“It is unacceptable that despite vital reforms following Tunisia’s Revolution seven years in the past, people are still going through such spurious costs for a Facebook post and are denied their right to freedom of expression,” stated Heba Morayef Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International.
“The reality that Yassine Ayari will face trial earlier than a navy court docket is even extra shocking. Trying civilians earlier than an army tribunal is opposite to global human rights regulation and a violation of the right to a truthful trial.”
Yassine Ayari is a Tunisian activist and blogger who became elected to the parliament in December 2017 as a Tunisian resident in Germany.
In his Facebook post, Ayari mocked the appointment using President Beji Caid Sebssi of Ismail Fatahali as Chief of Land Army, describing him as “touchy” after reporting a quote he allegedly stated in tribulation in 2014 that a “Facebook publish had ruined his moral.”
Seifeddine Makhlouf, considered one of Ayari’s lawyers, told Amnesty International that defense attorneys were not given get right of entry to all court files concerning the prosecution of Ayari, despite repeated requests. Furthermore, the army court docket did no longer notify the defendant of his correct deal and, as an end result, did not realize the trial become taking vicinity.
Yassine Ayari informed Amnesty International that after his attorneys went to the navy court, they located out that two additional lawsuits were filed towards him almost simultaneously. He informed Amnesty International that “until this second, my attorneys and I nevertheless don’t recognize what those costs are. We have truly no facts, regardless of the reality that my legal professionals went several times to the navy courtroom insisting they have to receive get entry to to the documents that issue me”.
Ayari had already faced trial and imprisonment on the subject of preceding important posts online. In November 2014, a navy court convicted Ayari, in absentia, to 3 years imprisonment for “defamation of the military” because he had criticized Defence Minister Ghazi Jerbi and different particular appointments within the army command on Facebook. In January 2015, an army court docket had reduced the sentence to twelve months imprisonment. He was released after six months in prison.
The prosecution of folks for “defaming the army” or other kingdom establishments is incompatible with Tunisia’s responsibilities below global human rights law and contravene the right to freedom of expression underneath article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“If the Tunisian government is simply committed as they declare to the honor and protection of human rights, legislators have to immediately repeal the laws that provide special safety towards complaint to public officials and criminalize defamation of kingdom institutions. Whether of public figures or private individuals, defamation must be handled as a be counted of civil litigation”.
International human rights regulation is obvious that civilians should in no way be prosecuted earlier than military courts. Although Tunisia’s Code of Military Justice changed into reformed in July 2011, it did not limit army courts’ jurisdiction to offenses of a merely military nature dedicated to using military personnel.
“Tunisian authorities have to right now drop the expenses added towards Yassine Ayari,” stated Heba Morayef. “The Tunisian parliament ought to make it a concern to repeal laws that unduly restrict freedom of expression and harmonize the Tunisian prison framework with global norms and standards by explicitly proscribing the army courtroom’s jurisdiction most effective to breaches of army subject committed by using navy personnel.”
Since 2011, a minimum of 10 civilians was tried earlier than military courts in cases related to the unfastened expression of evaluations, typically criticizing the military or kingdom officials. In September 2016, a navy prosecutor charged Jamel Arfaoui, an independent journalist, for undermining the army’s popularity in a piece of writing he wrote on a news internet site. In November 2014, Sahbi Jouini, a police union chief, changed into convicted in absentia and sentenced to two years in jail for defaming the military after he accused the navy of failing to apply data effectively to combat terrorism. In May 2013, blogger Hakim Ghanmi was tried before an army court docket for “undermining the navy reputation” after he complained approximately the director of a navy clinic.
If you’re active in a nonprofit organization, perhaps even elected to serve a term as its president or vice-president, where would you switch if you wished a solution to a parliamentary question, and recognize you’ll get a solution constant with “Robert’s Rules of Order”?
I would like to address the “W” questions – “who, what, while, where, why” – concerning the way to contact a parliamentarian, and for this reason, get answers to your questions.
Regarding “why”: If you need to consult a professional regarding Robert’s Rules of Order, or in case you want advice about a way to run a meeting where there may be motions made and votes taken, then you definitely need a parliamentarian.
Regarding “who”: A parliamentarian is a representative who focuses on parliamentary technique, additionally called a parliamentary law. A parliamentarian knows Robert’s Rules of Order. It might advocate on such things as bylaws amendments and the advocated practices and modern practices for boards and committees of any club-based totally business enterprise, or maybe the ones philanthropic businesses which can be run 100% by using a board-of-administrators and which don’t have any general club in any respect. The skilled parliamentarian will recognize how other nonprofit business enterprises like yours have solved, or side-stepped, the most-not unusual troubles.
Regarding “while”: The ordinary demand for a parliamentarian is for a conference. It is a good idea for the chairman of an annual assembly to have a parliamentarian sitting nearby to advise on the proper method concerning the making of motions and the taking of votes.
