be deemed to have waived his right of appeal.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">31.\u00a0\u00a0On 11 August 2008 the applicant&rsquo;s representative effected the postal order and paid TRY 162.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">32.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 October 2008 the Ankara Administrative Court decided that the applicant had waived his right of appeal since his representative had failed to pay the Court fees despite the warning.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">33.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 January 2009 the applicant&rsquo; representative appealed against the decision of 24 October 2008, claiming that he had paid the fees. He submitted a copy of the postal order in support of his petition.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">34.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 February 2009 the Ankara Administrative Court informed the applicant that his representative had failed to pay the Court fees in relation to his appeal dated 12 January 2009.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">35.\u00a0\u00a0On 4 March 2009 the applicant&rsquo;s lawyer paid TRY 175 in court fees by way of a postal order.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">C.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant&rsquo;s placement in the Fatih police station<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">36.\u00a0\u00a0Following the decision of the Adana Assize Court of 12 April 2007 to release the applicant pending trial, the applicant was not released but was taken to the foreigners&rsquo; department at the Adana police headquarters.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">37.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 April 2007 the applicant was transferred to the Fatih police station in Adana.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">38.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 December 2007 the applicant&rsquo;s representative sent a request to the General Police Headquarters for the applicant to be released from detention. In his request he noted that the applicant was being detained in a small cell and that on 26 October 2007 the European Court of Human Rights had indicated to the Turkish Government that the applicant should not be deported to Tunisia until further notice.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">39.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant&rsquo;s representative received no reply to his request.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">40.\u00a0\u00a0Subsequently, on 12 March 2008 he filed a complaint with the Adana public prosecutor&rsquo;s office against the Minister of the Interior, the Adana Governor, the Adana police director, the director of the foreigners&rsquo; department at the Adana police headquarters and the director of the Fatih police station. He requested the public prosecutor&rsquo;s office to initiate an investigation into the persons concerned, alleging that they had unlawfully deprived the applicant of his liberty and that his detention in a small cell for ten months constituted ill-treatment. The representative noted in his request that there was no legal basis on which to detain the applicant, since asylum seekers were normally given temporary residence permits in Turkey. He further submitted that the ventilation was inadequate in the cell. The applicant was completely isolated and there was no provision for outdoor exercise. Moreover, the applicant did not have access to a doctor. In particular, when he had had a toothache he was denied access to a dentist and had to take the medication that was given to him by police officers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">41.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 April 2008 the Adana public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against the Minister of the Interior, holding that he had not committed any offence as the applicant was being detained by the police with a view to his deportation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">42.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 September 2008 the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation decided not to process the request from the applicant&rsquo;s lawyer to bring proceedings against the Adana governor.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">43.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day the applicant&rsquo;s representative wrote to the department responsible for aliens, borders and asylum attached to the General Police Headquarters, to the Adana police headquarters and to the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish Parliament, requesting that his client be released from the Fatih police station.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">44.\u00a0\u00a0In the meantime, between 1 October 2007 and 3 November 2008 the applicant was examined and prescribed treatment at the Adana hospital on seven occasions. He was examined by an ophthalmologist, a dentist and a general practitioner in relation to his respiratory problems.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">45.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 November 2008 the applicant was transferred to the K\u0131rklareli Aliens&rsquo; Admission and Accommodation Centre.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">46.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 January 2009 the President of the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish Parliament sent a reply to the applicant&rsquo;s representative informing him that the applicant was being detained pending the deportation procedure and that he had been transferred to the K\u0131rklareli Foreigners&rsquo; Admission and Accommodation Centre.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">D.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in Tunisia<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">47.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and twelve other persons in Tunisia on charges of membership of a terrorist organisation, aiding and abetting the organisation and providing financial support to that organisation. According to a document translated from Arabic into Turkish by the applicant, on 12 January 2008 a Tunisian criminal court convicted him of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to five years&rsquo; imprisonment.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT LAW AND PRACTICE<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">A.\u00a0\u00a0Domestic law and practice<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">48.\u00a0\u00a0A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in the case of<span><i>Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey<\/i><\/span> (no. 30471\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 29-44, 22\u00a0September 2009).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">B.\u00a0\u00a0International materials<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">1.\u00a0\u00a0Standards of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (\u201cthe CPT\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">49.\u00a0\u00a0The CPT standards concerning the conditions of detention of foreign nationals (see the CPT standards, document no.\u00a0CPT\/Inf\/E (2002) 1-\u00a0Rev. 2006, page 40) provide, in so far as relevant, as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">\u201c&#8230; In certain countries, CPT delegations have found immigration detainees held in police stations for prolonged periods (for weeks and, in certain cases, months), subject to mediocre material conditions of detention, deprived of any form of activity and on occasion obliged to share cells with criminal suspects. Such a situation is indefensible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">The CPT recognises that, in the very nature of things, immigration detainees may have to spend some time in an ordinary police detention facility. However, conditions in police stations will frequently &#8211; if not invariably &#8211; be inadequate for prolonged periods of detention. Consequently, the period of time spent by immigration detainees in such establishments should be kept to the absolute minimum.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Documents relating to the situation of Ennahda members in Tunisia<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">50.\u00a0\u00a0A description of reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch relating to the situation of Ennahda members can be found in<span><i>Saadi v. Italy<\/i><\/span> [GC] (no. 37201\/06, \u00a7\u00a7 65-79, ECHR 2008-&#8230;).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">THE LAW<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION IN RELATION TO THE DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">51.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his removal to Tunisia would expose him to a real risk of death or ill-treatment.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">The Court finds it more appropriate to examine the applicant&rsquo;s complaint from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention alone (see<span><i>Abdolkhani and Karimnia<\/i><\/span>, cited above, \u00a7 62;<span><i>NA. v. the United Kingdom<\/i><\/span>, no.\u00a025904\/07, \u00a7\u00a095, 17 July 2008;<span><i>Said v. the Netherlands<\/i><\/span>, no. 2345\/02, \u00a7 37, ECHR 2005-VI).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">52.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">53.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant&rsquo;s request for temporary asylum had been examined and rejected by the competent authorities. They noted in this connection that the applicant had entered Turkey illegally and had omitted to request asylum for several years. Moreover, he was accused of being a member of the terrorist organisations Ennahda and Al-Quada. They maintained that the Ministry of the Interior had decided on the applicant&rsquo;s request taking into consideration the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, the provisions of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the UNHCR&rsquo;s decision to recognise the applicant as a refugee. The Government concluded that the applicant&rsquo;s removal to Tunisia would not expose him to any risk.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">54.\u00a0\u00a0<u>The applicant contended that he had been convicted<span><i>in absentia<\/i><\/span> and sentenced to imprisonment in Tunisia for membership of Ennahda, which was not an armed group. He maintained that the reports by international non-governmental organisations showed that terrorist suspects were subjected to widespread torture and ill-treatment.<\/u><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">55.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the applicant claimed that he was a member of Ennahda and submitted a document according to which he had been convicted of membership of a terrorist organisation in Tunisia and sentenced to five years&rsquo; imprisonment. The Court further observes that the Government did not challenge the veracity of these allegations. Moreover, when the applicant was accused of being a member of Al-Qaeda in Turkey, the Adana public prosecutor noted that an arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant in Tunisia as he was suspected of membership of Ennahda. The Court therefore finds no reason to doubt that the applicant was a member of Ennahda in Tunisia.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">56.\u00a0\u00a0In this connection the Court recalls that, in the aforementioned<span><i>Saadi<\/i><\/span>\u00a0judgment, it observed that the reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on Tunisia described a disturbing situation. It noted that those reports mentioned numerous and regular cases of torture and ill-treatment meted out to persons accused of terrorism (see<span><i>Saadi<\/i><\/span>, cited above, \u00a7 143). The Court sees no ground to depart from its findings in the above-mentioned<span><i>Saadi<\/i><\/span> judgment in the present case.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">57.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, the Government failed to submit any document to the Court demonstrating that the applicant had been interviewed in relation to his temporary asylum request or that the national authorities had indeed examined his request taking into account the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention, as claimed. In addition, the applicant&rsquo;s case was not subjected to judicial review since the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed his application as time-barred, although the applicant had been served with a deportation order on 17 October 2007. The Court is unable to ascertain whether the Ministry of the Interior failed to submit that document for inclusion in the file of the case before the Ankara Administrative Court, or whether the latter did not take into account the fact that the applicant had actually been served with a deportation order when the application was lodged. Moreover, his lawyer&rsquo;s appeal requests were dismissed on the ground that he had failed to pay the court fees, although he had done so. In sum, not only did the administrative authorities fail to interview the applicant, but the latter was also deprived of the right to an examination by the judicial authorities of the merits of his claim that he was at risk in Tunisia.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">58.\u00a0\u00a0The only document relating to the examination of the applicant&rsquo;s temporary asylum request is the letter dated 24 April 2007 sent by the Ministry of Justice to the Adana public prosecutor&rsquo;s office. According to that document, the applicant&rsquo;s temporary asylum request was rejected by the administrative authorities on the grounds that he had been charged with terrorist-related crimes and that he posed a threat to public safety and public order (paragraph 18 above). In this connection the Court reiterates the absolute nature of Article 3 of the Convention: it is not possible to weigh the risk of ill-treatment against the reasons put forward for the expulsion in order to determine whether the responsibility of a State is engaged under Article\u00a03, even where such treatment is inflicted by another State. The conduct of the person concerned, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be taken into account (see<span><i> Chahal v. the United Kingdom<\/i><\/span>, 15\u00a0November 1996, \u00a7 81,<span><i>Reports of Judgments and Decisions<\/i><\/span> 1996-V;<span><i>Saadi<\/i><\/span>, cited above, \u00a7 138;<span><i> Abdolkhani and Karimnia<\/i><\/span>, cited above, \u00a7 91).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">59.\u00a0\u00a0Besides, the Court must give due weight to the UNHCR&rsquo;s conclusions as to the applicant&rsquo;s claim regarding the risk which he would face if he were to be removed to Tunisia (see<span><i>Jabari v.\u00a0Turkey<\/i><\/span>, no.\u00a040035\/98, \u00a7 41, ECHR 2000-VIII;<span><i>N.A. v. the United Kingdom<\/i>,<\/span> cited above, \u00a7 122;<span><i>Abdolkhani and Karimnia<\/i><\/span>, cited above, \u00a7 82). In this connection the Court observes that, unlike the Turkish authorities, the UNHCR interviewed the applicant and tested the credibility of his fears and the veracity of his account of circumstances in his country of origin. Following this interview, it found that the applicant risked being subjected to ill-treatment in his country of origin.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">60.\u00a0\u00a0The Court finds in these circumstances that the evidence submitted by the parties, together with the material obtained<span><i>proprio motu<\/i>,<\/span> is sufficient for it to conclude that that there is a real risk of the applicant being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if he were to be removed to Tunisia. The Court also notes in this connection that the Government have not put forward any argument or document capable of casting doubt\u00a0on the applicant&rsquo;s allegations concerning the risks he might face in his country of origin (see<span><i>Abdolkhani and Karimnia<\/i><\/span>, cited above, \u00a7\u00a090).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">61.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently, the Court concludes that there would be a violation of Article\u00a03 of the Convention if the applicant were to be removed to Tunisia.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">62.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that his detention without a legal basis, despite the order of the Adana Assize Court for his release pending trial and his acquittal, had been unlawful.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">63.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">64.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant&rsquo;s detention was based on section 23 of Law no. 5683 and section 4 of Law no. 5682 and that he was being held pending deportation proceedings in accordance with Article\u00a05 \u00a7 1 (f) of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">65.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant submitted that his detention did not have a sufficient legal basis in domestic law.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">66.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that it has already examined the same grievance in the case of<span><i>Abdolkhani and Karimnia<\/i><\/span> (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 125-135). It found that in the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to deportation and setting time-limits for such detention, the deprivation of liberty to which the applicants had been subjected was not \u201clawful\u201d for the purposes of Article\u00a05 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">67.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has examined the present case and finds no particular circumstances which would require it to depart from its findings in the aforementioned<span><i>Abdolkhani and Karimnia<\/i><\/span> judgment.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">There has therefore been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">III.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICANT&rsquo;S DETENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">68.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been detained in the Fatih police station for almost twenty months in poor conditions and that the medical assistance provided for him during his detention had been insufficient.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">A.\u00a0\u00a0Medical assistance<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">69.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant had been provided with the appropriate medical assistance for his state of health. In support of their claim, the Government submitted a number of documents demonstrating that the applicant had been examined by doctors.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">70.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that between 1 October 2007 and 3\u00a0November 2008 the applicant underwent a number of medical examinations while he was being held in the Fatih police station and received medical treatment. In particular, he was examined by a general practitioner in relation to respiratory problems. He was also examined by an ophthalmologist and a dentist. On each occasion, he was prescribed medication or treatment (see paragraph\u00a044 above).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">71.\u00a0\u00a0Given that the authorities ensured that the applicant received sufficiently detailed medical examinations and that he was provided with appropriate treatment, the Court concludes that he did have access to adequate medical assistance. It therefore concludes that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">B.\u00a0\u00a0Conditions of detention<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">1.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">72.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">2.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">73.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the applicant had not been detained in the Fatih police station as alleged but had been kept in the guesthouse which was located in the basement of that station. In the basement there were six rooms that were never locked and a common area where the foreign nationals could watch television. There was hot water twenty-four hours a day and a public telephone. The rooms had air conditioning and the detainees could go out and play football in the yard of the police station. The Government further noted that the room in which the applicant had been kept measured 20.58 square metres.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">74.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant submitted that he had been detained at the Fatih police station for nineteen months and twenty-six days. The room where he was held was dirty and had serious ventilation problems as it was in the basement of the building. He further maintained that the room was twelve square metres and was designed to accommodate ten persons. However, sometimes twenty-five persons were held there at the same time, meaning that two or three persons had to share single beds. The applicant claimed that he had been able to go out into the yard of the police station only twice.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">75.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that, under Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his or her human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject the detainee to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that the individual&rsquo;s health and well-being are adequately secured. When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention (see<span><i>Dougoz v. Greece<\/i><\/span>, no. 40907\/98, \u00a7 46, ECHR 2001-II, and<span><i>Kalashnikov v. Russia<\/i><\/span>, no. 47095\/99, \u00a7 102, ECHR 2002-VI).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">76.\u00a0\u00a0In the present case, the Court observes at the outset that the applicant was detained in the basement of a police station between 12 April 2007 and 7\u00a0November 2008, that is, for almost twenty months, before being transferred to K\u0131rklareli Foreigners&rsquo; Admission and Accommodation Centre. The Court further observes that the Government claimed that the basement of Fatih police station was not an ordinary police detention facility but a \u201cguesthouse\u201d, a place designated for the detention of foreign nationals. However, the respondent Government did not submit any documentary evidence in support of their submissions regarding the living conditions there and thus failed to substantiate the alleged difference between the basement of the police station and the rest of the building. The Court therefore accepts that the applicant was detained for almost twenty months in an ordinary police detention centre designed to hold persons in police custody for a maximum period of four days in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">77.\u00a0\u00a0In this connection the Court notes that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has emphasised that, although immigration detainees may have to spend some time in ordinary police detention facilities, given that the conditions in such places may generally be inadequate for prolonged periods of detention, the period of time spent by immigration detainees in such establishments should be kept to the absolute minimum. While the Court cannot verify the veracity of all the applicant&rsquo;s allegations regarding the conditions of detention at the Fatih police station, it is certain that he was kept in the basement of the station. Therefore and having regard, in particular, to the inordinate length of time for which he was detained at the Fatih police station, the Court considers that the conditions of detention in the basement of the police station amounted to degrading treatment contrary to Article\u00a03.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">78.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant&rsquo;s detention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">IV.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">79.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he had not been provided with an interpreter when<span><span>he was<\/span><\/span>taken into police custody on 15 August 2006. He further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had not had the assistance of an interpreter throughout the proceedings brought against him. The applicant maintained under Articles\u00a06 and 13 of the Convention that neither the criminal proceedings brought against him nor the administrative proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had been concluded within a reasonable time. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant contended that his remand in custody and his detention with a view to deportation constituted an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private and family life. Finally, he submitted that the proceedings concerning the deportation order issued against him had been in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.\u00a07.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">80.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its finding of violations of Articles 3 and 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application. It concludes therefore that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the applicant&rsquo;s remaining complaints under the Convention (see, for example,<span><i>Kamil<\/i><\/span><span><i>Uzun v. Turkey<\/i><\/span>, no. 37410\/97, \u00a7\u00a064, 10\u00a0May 2007;<span><i>\u00c7elik v. Turkey (no. 1)<\/i><\/span>, no. 39324\/02, \u00a7 44, 20 January 2009;<span><i>Juhnke v. Turkey<\/i><\/span>, no. 52515\/99, \u00a7 99, 13 May 2008;<span><i>Getiren v.\u00a0Turkey<\/i><\/span>, no.\u00a010301\/03, \u00a7 132, 22 July 2008;<span><i>Mehmet Eren v. Turkey<\/i><\/span>, no.\u00a032347\/02, \u00a7\u00a059, 14 October 2008).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">V.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">81.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">\u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">A.\u00a0\u00a0Damage<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">82.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant claimed 64,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He further claimed EUR 16,625 in respect of pecuniary damage for loss of income during the time spent in detention.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">83.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested these claims.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">84.\u00a0\u00a0<span>The Court does not discern any causal link between the violations found and the<\/span>pecuniary<span> damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. <\/span>However, it considers that the applicant must have suffered non-pecuniary damage which cannot be compensated solely by the finding of violations. Having regard to the gravity of the violations and to equitable considerations, it awards the applicant<span> EUR 26,000 for non-pecuniary damage.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span><span lang=\"TR\">85.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><span lang=\"TR\">The Court further considers, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, to its finding of a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and to the urgent need to put an end to that violation, that the respondent State must secure the applicant&rsquo;s release at the earliest possible date (see<span><i>Assanidze v. Georgia <\/i><\/span>[GC], no. 71503\/01, \u00a7\u00a7 201-203, ECHR 2004-II).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">B.\u00a0\u00a0Costs and expenses<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">86.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also claimed EUR 10,829 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and for those incurred before the Court. In support of his claim, the applicant submitted invoices showing the payment of court fees at the national level, telephone bills, a copy of a plane ticket from Istanbul to Adana and an invoice showing the amount paid by the applicant to the lawyer who had represented him at the national level. He also submitted that his lawyer had spent a total of 21 days and 9\u00a0hours on the case, and submitted to the Court a time sheet in support of that request.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">87.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested this claim, noting that only costs actually incurred could be reimbursed.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">88.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Court&rsquo;s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 3,500 to cover costs under all heads, less the EUR\u00a0850 which the applicant received in legal aid from the Council of Europe (see paragraph\u00a02 above).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">C.\u00a0\u00a0Default interest<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">89.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">1.\u00a0\u00a0<span><i>Declares<\/i><\/span> the complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (in relation to the deportation proceedings and to the applicant&rsquo;s detention), as well as the complaint under Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, admissible and the complaint under Article 3 in relation to the alleged lack of medical assistance inadmissible;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">2.\u00a0\u00a0<span><i>Holds<\/i><\/span> that the applicant&rsquo;s deportation to Tunisia would be in violation of Article\u00a03 of the Convention;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">3.\u00a0\u00a0<span><i>Holds<\/i><\/span> that no separate issue arises under Article 2 of the Convention;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">4.\u00a0\u00a0<span><i>Holds<\/i><\/span> that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant&rsquo;s detention at the Fatih police station and in the K\u0131rklareli Foreigners&rsquo; Admission and Accommodation Centre;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">5.\u00a0\u00a0<span><i>Holds<\/i><\/span> that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant&rsquo;s detention at the Fatih police station;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">6.\u00a0\u00a0<span><i>Holds<\/i><\/span> that there is no need to examine separately the applicant&rsquo;s other complaints under Articles 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article\u00a01 of Protocol No. 7;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">7.\u00a0\u00a0<span><i>Holds<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">(a)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State must secure the applicant&rsquo;s release at the earliest possible date;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">(b)\u00a0\u00a0that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article\u00a044 \u00a7 2 of the Convention, the following amounts to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">(i)\u00a0\u00a0EUR\u00a026,000 (twenty-six thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">(ii)\u00a0\u00a0EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, less the EUR 850 (eight hundred and fifty euros) granted by way of legal aid, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">(c)\u00a0\u00a0that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">8.\u00a0\u00a0<span><i>Dismisses<\/i><\/span> the remainder of the applicant&rsquo;s claim for just satisfaction.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 April 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 \u00a7\u00a7 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\">Fran\u00e7oise Elens-Passos\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Fran\u00e7oise Tulkens\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Deputy Registrar\u00a0President<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><i><span lang=\"DE-CH\"><a href=\"http:\/\/cmiskp.echr.coe.int\/tkp197\/view.asp?item=1&amp;portal=hbkm&amp;action=html&amp;highlight=46605\/07&amp;sessionid=51169622&amp;skin=hudoc-en\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"TR\"><font>http:\/\/cmiskp.echr.coe.int\/tkp197\/view.asp?item=1&amp;portal=hbkm&amp;action=html&amp;highlight=46605\/07&amp;sessionid=51169622&amp;skin=hudoc-en<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><span lang=\"TR\"><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p><b><span lang=\"TR\">(Source: Communication envoy\u00e9e \u00e0 TUNISNEWS par l\u2019avocat turc Me Abdulhalim YILMAZ d\u2019Istanbul le 29 avril 2010)<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"TR\"><\/span><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p> \u00a0<span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font><\/p>\n<div align=\"center\"> Libert\u00e9 pour Sadok Chourou, le prisonnier des deux d\u00e9cennies Libert\u00e9 pour tous les prisonniers politiques <strong><font>Libert\u00e9 et Equit\u00e9 <\/font><\/strong>Organisation Ind\u00e9pendante de droits humains 33 rue Mokhtar Atya, 1001, Tunis Tel\/fax : 71 340 860 Tunis, le 28 avril 2010 <strong><\/p>\n<h2 style=\"color: red;\"><font size=\"3\">Nouvelles des libert\u00e9s en Tunisie<\/font><\/h2>\n<p><\/strong><\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\">\n<hr\/>\n<p> <strong>1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Le prisonnier d\u2019opinion Ryadh Ellouati commence une gr\u00e8ve de la faim tandis que d\u2019autres prisonniers de Mornaguia sont aussi en gr\u00e8ve de la faim.<\/strong> Plusieurs prisonniers d\u2019opinion actuellement \u00e0 la prison de Mornaguia ont commenc\u00e9 une gr\u00e8ve de la faim, notamment le prisonnier d\u2019opinion Ryadh Ellaouati, depuis le samedi 24 avril 2010, pour exiger leur lib\u00e9ration et protester contre les mauvais traitements qui leur sont inflig\u00e9s par l\u2019administration de la prison, notamment contre la privation des droits \u00e9l\u00e9mentaires dont jouissent les prisonniers dans le monde, comme le droit \u00e0 un lit, puisque les prisonniers d\u2019opinion dorment \u00e0 m\u00eame le sol comme les prisonniers de droit commun, le droit aux soins et aux \u00e9tudes et autres droits pr\u00e9vus par la loi tunisienne.<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"> <strong>2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 La police politique interdit \u00e0 l\u2019ex prisonnier d\u2019opinion Anouar Haouiche de se rendre dans la capitale<\/strong> Des agents de la police politique ont emp\u00each\u00e9 ces jours derniers l\u2019ex prisonnier d\u2019opinion Anouar Haouiche de se d\u00e9placer de Menzel Bourguiba \u00e0 Tunis o\u00f9 il escomptait se r\u00e9approvisionner en marchandises pour son commerce et pourtant, il les avait inform\u00e9s de son d\u00e9placement \u00e0 plusieurs reprises et s\u2019\u00e9tait heurt\u00e9 \u00e0 chaque fois \u00e0 un refus, ce qui est une atteinte \u00e0 son droit de citoyen tunisien \u00e0 la circulation \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9rieur du pays, et une atteinte \u00e0 son droit au travail.<\/div>\n<div align=\"justify\"> <strong>3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Un groupe de Kebili est d\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 pour l\u2019instruction<\/strong> Dans la matin\u00e9e du 28 avril 2010, un groupe de jeunes arr\u00eat\u00e9s r\u00e9cemment dans le gouvernorat de Kebili (Mohammed Ben Marzouk Ben Ahmed, Mohammed Ben Ahmed Ben Mohammed Ben Hamed, B\u00e9chir Ben Mabrouk Ben Mohammed Harrabi) ont \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s au juge d\u2019instruction du sixi\u00e8me bureau du Tribunal de Premi\u00e8re Instance de Tunis dans l\u2019affaire n\u00b017924 pour incitation \u00e0 la commission d\u2019infractions terroristes, adh\u00e9sion \u00e0 une organisation et \u00e0 une entente terroriste, mise \u00e0 disposition d\u2019un local et r\u00e9union sans autorisation, passage des fronti\u00e8res sans document officiel. [\u2026] <strong>5)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 La cour d\u2019Appel examine l\u2019affaire de Maher Gmati et Rochdi Ouerghi<\/strong> La cour d\u2019Appel de Tunis a examin\u00e9 le 28 avril 2010 l\u2019appel interjet\u00e9 par les accus\u00e9s Maher Gmati et Rochdi Ouerghi contre le jugement prononc\u00e9 contre eux en premi\u00e8re instance et les condamnant \u00e0 deux ans d\u2019emprisonnement. La cour a report\u00e9 l\u2019examen de l\u2019affaire au 14 avril 2010 * [\u2026] Pour le bureau ex\u00e9cutif de l\u2019Organisation Le pr\u00e9sident <strong><font>Ma\u00eetre Mohammed Nouri<\/font><\/strong> \u00a0 * Sic, LT <font>(traduction d\u2019extraits ni revue ni corrig\u00e9e par les auteurs de la version en arabe, LT)<\/font><\/div>\n<p><\/font><\/span><\/div>\n<p><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font size=\"3\"><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">\u00a0<\/p>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\">Le TMG salue la lib\u00e9ration du journaliste Taoufik Ben Brik mais condamne la politique de sanctionner les journalistes critiques<\/div>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<p><\/font><\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<p><i><u><span lang=\"FR-CH\">28 avril 2010<\/span><\/u><\/i><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">(IFEX-TMG) &#8211; Le 27 avril 2010 &#8211; Tandis que les membres du Groupe d&rsquo;observation de la Tunisie (TMG) saluent la remise en libert\u00e9 aujourd&rsquo;hui de Taoufik Ben Brik, la coalition des d\u00e9fenseurs de la libert\u00e9 de la presse d\u00e9nonce les chefs d&rsquo;accusation port\u00e9s contre le journaliste Fahem Boukadous, dans lesquels elle voit une man\u0153uvre politique dont le but v\u00e9ritable est de faire taire la critique des autorit\u00e9s tunisiennes. Le TMG est un groupe de plus de vingt organisations qui appartiennent au r\u00e9seau de l&rsquo;\u00c9change international de la libert\u00e9 d&rsquo;expression (IFEX). Cinq groupes membres du TMG sont en mission en Tunisie cette semaine.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Une cour d&rsquo;appel de la ville de Gafsa a report\u00e9 de nouveau aujourd&rsquo;hui l&rsquo;appel, par Boukadous, de la peine de quatre ans de prison prononc\u00e9e contre lui pour \u00ab\u00a0appartenance \u00e0 une association criminelle\u00a0\u00bb et \u00ab\u00a0trouble \u00e0 l&rsquo;ordre public\u00a0\u00bb. Boukadous devra donc attendre jusqu&rsquo;au 18 mai avant de conna\u00eetre le verdict, lorsque son appel sera entendu, apr\u00e8s avoir subi hier une crise d&rsquo;asthme qui a n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 une pr\u00e9sence m\u00e9dicale.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Journaliste \u00e0 la station de t\u00e9l\u00e9vision par satellite Al-Hiwar Al-Tunisi, Boukadous est entr\u00e9 dans la clandestinit\u00e9 en juillet 2008 apr\u00e8s avoir d\u00e9couvert qu&rsquo;il \u00e9tait recherch\u00e9 par les autorit\u00e9s tunisiennes pour r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 des accusations d\u00e9coulant de sa couverture de manifestations qui se sont d\u00e9roul\u00e9es \u00e0 Gafsa, une r\u00e9gion mini\u00e8re du sud de la Tunisie. Il a \u00e9t\u00e9 condamn\u00e9 en d\u00e9cembre 2008 \u00e0 six ans de prison.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Boukadous est revenu en novembre 2009 pour contester la sentence en s&rsquo;appuyant sur le fait qu&rsquo;il a subi un proc\u00e8s in absentia. Un tribunal a cass\u00e9 la d\u00e9cision pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente et a d\u00e9cr\u00e9t\u00e9 la tenue d&rsquo;un nouveau proc\u00e8s pour r\u00e9pondre aux m\u00eames chefs d&rsquo;accusation. En janvier de cette ann\u00e9e, le journaliste a \u00e9t\u00e9 trouv\u00e9 coupable des chefs d&rsquo;accusation et condamn\u00e9 \u00e0 quatre ans de prison, mais il reste en libert\u00e9.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">\u00ab\u00a0Fahem Boukadous est puni par l&rsquo;\u00c9tat pour n&rsquo;avoir fait que son travail et avoir couvert des manifestations publiques contre le ch\u00f4mage et la corruption,\u00a0\u00bb a dit Rohan Jayasekera de Index on Censorship, qui pr\u00e9side le TMG. \u00ab\u00a0L&rsquo;\u00c9tat n&rsquo;aimait pas les nouvelles, alors il a cibl\u00e9 le messager. Ce genre d&rsquo;intimidation des m\u00e9dias ind\u00e9pendants doit cesser.\u00a0\u00bb<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Le journaliste et \u00e9crivain Taoufik Ben Brik, connu pour sa critique incisive du gouvernement tunisien, a \u00e9t\u00e9 lib\u00e9r\u00e9 le lendemain apr\u00e8s avoir purg\u00e9 une peine de six mois de prison pour des charges que l&rsquo;on croit en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral \u00eatre fausses.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">En raison de son travail, Ben Brik avait d\u00e9j\u00e0 d\u00fb subir des \u00e9pisodes de d\u00e9tention et il avait \u00e9t\u00e9 emp\u00each\u00e9 de voyager hors de Tunisie, tandis que les membres de sa famille ont \u00e9galement subi \u00e0 plusieurs occasions des mesures de harc\u00e8lement.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Ben Brik a \u00e9t\u00e9 mis en garde \u00e0 vue le 30 octobre 2009 parce qu&rsquo;il aurait agress\u00e9 une femme lors d&rsquo;un incident de la circulation. Il a \u00e9t\u00e9 condamn\u00e9 le 26 novembre \u00e0 six mois de prison ferme pour \u00ab\u00a0voies de fait\u00a0\u00bb, \u00ab\u00a0destruction d\u00e9lib\u00e9r\u00e9e de biens\u00a0\u00bb et \u00ab\u00a0atteinte aux bonnes m\u0153urs\u00a0\u00bb.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Les groupes de d\u00e9fense de la libert\u00e9 de la presse, dont des membres du TMG, ont d\u00e9nonc\u00e9 non seulement les conditions d&rsquo;incarc\u00e9ration \u00e9pouvantables subies par Ben Brik, mais aussi son arrestation \u00e9minemment politique et son proc\u00e8s inique. En janvier, tandis que la sant\u00e9 de Ben Brik se d\u00e9t\u00e9riorait, les membres de sa famille ont entrepris une gr\u00e8ve de la faim pour protester contre les conditions de vie \u00e0 la prison. La peine de six mois a \u00e9t\u00e9 maintenue en appel en f\u00e9vrier.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">\u00ab\u00a0Le TMG salue la lib\u00e9ration de Ben Brik, mais il appara\u00eet qu&rsquo;il n&rsquo;aurait jamais d\u00fb \u00eatre mis en prison pour commencer,\u00a0\u00bb dit Jayasekera.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">La d\u00e9l\u00e9gation du TMG en mission en Tunisie cette semaine se compose d&rsquo;ARTICLE 19, de Index on Censorship, de l&rsquo;Institut international de la presse, du PEN de Norv\u00e8ge et du Comit\u00e9 des \u00e9crivains en prison du PEN International.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><i><u><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Pour tout renseignement compl\u00e9mentaire:<\/span><\/u><\/i><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Le groupe d&rsquo;observation de la Tunisie<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Rohan Jayasekera, Chair<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>c\/o Index on Censorship<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>London<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>United Kingdom<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>rj (@) indexoncensorship.org<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">t\u00e9l: +44 20 7324 2522<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Le groupe d&rsquo;observation de la Tunisie<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><a href=\"http:\/\/ifex.org\/tunisia\/tmg\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"EN-US\"><font>http:\/\/ifex.org\/tunisia\/tmg<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><span><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Arabic Network for Human Rights Information<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>ARTICLE 19: Global Campaign for Free Expression<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Bahrain Center for Human Rights<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Canadian Journalists for Free Expression<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Cartoonists Rights Network International<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Egyptian Organization For Human Rights<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Index on Censorship<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Internationale des Journalistes<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>International PEN Writers in Prison Committee<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>International Press Institute<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>International Publishers Association<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Journaliste en danger<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Maharat Foundation (Skills Foundation)<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Media Institute of Southern Africa<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Norwegian PEN<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Association mondiale de radiodiffuseurs communautaires<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Association Mondiale des Journaux et des \u00c9diteurs de M\u00e9dias d&rsquo;Information<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">World Press Freedom Committee<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><\/p>\n<p><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><font><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font size=\"3\"><strong>Tunisie: La journ\u00e9e noire du net<\/strong><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/div>\n<p><font><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><strong><font>Yahyaoui Mokhtar<\/font><\/strong> <b>\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"FR-CH\">La r\u00e9volte contre la censure gronde sur la blogosph\u00e8re et le net tunisien en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral depuis quelques semaines. Les sites, blogs et profils Facebook censur\u00e9s ou pirat\u00e9s ne se comptent plus. La fr\u00e9n\u00e9sie \u00e0 un rythme jamais vu auparavant dans le pays qui s\u2019est empar\u00e9 des censeurs pose plus d\u2019un questions sur la razzia d\u00e9cid\u00e9 contre tout esprit critique ou divergence avec le syst\u00e8me Ben Ali.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Mais ce qui s\u2019est pass\u00e9 aujourd\u2019hui a montr\u00e9 que la blogosph\u00e8re est le principal objectif dans le collimateur de la censure. Ainsi une dizaine de blogs au moins ont \u00e9t\u00e9 censur\u00e9s durant les derni\u00e8re 24 heures\u00a0:<\/span><\/p>\n<ol type=\"1\">\n<li><b><span>Trapboy :<a href=\"http:\/\/trapboy.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/trapboy.blogspot.com\/<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<li><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Stupeur :\u00a0 <\/span><span><a href=\"http:\/\/blog.kochlef.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>http:\/\/blog.kochlef.com\/<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<li><b><span>Bent 3ayla :<a href=\"http:\/\/bent-3ayla.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/bent-3ayla.blogspot.com\/<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<li><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Artartticuler : <\/span><span><a href=\"http:\/\/artartticuler.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>http:\/\/artartticuler.blogspot.com\/<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<li><b><span lang=\"DE\">Antikor : \u00a0<\/span><span><a href=\"http:\/\/antikor.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"DE\"><font>http:\/\/antikor.blogspot.com\/<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<li><b><span>Selim:<a href=\"http:\/\/carpediem-selim.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/carpediem-selim.blogspot.com\/<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<li><b><span>Patriote Tunisien:<a href=\"http:\/\/patriotetunisien.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/patriotetunisien.blogspot.com\/<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<li><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Revolution Tunisie\u00a0: <\/span><span><a href=\"http:\/\/revolutiontunisie.wordpress.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>http:\/\/revolutiontunisie.wordpress.com\/<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<li><b><span>Arabsta\u00a0:<a href=\"http:\/\/arabasta1.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/arabasta1.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<li><b><span lang=\"DE\">Normal land\u00a0: <\/span><span><a href=\"http:\/\/ounormal.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"DE\"><font>http:\/\/ounormal.blogspot.com\/<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><span lang=\"FR-CH\">quelques jours auparavant le site et le blog du journal tunisien d\u2019opposition \u201cAttariq al Jadid\u201d ont \u00e9t\u00e9 censures \u00ab\u00a0Les sites de notre blog, \u00ab\u00a0les Amis d\u2019Attariq\u00a0\u00bb (<\/span><span><a href=\"http:\/\/amisattariq.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>http:\/\/amisattariq.blogspot.com\/<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\">) , et du journal Attariq Al Jadid (<\/span><span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.attariq.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>http:\/\/www.attariq.org\/<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\">) sont inaccessibles en Tunisie depuis le vendredi 23 avril dernier. Nous n\u2019avons aucune explication \u00e0 ce verrouillage soudain de l\u2019acc\u00e8s \u00e0 ces sites. Nous appelons nos amis blogueurs et facebookers \u00e0 la mobilisation pour le retour des ces sites de la pens\u00e9e libre et progressiste.\u00a0\u00bb annon\u00e7ait le mouvement attajdid Parti d\u2019opposition l\u00e9gal.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Depuis hier la plateforme \u00ab\u00a0Nawaat\u00a0\u00bb avait disparue totalement de la toile. Le site Nawaat (<\/span><span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.nawaat.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>http:\/\/www.nawaat.org<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\">) a \u00e9t\u00e9 pirat\u00e9 et sont contenu totalement d\u00e9truit \u00e0 l\u2019image de ce qui s\u2019est produit \u00e0 TUNISIA Watch pour son blog (<\/span><span><a href=\"http:\/\/tunisiawatch.rsfblog.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>http:\/\/tunisiawatch.rsfblog.org<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\">) il y a quelques mois le \u00a0blog d\u2019Astrubal attach\u00e9 \u00e0 Nawaat .<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"FR-CH\">L\u2019h\u00e9catombe ne s\u2019est pas arr\u00eat\u00e9 aux blog et sites Tunisiens, \u00ab\u00a0Le site Internet du Nouvel Observateur censur\u00e9 en Tunisie\u00a0\u00bb \u00e9crit aujourd\u2019hui le c\u00e9l\u00e8bre site fran\u00e7ais\u00a0:\u00ab\u00a0NouvelObs.com paye pour son traitement de l\u2019information au sujet de l\u2019emprisonnement du journaliste et opposant politique Taoufik Ben Brik.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"FR-CH\">\u00ab\u00a0404 Not Found, the request URL (<\/span><span><a href=\"http:\/\/tempsreel.nouvelobs.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>http:\/\/tempsreel.nouvelobs.com<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\">) \u00a0was not found on this server\u00a0\u00bb (\u00a0\u00ab\u00a0l\u2019adresse URL demand\u00e9e n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 trouv\u00e9e sur ce serveur\u00a0\u00bb), voici le message que voient appara\u00eetre sur leurs \u00e9crans, depuis plusieurs jours-\u2013 plusieurs semaines selon certaines sources \u2013 les internautes qui cherchent \u00e0 acc\u00e9der au site Internet du Nouvel Observateur depuis la Tunisie. Celui-ci a \u00e9t\u00e9 censur\u00e9.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">(Source\u00a0: le blog \u00ab\u00a0TunisiaWatch\u00a0\u00bb (censur\u00e9 en Tunisie), le 27 avril 2010) <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<p><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<div align=\"center\"><b><span><font size=\"3\">Tunisia: flickr, video-sharing websites, blogs<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><b><span><font size=\"3\">\u00a0aggregators and critical blogs are not welcome<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<p><i><u><span>Posted By Sami Ben Gharbia On April 28, 2010 @ 7:50 pm <\/span><\/u><\/i><\/p>\n<p><span>Tunisia is carrying out one of the most massive wave of online censorship targeting major social websites, video-sharing websites, blogs aggregators, blogs, facebook pages and profiles. The most recent victim of this wave is flickr [1], the popular and one of the best online photo-sharing website, blocked [2] today, April 28th, 2010.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Last week, on April 22, 2010, Tunisia has added 3 more websites to its list of banned video-sharing websites in the country. Blip.tv [3], metacafe.com [4] and vidoemo.com [5] are not welcome aymore in the country. In early April, 2010, WAT.TV [6], another social networking and media-sharing website, which is believed to be the 3rd video broadcaster on the Internet in France [7], has also been blocked [8].<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The targeting of video-sharing websites by Tunisian censors started on September 3rd, 2007, with the ban of Dailymotion [9], then it was the turn of Youtube to be banned [10] from the country&rsquo;s Internet on November 2nd, 2007.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>On it&rsquo;s posterous [11] page, Nawaat.org [12] has published an updated list of the banned video-sharing websites [13] in the country, stating that:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>These video sharing websites are illegaly blocked in Tunisia (no judicial decision has ordered them). This is done by violating, inter alia, the article 8 of the Tunisian Constitution and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>At least 11 more blogs censored on the same day<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Yesterday, April 27, 2010, Tunisia has blocked access to at least 11 blogs because of their criticism against the government and its censorship policy:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0\u00a0 1.<a href=\"http:\/\/amchafibled.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/amchafibled.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a> [14]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0\u00a0 2.<a href=\"http:\/\/trapboy.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/trapboy.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a> [15]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0\u00a0 3.<a href=\"http:\/\/antikor.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/antikor.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a> [16]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0\u00a0 4.<a href=\"http:\/\/arabasta1.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/arabasta1.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a> [17]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0\u00a0 5.<a href=\"http:\/\/yatounes.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/yatounes.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a> [18]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0\u00a0 6.<a href=\"http:\/\/abidklifi.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/abidklifi.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a> [19]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0\u00a0 7.<a href=\"http:\/\/ounormal.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/ounormal.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a> [20]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0\u00a0 8.<a href=\"http:\/\/carpediem-selim.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/carpediem-selim.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a> [21]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0\u00a0 9.<a href=\"http:\/\/bent-3ayla.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/bent-3ayla.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a> [22]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0 10.<a href=\"http:\/\/artartticuler.blogspot.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/artartticuler.blogspot.com<\/font><\/a> [23]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>\u00a0 11.<a href=\"http:\/\/blog.kochlef.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/blog.kochlef.com<\/font><\/a> [24]<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Prior to that, and between April 21 and April 23, 2010, two Tunisian blogs aggregators [25] have ben blocked [26], tuniblogs.com [27] and tunisr.com [28].<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>And, on April 23, 2010, Tunisia blocked two online platforms of the opposition Ettajdid party (legal, former communist party) \u00ab les Amis d\u2019Attariq [29] \u00bb (Friends of Attariq) blog [30] and the online weekly of the party Attariq al-Jadid [31] (The New Way) are now blocked.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Hacking of dissident blogs<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The website of the online campaign Yezzi Fock Ben Ali! [32] (Enough is enough, Ben Ali!, which was blocked in Tunisia 18 hours after being launched in 2005) has been hacked again (first hack on November 7th, 2007), and it\u2019s still down to this moment. As a security measure and in order to engage with the 1.4 million Tunisians users on Facebook, the campaign has moved to Facebook [33].<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The same day (April 26, 2010) as the banning of critical blogs was carried out, another technique has been used to further muzzle the online free speech: the collective blog nawaat.org [34] and the personal blog of one of its admin, Astrubal [35], have been hacked [36], deleting their database and ftp files.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>As we noted in a previous post about online free speech in Tunisia [37], \u201calmost every single Tunisian opposition website and self-hosted blog has been the victim of one or more hacking incidents. While there is no solid evidence that the Tunisian regime is behind attempts to take down opponent websites, there is quite a strong feeling among Tunisian opposition figures that the government is carrying out cyber-attacks, given their frequency and the nature of the targeted websites and blogs.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>And on another note, it seems that Opera Mini for iPhone, launched on 14 April, 2010, is blocked in Tunisia. This is probably due to a bug in the Opera browser or to a ban of its build-in proxy. Here is a screenshot taken from Tunisia.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>URL to article:<a href=\"http:\/\/advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org\/2010\/04\/28\/tunisia-flickr-video-sharing-websites-blogs-aggregators-and-critial-blogs-are-not-welcome\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org\/2010\/04\/28\/tunisia-flickr-video-sharing-websites-blogs-aggregators-and-critial-blogs-are-not-welcome<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">(Source: \u201cGlobal Voices Advocacy\u201d, le 28 avril 2010)<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<p><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Lien:<\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><a href=\"http:\/\/advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/b><strong><\/strong><\/p>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font size=\"3\">Le mythe d\u2019une Tunisie mod\u00e9r\u00e9e<\/font><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Sous les aspects modernes du r\u00e9gime du pr\u00e9sident Ben Ali se trouve \u00e0 une autre dictature r\u00e9pressive.<\/span><\/div>\n<p><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><strong>Par Moumneh Rasha<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Lorsque\u00a0 le ministre des Affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res tunisien Kamel Morjane arrive \u00e0 Washington le 26 avril, il va tr\u00e8s certainement se pr\u00e9senter comme le repr\u00e9sentant d\u2019un Etat arabe \u00abmod\u00e9r\u00e9\u00bb qui est amie de l\u2019Occident. En tant que repr\u00e9sentant de Human Rights Watch, cependant, j\u2019ai r\u00e9cemment assist\u00e9 \u00e0 un autre aspect de cette soi-disant \u00abmodernit\u00e9\u00bb du r\u00e9gime.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Mon organisation a publi\u00e9 le mois dernier un rapport d\u00e9taillant le traitement de prisonniers politiques par le gouvernement tunisien, et un groupe d\u2019entre nous a pr\u00e9vu de tenir une conf\u00e9rence de presse \u00e0 Tunis, pour l\u2019annoncer, dans l\u2019espoir de susciter un dialogue qui conduirait \u00e0 un changement. Il s\u2019agissait d\u2019une approche que nous avions essay\u00e9 en 2004, lorsque nous avons publi\u00e9 un rapport sur la situation des prisonniers politiques, et en 2005, lorsque nous avons publi\u00e9 une \u00e9tude sur les libert\u00e9s d\u2019Internet dans la r\u00e9gion. Les deux versions ont eu lieu sans incident. Cette fois, cependant, nous avons trouv\u00e9 que notre chemin est bloqu\u00e9 \u00e0 chaque tour: Tous les h\u00f4tels que nous avons contact\u00e9s ont d\u00e9clar\u00e9 qu\u2019ils n\u2019avaient pas l\u2019espace pour nous loger, et la salle que nous avons finalement lou\u00e9 a \u00e9t\u00e9 myst\u00e9rieusement inond\u00e9e pendant que nous \u00e9tions \u00e0 d\u00eener. Le gouvernement interdit aux journalistes d\u2019assister \u00e0 notre conf\u00e9rence et a emp\u00each\u00e9 physiquement ceux qui ont essay\u00e9 d\u2019y assister. Les agents de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 d\u2019\u00c9tat nous ont suivis partout o\u00f9 nous allions.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Sous le Pr\u00e9sident Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, qui est au pouvoir depuis 1987 et a \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9\u00e9lu en 2009 juste pour un cinqui\u00e8me mandat, m\u00eame la plus moindre dissidence est consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme une menace s\u00e9rieuse. Les journalistes ind\u00e9pendants, organisations des droits humains, syndicalistes \u2013 toute personne qui soul\u00e8ve des pr\u00e9occupations concernant les actions du gouvernement \u2013 trouvent leurs actions suivies et leur franc-parler punis.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">La Tunisie tente souvent de cacher ses mesures r\u00e9pressives derri\u00e8re un mince vernis de l\u00e9galit\u00e9, dans l\u2019espoir de convaincre l\u2019Occident de sa lib\u00e9ralit\u00e9 relative. Le gouvernement fait valoir, par exemple, qu\u2019il n\u2019ya pas de prisonniers politiques en Tunisie. Bien s\u00fbr, cela peut \u00eatre vrai en vertu de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation tr\u00e8s stricte du gouvernement de ce qui constitue un crime politique. Suivant cette ligne de raisonnement, il ya eu peu, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant, de personnes poursuivies en vertu des lois qui criminalisent les activit\u00e9s politiques ou d\u2019opinion au cours des plusieurs mandats de Ben Ali \u2013 donc, pas de prisonniers politiques. Le gouvernement pr\u00e9f\u00e8re poursuivre ses critiques en vertu de fausses accusations de crimes de droit commun.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Taoufiq Ben Brik, journaliste dissident qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 une cible privil\u00e9gi\u00e9e du r\u00e9gime, est un cas d\u2019esp\u00e8ce. En Octobre 2009, Ben Brik a \u00e9t\u00e9 accus\u00e9 de \u00ab violation de la d\u00e9cence publique \u00bb, \u00ab diffamation \u00bb, \u00ab agression \u00bb et \u00ab atteinte \u00e0 la personne biens d\u2019une autre\u00bb, pr\u00e9tendument pour avoir agress\u00e9 une femme. Il affirme que la victime \u00e9tait en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 un agent de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de l\u2019Etat et affirme que c\u2019est elle qui en fait l\u2019a agress\u00e9 alors qu\u2019il \u00e9tait en route pour chercher sa fille \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9cole. Le gouvernement a soigneusement \u00e9labor\u00e9 un sc\u00e9nario qui non seulement renvoy\u00e9 Ben Brik en prison, mais aussi remis en question son autorit\u00e9 morale.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">J\u2019\u00e9t\u00e9 personnellement t\u00e9moin de la m\u00eame atmosph\u00e8re d\u2019intimidation en Mars, quand j\u2019ai visit\u00e9 la Tunisie pour des recherches sur les efforts organis\u00e9s par l\u2019union syndicale de dans diverses r\u00e9gions du pays. Lors de ma visite, j\u2019ai constat\u00e9 que les syndicalistes ind\u00e9pendants subissent le m\u00eame sort que les journalistes et les militants des droits humains. Comme pour la r\u00e9pression des dissidents politiques, la proscription par le gouvernement des activit\u00e9s syndicales sont rarement explicites: Sous l\u2019aspect lib\u00e9ral la loi de la Tunisie des associations, en fait, ceux qui veulent former un syndicat ou une organisation non gouvernementales sont simplement tenus d\u2019informer le gouvernement de leur intention. Si le minist\u00e8re de l\u2019Int\u00e9rieur n\u2019a pas d\u2019objection dans les 90 jours, le nouveau syndicat ou ONG est consid\u00e9r\u00e9e comme l\u00e9gale. Comment alors \u2013 en d\u00e9pit d\u2019une forte communaut\u00e9 de droits humaine \u2013 Y a-t-il seulement deux organisations des droits humains l\u00e9galement reconnus et que deux syndicats dans tout le pays?<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Voici o\u00f9 la fum\u00e9e et des miroirs entrent en jeu. Pour enrayer la l\u00e9galisation d\u2019un nouveau syndicat, le gouvernement n\u2019a besoin que de pr\u00e9tendre qu\u2019il n\u2019a jamais re\u00e7u son application. Pour cette raison, il ne donne jamais les candidats ayant obtenu un re\u00e7u qu\u2019ils pourront utiliser comme preuve de leur soumission. Ce vide juridique permet au gouvernement d\u2019affirmer que toutes les activit\u00e9s du syndicat nouvellement form\u00e9 sont ill\u00e9gales.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Selon de nombreux syndicalistes, le gouvernement a d\u00e9ploy\u00e9 des efforts importants dans les ann\u00e9es \u00e0 maintenir les \u00e9chelons sup\u00e9rieurs de l\u2019organisation fa\u00eeti\u00e8re nationale, l\u2019Union G\u00e9n\u00e9rale Tunisienne du Travail (UGTT), loyal. Depuis que le gouvernement emp\u00eache les syndicats ind\u00e9pendants de l\u2019obtention du statut juridique, ce qui donne effectivement le r\u00e9gime d\u2019un monopole sur l\u2019activit\u00e9 syndicale.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">En retour, l\u2019UGTT tient en laisse serr\u00e9e sur ses membres ind\u00e9pendants plus. En 2008, les enseignants organis\u00e9s dans le cadre UGTT a men\u00e9 une lutte contre la corruption soul\u00e8vement de masse, qui a mobilis\u00e9 des milliers de manifestants au cours d\u2019une p\u00e9riode de six mois. En r\u00e9ponse, l\u2019UGTT expuls\u00e9 du mouvement tous les dirigeants. Ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 r\u00e9tablis qu\u2019apr\u00e8s la pression locale et internationale importante.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Le gouvernement tunisien a \u00e9galement fait ses preuves plus que dispos\u00e9s \u00e0 se salir les mains quand il per\u00e7oit une menace pour son pouvoir. Le Syndicat national des journalistes tunisiens (NSTJ), la loi ind\u00e9pendant autoris\u00e9 l\u2019Union qu\u2019\u00e0 l\u2019ext\u00e9rieur de l\u2019UGTT apr\u00e8s sa cr\u00e9ation en 2007, a obtenu Ali ire Ben en 2009, lorsque ses dirigeants ont annonc\u00e9 que l\u2019Union resterait neutre dans cette ann\u00e9e-\u00e9lections pr\u00e9sidentielles et parlementaires. Les autorit\u00e9s ont ripost\u00e9 en concoctant un plan \u00e9labor\u00e9 pour \u00e9vincer le pr\u00e9sident du syndicat et son conseil d\u2019administration et les remplacer par des journalistes pro-gouvernementaux.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Le gouvernement a eu recours \u00e0 un barrage de la corruption, de menaces et de chantage visant \u00e0 convaincre les journalistes de l\u2019Union \u00e0 signer une p\u00e9tition pour demander le renvoi du conseil. les propri\u00e9taires de journaux ont \u00e9t\u00e9 menac\u00e9s par le retrait des annonces du gouvernement pay\u00e9s moins que leurs employ\u00e9s respect\u00e9es. Ces annonces apporter des recettes pour cent de plus 600 pour les journaux priv\u00e9s que de la publicit\u00e9 \u2013 il est un moyen pratique de conserver r\u00e9dacteurs de nouvelles en \u00e9chec.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">De nombreux journalistes qui ont refus\u00e9 de soutenir le coup d\u2019Etat ont \u00e9t\u00e9 tir\u00e9s. Le NSTJ la suite organis\u00e9 des \u00e9lections que les nouveaux dirigeants sont, \u00e9videmment, enlis\u00e9 dans la corruption \u2013 la moiti\u00e9 des \u00e9lecteurs ne sont pas membres de l\u2019Union m\u00eame, laisser les journalistes seuls. Les revendications du gouvernement tunisien qu\u2019il n\u2019avait rien \u00e0 voir avec la politique interne de l\u2019Union et qu\u2019il \u00e9tait une pure co\u00efncidence que le nouveau conseil d\u2019administration \u00e9lu ill\u00e9galement presque enti\u00e8rement compos\u00e9 de journalistes fid\u00e8les au gouvernement de Ben Ali.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Malgr\u00e9 tous les efforts d\u00e9ploy\u00e9s Ben Ali pour cacher malhonn\u00eate m\u00e9thodes de son gouvernement silence et \u00e0 la dissidence d\u2019annuler, la fa\u00e7ade soigneusement \u00e9labor\u00e9 de \u00abmoderne, d\u00e9mocratique et mod\u00e9r\u00e9e \u00bb La Tunisie se d\u00e9fait aux coutures. Ceci est en grande partie Merci \u00e0 la Tunisie syst\u00e9matiquement r\u00e9prim\u00e9, pers\u00e9cut\u00e9, mais inlassables militants des droits humains.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Lorsque le ministre des Affaires \u00e9trang\u00e8res vient de Washington, l\u2019administration Obama Barack devraient faire pression sur lui et d\u2019autres sur ces nombreuses questions, en pr\u00e9cisant que m\u00e9pris complet de la Tunisie pour les droits de ses citoyens doit changer. Le monde occidental doit beaucoup plus \u00e0 la Tunisie assi\u00e9g\u00e9e d\u00e9fenseurs des droits humains, qui ont besoin de toute l\u2019aide qu\u2019ils peuvent obtenir.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">(Source: \u201cForeign Policy\u201d (Revue bimensuelle \u2013 USA), le 26 avril 2010) <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">La version originale de cet article sur \u00ab\u00a0Foreing Policy\u00a0\u00bb :<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><b><span><font size=\"3\">The Myth of a Moderate Tunisia<\/font><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p><\/span><\/b><\/div>\n<p><span>Beneath the modern trappings of President Ben Ali&rsquo;s regime lies just another repressive dictatorship.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>BY RASHA MOUMNEH (*)<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>When Tunisian Foreign Minister Kamel Morjane arrives in Washington on April 26, he will most certainly present himself as the representative of a \u00ab\u00a0moderate\u00a0\u00bb Arab state that is friendly to the West. As a representative of Human Rights Watch, however, I recently witnessed another side of this supposedly \u00ab\u00a0modern\u00a0\u00bb regime.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>My organization released a report last month detailing the Tunisian government&rsquo;s treatment of political prisoners, and a group of us planned to hold a press conference in Tunis to announce it, in the hopes of sparking a dialogue that would lead to change. This was an approach we had tried in 2004, when we released a report on the situation of political prisoners, and in 2005, when we published a study on Internet freedoms in the region. Both releases occurred without incident. This time, however, we found our path blocked at every turn: All of the hotels we contacted stated that they lacked the space to accommodate us, and the room we eventually rented was mysteriously flooded while we were at dinner. The government banned journalists from our news conference and physically barred those who tried to attend. State security agents followed us wherever we went.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Under President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali, who has held office since 1987 and was just reelected in 2009 for a fifth term, even the most minor dissent is treated as a serious threat. Independent journalists, human rights organizations, union organizers &#8212; anyone who raises concerns about the government&rsquo;s actions &#8212; find their actions tracked and their outspokenness punished.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Tunisia often attempts to cover up its repressive measures behind a thin veneer of legality, hoping to convince the West of its relative liberality. The government contends, for example, that there are no political prisoners in Tunisia. Of course, that may be true under the government&rsquo;s strict interpretation of what constitutes a political crime. Following that line of reasoning, there have been few, if any, people prosecuted under laws that criminalize political activity or opinion during Ben Ali&rsquo;s multiple terms &#8212; hence, no political prisoners. The government prefers to prosecute its critics using trumped-up charges of common crimes.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Taoufiq Ben Brik, a dissident journalist who has been a favorite target of the regime, is a case in point. In October 2009, Ben Brik was charged with \u00ab\u00a0violating public decency,\u00a0\u00bb \u00ab\u00a0defamation,\u00a0\u00bb \u00ab\u00a0assault,\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0damaging another person&rsquo;s property,\u00a0\u00bb allegedly for assaulting a woman. He claims the victim was actually a state security agent and maintains that it was she who in fact assaulted him as he was on his way to pick up his daughter from school. The government carefully crafted a scenario that not only landed Ben Brik in jail, but also called into question his moral standing.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>I personally witnessed the same atmosphere of intimidation in March, when I visited Tunisia to research union organizing efforts in various parts of the country. During my visit, I found that independent unionists suffered the same fate as journalists and local human rights activists. As with the repression of political dissidents, the government&rsquo;s anti-union activities are rarely explicit: Under Tunisia&rsquo;s liberal law of association, in fact, those who wish to form a union or a non-governmental organization are simply required to inform the government of their intention. If the Interior Ministry does not object within 90 days, the new union or NGO is considered legal. How then &#8212; despite a robust human rights community &#8212; are there only two legally recognized human rights organizations and only two labor unions in the entire country?<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Here&rsquo;s where the smoke and mirrors come in. To halt the legalization of a new union, the government needs only to claim that it never received its application. For this reason, it never provides the applicants with a receipt that they can use as proof of their submission. This legal loophole allows the government to assert that all activities of the newly formed union are illegal.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>According to many unionists, the government has expended great effort over the years to keep the upper echelons of the nationwide umbrella organization, the Tunisian General Labor Union (UGTT), loyal. Since the government prevents independent unions from attaining legal status, this effectively gives the regime a monopoly over labor union activity.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>In return, UGTT keeps a tight leash on its more independent members. In 2008, teachers organized under UGTT led a mass anti-corruption uprising, which involved thousands of protesters over a six month period. In response, the UGTT expelled all the movement&rsquo;s leaders. They were reinstated only after substantial local and international pressure.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>The Tunisian government has also proved itself more than willing to get its hands dirty when it perceives a threat to its power. The National Union of Tunisian Journalists (NSTJ), the only legally authorized independent union outside the UGTT following its inception in 2007, earned Ben Ali&rsquo;s ire in 2009, when its leaders announced that the union would remain neutral in that year&rsquo;s presidential and parliamentary elections. The authorities retaliated by concocting an elaborate plan to oust the union&rsquo;s president and his board and replace them with pro-government journalists.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>The government resorted to a barrage of bribery, threats, and blackmail aimed at convincing journalists in the union to sign a petition calling for the board&rsquo;s dismissal. Newspaper owners were threatened with the withdrawal of paid government announcements unless their employees complied. Those announcements bring in 600 percent more revenue for the newspapers than private advertising &#8212; it&rsquo;s a handy way to keep news editors in check.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Many journalists who refused to support the coup were fired. The NSTJ subsequently held new leadership elections that were, predictably, mired in corruption &#8212; half the voters weren&rsquo;t even union members, let alone journalists. The Tunisian government claims that it had nothing to do with the union&rsquo;s internal politics and that it was pure coincidence that the new, illegally elected board consisted almost entirely of journalists loyal to Ben Ali&rsquo;s government.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>Despite Ben Ali&rsquo;s best efforts to conceal his government&rsquo;s dishonest methods to silence and quash dissent, the carefully crafted fa\u00e7ade of \u00ab\u00a0modern, democratic, and moderate\u00a0\u00bb Tunisia is coming apart at the seams. This is in large part thanks to Tunisia&rsquo;s systematically repressed, persecuted, but tireless human rights activists.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>When the foreign minister comes to Washington, the Barack Obama administration should pressure him on these and many other issues, making it clear that Tunisia&rsquo;s complete disregard for the rights of its citizens needs to change. The Western world owes far more to Tunisia&rsquo;s beleaguered human rights advocates, who need all the help they can get.<\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><span>(*) Rasha Moumneh is a Middle East and North Africa researcher for Human Rights Watch.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">(Source: \u201cForeign Policy\u201d (Revue bimensuelle \u2013 USA), le 26 avril 2010)<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<p><b><span lang=\"FR-CH\">Lien\u00a0:<\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><\/span><\/b><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.foreignpolicy.com\/articles\/2010\/04\/26\/the_myth_of_a_moderate_tunisia?showcomments=yes\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><font>http:\/\/www.foreignpolicy.com\/articles\/2010\/04\/26\/the_myth_of_a_moderate_tunisia?showcomments=yes<\/font><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span dir=\"rtl\" lang=\"AR-SA\"><font><\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><strong><font size=\"3\">Turquie: Les premi\u00e8res dames ont le droit de porter le voile<\/font><\/strong><\/span><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><\/span><\/div>\n<div>\n<hr\/>\n<\/div>\n<p><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" dir=\"ltr\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>AFP, le 29 avril 2010 \u00e0 12h23<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" dir=\"ltr\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"><font>ANKARA, 29 avr 2010 (AFP) &#8211; Un procureur d&rsquo;Ankara a rejet\u00e9 un recours visant \u00e0 interdire \u00e0 la femme du Pr\u00e9sident et \u00e0 celle du Premier ministre de porter le voile dans les sorties officielles, a rapport\u00e9 jeudi la presse en Turquie, o\u00f9 le voile est interdit aux \u00e9tudiantes et aux fonctionnaires.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" dir=\"ltr\"><font>La d\u00e9cision prise en d\u00e9but de semaine fait suite \u00e0 un recours d\u00e9pos\u00e9 par une association de femmes, selon lequel les deux Premi\u00e8res dames commettent un crime en se pr\u00e9sentant avec le foulard islamique \u00e0 des engagements officiels \u00e0 l&rsquo;\u00e9tranger ou aux c\u00e9r\u00e9monies marquant les f\u00eates nationales.<\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" dir=\"ltr\"><font>La Turquie, pays presque exclusivement musulman, est une r\u00e9publique la\u00efque dirig\u00e9e par un gouvernement issu de la mouvance islamique.<\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" dir=\"ltr\"><font>Le procureur d&rsquo;Ankara a estim\u00e9 qu&rsquo;il n&rsquo;y a pas lieu d&rsquo;enqu\u00eater ni de poursuivre puisque le code p\u00e9nal ne qualifie pas ces transgressions suppos\u00e9es de crime.<\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" dir=\"ltr\"><font>Le port du voile est interdit aux fonctionnaires, aux \u00e9tudiants et aux lyc\u00e9ens sur le lieu de leurs activit\u00e9s, de m\u00eame que dans les locaux d\u00e9pendant de l&rsquo;institution militaire. Mais il n&rsquo;y a pas d&rsquo;interdiction dans la vie courante.<\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" dir=\"ltr\"><font>Mmes Hayrunnisa G\u00fcl, \u00e9pouse du pr\u00e9sident Abdullah G\u00fcl, et Emine Erdogan, celle du Premier ministre Recep Tayyip Erdogan, portent le foulard.<\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" dir=\"ltr\"><font>Les d\u00e9fenseurs de la la\u00efcit\u00e9 voient dans le port du voile un d\u00e9fi grandissant aux principes de la R\u00e9publique turque.<\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" dir=\"ltr\"><font>Pour le parti au pouvoir AKP, il s&rsquo;agit d&rsquo;un choix personnel, et l&rsquo;interdiction du voile viole la libert\u00e9 de conscience.<\/font><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" dir=\"ltr\"><font>En 2008, l&rsquo;AKP avait pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 un amendement \u00e0 la Constitution pour lever l&rsquo;interdiction du voile \u00e0 l&rsquo;universit\u00e9. Une initiative rejet\u00e9e par la justice, qui y avait vu une atteinte aux principes de la\u00efcit\u00e9.<\/font><\/p>\n<p dir=\"ltr\">\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><\/font><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p align=\"center\" dir=\"ltr\">\n<h2 style=\"color: red;\"><font face=\"Arial\" size=\"2\"><strong><b><a href=\"http:\/\/www.tunisnews.net\/\"><font face=\"Arial\"><span><font size=\"2\">Home<\/font><\/span><font size=\"2\"><span lang=\"FR-CH\"> &#8211; Accueil <\/span><span>&#8211; <\/span><\/font><\/font><span dir=\"rtl\" lang=\"AR-SA\"><font size=\"2\">\u0627\u0644\u0631\u0626\u064a\u0633\u064a\u0629<\/font><\/span><\/a><\/b><\/strong><\/font><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\" dir=\"ltr\">\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><\/body><\/body><\/html><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Home &#8211; Accueil TUNISNEWS 9\u00a0\u00e8me ann\u00e9e, N\u00b0\u00a03628 du 29.04.2010 \u00a0archives : www.tunisnews.net\u00a0 La Cour de Strasbourg ordonne \u00e0 la Turquie de ne pas extrader M. Malek Charahili en Tunisie et de payer environ 30000 Euros de d\u00e9dommagements \u00e0 l\u2019int\u00e9ress\u00e9 Libert\u00e9 et Equit\u00e9: Nouvelles des libert\u00e9s en Tunisie Le TMG salue la lib\u00e9ration du journaliste Taoufik [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":22040,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[56,41,29],"class_list":["post-15811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-56","tag-41","tag-fr"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15811","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15811"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15811\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22040"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15811"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15811"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tunisnews.net\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15811"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}