VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTU #1620/01 3651609
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 311609Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY TUNIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4252
INFO RUCNMGH/MAGHREB COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L TUNIS 001620 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR S/CT AND NEA/MAG (HARRIS AND HOPKINS); 
NSC FOR RAMCHAND 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/30/2017 
TAGS: PTER PHUM KDEM PGOV PREL PINR TS
SUBJECT: 30 CONVICTED OF INVOLVEMENT IN DEC 2006/JAN 2007 
TERRORIST INCIDENTS 
 
REF: A. TUNIS 1328 
     ¶B. TUNIS 154 AND PREVIOUS 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Robert F. Godec for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (C) On December 30, the Tunis Court of First Instance 
sentenced 30 Tunisians to punishments from death to five 
years in prison for their involvement in the December 
2006/January 2007 terrorist incidents.  Many of the 
defendants, known as the "Soliman Group," denied their 
involvement and alleged they signed confessions after being 
tortured by the security services.  Despite GOT reports to 
the contrary, no evidence was presented that US or UK 
interests were among the group's targets.  The trial was 
marked by significant hostility among the judge, defendants 
and lawyers, who complained that the trial was not fair and 
the outcome was predetermined.  End Summary. 
 
------- 
CHARGES 
------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) The 30 Tunisian defendants, whose ages range from 
22-43, were accused of attempting to unseat the government, 
attempting to commit terrorist acts, murder with intent, 
attempted murder, possession of weapons and explosives to 
commit terrorist acts, and belonging to an illegal 
organization (Ref A).  The almost 2,000 pages of government 
evidence, which included confessions by most of the accused, 
alleged the 30 were members of "Assad Ibn Fourat's Army," 
which planned to carry out terrorist attacks in Tunisia in 
late December 2006 and January 2007 (Ref B).  The trial was 
first convened on November 27, and subsequent sessions were 
held in a packed courtroom at the Tunis Palace of Justice on 
December 1, 15, 22 and 29.  (Note: PolOff attended the four 
December sessions. End Note.)  In the final appearance, which 
lasted over 12 hours, all thirty defendants were found 
guilty.  Two were sentenced to death, eight to life in 
prison, seven to 30 years, two each to 20 years, 15 years, 
ten and five years, and one each to seven and six years. 
Defense lawyers plan to appeal the judgments. 
 
------------------------------- 
DENIALS AND TORTURE ALLEGATIONS 
------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) Almost all of the defendants denied any involvement 
in terrorist activity, including shooting at security forces 
and detonating explosives during the December/January 
clashes.  One was accused of attempting to blow up the 
Central Bank in Tunis and other security areas (nfi), but 
there was no specific mention of other targets.  Noticeably 
absent was any reference to the targeting of US and UK 
interests in Tunisia, as had been reported to us and publicly 
announced by senior Tunisian officials in early 2007.  Most 
defendants denied that they had been captured at what the 
court described as a terrorist camp or had undertaken any 
terrorist training. 
 
¶4. (SBU) During the trial, many of the defendants alleged 
that they had been tortured by GOT security services.  The 
accused stated that they had been tortured both at the 
Ministry of Interior in Tunis and at the Mornaguia prison 
where they have been detained for much of 2007.  Some stated 
that they were arrested before the official date of their 
arrest, and were subjected to torture during the intervening 
days and weeks.  Several cited their torturers by (partial) 
name, and one defendant claimed he had been tortured in the 
presence of Minister of Interior Rafik Belhaj Kacem. 
 
----------- 
FAIR TRIAL? 
----------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Independent lawyers, including several political and 
human rights leaders, argued that the trial was marked by 
procedural errors.  Defense lawyers asked the judge 
repeatedly for a delay to allow them to read the almost 2,000 
page dossier and prepare for trial.  Several lawyers reported 
they had been unable to meet with their clients, despite 
having visit permits.  Although the judge did postpone the 
hearing three times, when the court reconvened on December 29 
judge Mehrez Hammami announced there would be no further 
postponements despite the repeated requests of the dean of 
the Tunisian Bar Association to allow defense lawyers to 
 
adequately prepare.  When the judge refused to acknowledge 
Dean Bechir Essid late on December 29, many defense lawyers 
withdrew from the courtroom in protest; the proceedings 
continued. 
 
¶6. (C) Throughout the tense and hostile trial, the judge, 
lawyers and defendants regularly argued and shouted at and 
over each other.  Lawyers accused the judge of rushing to 
reach a verdict and not respecting the legal profession by 
allowing lawyers time to prepare for trial.  Lawyers argued 
that the less than ten minutes of court questioning of the 
defendants amounted to less than a minute of questioning for 
each charge, despite the fact that some faced the death 
penalty.  On many occasions, the judge refused to ask the 
defendants questions raised by defense attorneys about their 
torture allegations.  A lawyer observing the trial told 
PolOff that the perfunctory questioning was unprecedented in 
a case with such serious allegations, saying "Any judge 
interested in justice would ensure the accused had an 
opportunity to respond to all questions."  Another lawyer 
argued that the judge was only looking for evidence of guilt, 
not evidence of innocence.  The judge directed the court 
recorder to ignore some of the defendants' denials and 
allegations of torture.  On several occasions, the judge 
refused to acknowledge defense attorneys who had questions 
for their clients or refused to recognize attorneys at all. 
 
¶7. (C) Defendants were also hostile to the judge, in some 
cases refusing to address him and arguing over his 
instructions.  One frustrated defendant told the judge, 
"There is no difference between you and the police."  In 
response, the judge ordered this defendant, and later 
another, be removed from the courtroom.  Other defendants 
shouted religious slogans during the trial, including "Only 
God can judge us!" and "God is great!"  Family members of the 
accused, only twenty or so were allowed to attend, were 
similarly disruptive at points during the trial, particularly 
in early sessions.  Yet the court overflowed with defense 
attorneys (almost fifty), uniformed and plainclothes police 
(almost fifty) and a large number of lawyers not involved in 
the case who had come to observe.  (Note: Police controlled 
access to the court, but cannot prevent lawyers from entering 
the Palace of Justice.  End Note.) 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶8. (C) The judge's insistence on continuing the trial into 
the night of December 29 and the final decision being issued 
on a Sunday (when courts are usually closed) would seem to 
indicate that he was determined to issue a judgment, despite 
defense objections.  While we do not doubt that members of 
the group may have had terrorist intentions, the trial 
proceedings did not meet the basic definition of fairness. 
Indeed, other than their own admissions and subsequent 
denials, there was little evidence of the guilt or innocence 
of the accused.  End Comment. 
 
Please visit Embassy Tunis' Classified Website at: 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/tunis/index.c fm 
GODEC