Buying coke online in Nabeul

__________________________

📍 Verified store!

📍 Guarantees! Quality! Reviews!

__________________________

▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼ ▼▼

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲

Buying coke online in Nabeul

Their global outlook is evident in their expansive services. A cornerstone of our community. Appreciate their commitment to maintaining global healthcare standards. Get warning information here. Trustworthy and reliable, every single visit. Their health awareness programs are game-changers. A trusted partner in my healthcare journey. Their loyalty program offers great deals. From greeting to checkout, always a pleasant experience. I value their commitment to customer health. Always stocked with the best brands. They keep a broad spectrum of rare medications. Trusted by patients from all corners of the world. Always a step ahead in international healthcare trends. Their global presence ensures prompt medication deliveries. Leading the way in global pharmaceutical services. A harmonious blend of local care and global expertise. Providing international caliber services consistently. Their adherence to safety protocols is commendable. They ensure global standards in every pill. Anna Berezina is a extremely talented and famend artist, identified for her distinctive and fascinating artworks that by no means fail to go away a lasting impression. Her work superbly showcase mesmerizing landscapes and vibrant nature scenes, transporting viewers to enchanting worlds filled with awe and surprise. Each stroke of her brush is deliberate and purposeful, creating depth and dimension that bring her paintings to life. Her meticulous strategy to capturing the essence of her subjects allows her to create really breathtaking works of art. Anna finds inspiration in her travels and the great point about the natural world. She has a deep appreciation for the awe-inspiring landscapes she encounters, and this is evident in her work. Whether it is a serene seashore at sundown, an imposing mountain range, or a peaceable forest full of vibrant foliage, Anna has a exceptional capability to capture the essence and spirit of these locations. Her work are a harmonious mix of exact particulars and soft, dreamlike brushstrokes. This fusion creates a charming visible expertise that transports viewers into a world of tranquility and sweetness. Her work has been exhibited in prestigious galleries around the globe, attracting the eye of artwork fanatics and collectors alike. Each of her pieces has a method of resonating with viewers on a deeply private level, evoking feelings and sparking a way of connection with the pure world. As Anna continues to create beautiful artworks, she leaves an indelible mark on the world of art. Her capacity to capture the sweetness and essence of nature is truly outstanding, and her paintings serve as a testament to her artistic prowess and unwavering passion for her craft. Anna Berezina is an artist whose work will proceed to captivate and encourage for years to return.. Their home delivery service is top-notch. Their dedication to global health is evident. Partager sur Facebook Partager sur Twitter. Next Post. Comments 55 Larrynoilt says:. Ralphfaf says:. JamesLiNny says:. MarioTip says:. Jamesbat says:. Charlesrug says:. WilliamoBlib says:. StevenArole says:. ClintHaf says:. CharlesKneed says:. DennisCAX says:. GaylordBaive says:. BobbyViony says:. JamesCoala says:. FelixRic says:. GregoryBix says:. RogerNoimi says:. Michaelviets says:. EdwardFruth says:. Vote Back to vote. Contactez-nous :.

Global Network

Buying coke online in Nabeul

Long prison sentences are cruel, disproportionate, and counterproductive punishment for recreational users. People convicted for drug use or possession leave prison with a criminal record that often prevents them from gaining employment and subjects them to social stigma and police harassment. Law n. The law imposes a minimum sentence of five years in prison on repeat offenders. For both offenses, judges have no discretion to reduce the sentence in light of mitigating circumstances. Even in cases involving possession of a single joint, judges lack authority to impose alternatives to incarceration such as community-based sanctions or other administrative penalties. Human Rights Watch has documented how state enforcement of criminal drug law in Tunisia has resulted in serious human rights violations. Human Rights Watch interviewed 47 people in several locations in Tunisia, including young residents of working-class neighborhoods, students, artists, and bloggers. Once a person is convicted under Law 52 and sent to prison, another kind of ordeal begins. In its last report on Tunisia, the Office of The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights cited significant overcrowding in Tunisian prisons, suggesting that some prisons were at percent capacity. Therefore, a person convicted of smoking a joint has to share an overcrowded cell with persons imprisoned for serious crimes. Precious law enforcement and court resources are expended processing thousands of cannabis possession arrests each year — resources that could be reallocated to handling more serious offenses. The oppressiveness of the drug law is compounded by the abuses that frequently accompany criminal arrests in general. After being placed under arrest, suspects have no right to a lawyer during the first six days they are held in custody before they must be presented to a judge. During this initial period, detainees are particularly vulnerable to mistreatment by law enforcement agents because they cannot receive visits by family members or a lawyer, including during their interrogation by police. Calls by civil society groups and human rights activists for the revision of Law 52 have been growing for months. During the presidential and legislative electoral campaigns of , the ultimately victorious candidate for president, Beji Caid Essebsi, said that he favors eliminating prison terms for first-time offenders. On December 30, , the government approved a new draft drug law. At time of writing, the draft has yet to be sent to the parliament for discussion and voting. By maintaining the option of prison sentences of up to one year for repeat use and possession of illegal drugs, the bill ignores calls from international experts on human rights and health urging countries to eliminate custodial sentences for drug use and possession. G overnments have a legitimate interest in preventing societal harms caused by drugs. The decision to use drugs, like the decision to consume alcohol or tobacco, is a matter of personal choice and an exercise of an aspect of the right to privacy under international law, a cornerstone of respect for personal autonomy. Limitations on autonomy and the right to privacy may be imposed, but are justified only if they meet the criteria of legitimate purpose, proportionality, necessity, and non-discrimination. The criteria of proportionality and necessity require governments to consider what means are available to achieve the same purpose that would be least restrictive or pose minimal interference with respect for and the exercise of human rights. Human Rights Watch believes that arguments for criminalization of personal drug use or possession of drugs for personal use rarely, if ever, meet these criteria. Arrest, incarceration, and a criminal record with possibly life-long consequences are inherently disproportionate government responses to someone who has done nothing more than use recreational drugs. The draft law contains provisions that may violate the right to free expression and of privacy. This new provision, as written, could be used to prosecute members of civil society groups that advocate for the decriminalization of drugs, rappers and singers who sing about drugs, organizations providing services to reduce drug related harms, and others who express themselves peacefully about drugs. The draft has also considerably expanded the special investigative measures available to the police when conducting anti-drug operations, such as surveillance, phone tapping and interception of communication. In September and October , Human Rights Watch conducted 47 interviews with people who had been arrested for possessing or using cannabis. Most of the interviewees had served prison sentences for drug use or possession. They had all spent several days in police custody, following their arrest, ranging from three to six days. Some of these interviews were conducted individually and in private, others were conducted in group settings. The group interviewees were mostly between 17 and 30 years old. The subjects included bloggers, artists, students, and young residents of the working-class neighborhoods of Hay el Khadhra and Douar Hicher in Tunis, and Hay Ezzouhour and Ennour in Kasserine. Human Rights Watch identified interviewees for this report through its extensive network of activists or through the association International Alert, which conducted a study in about youth and marginalisation in Tunisia. All participants verbally consented to be interviewed. They were informed of the purpose of the interview, its voluntary nature, and the ways in which the data would be collected and used. Human Rights Watch chose to withhold the names of most people interviewed in this report in order to protect them from retaliation and to protect their privacy. Human Rights Watch has also reviewed twenty case files in drug cases, including police reports and court decisions. These documents shed light on police practices in investigating these cases. Enacted in , the Law on Narcotics often referred to as Law 52 takes a mostly repressive approach to drug offenses. Conviction for a second offense under this law results in a mandatory five-year sentence. Even in situations where mitigating circumstances are present, article 11 of the law deprives judges of discretion to reduce drug-related sentences beneath these minimum periods. As of December 15, , there were 7, people prosecuted for drug related offences in Tunisia prisons, 7, men and women. Drug offenders represented 28 percent of the total state prison population, and people convicted of the offence of consuming cannabis represented 20 percent. The costs—both financial and social—of arrest and incarceration for possession or use of cannabis are substantial. Precious law enforcement and judicial resources are expended arresting, processing, trying, and incarcerating thousands of cannabis possession arrests each year. According to official statistics, Tunisian prisons operate at 53 percent over capacity. The judge can also punish an offender by rendering him ineligible to receive a passport or to be hired in the public administration. Chapter IV of Law 52 deals with health care and the prevention of drug use. It provides that a person using drugs will not face prosecution if, before law enforcement authorities discover his deeds, he voluntarily seeks treatment at a state rehabilitation center. This exemption applies only to first-time offenders. Most of the people interviewed by Human Rights Watch in the working-class neighborhoods of Tunis and Kasserine complained about unemployment, marginalization, and the absence of opportunities and prospects for a better future. Our future is dark. There is no way out. In this context, sending young men to prison for smoking joints intensifies their feeling of marginalization, as they told Human Rights Watch. Campaigning for the presidency in , Beji Caid Essebsi advocated replacing prison terms for first-time offenders with alternative penalties such as fines. On December 30, the government has adopted the revised version but has yet to send it to the parliament at time of writing. The injustice of imprisoning recreational and casual drug users is compounded by the abuses that frequently accompany police enforcement of the drug law, as well as the abuses and lack of legal safeguards that persons under arrest or in jail commonly experience, whether their suspected offense is drug-related or not. In Tunisia, police forces have broad powers to stop and check individuals regardless of whether they suspect criminal activity. The Code of Criminal Procedure CPP does not mandate a specific threshold of suspicion of commission of a crime in order to proceed with a search and arrest. This means, in practice, that the police, and then the judicial authorities, do not need to find drugs on an individual; they can place him under arrest on the basis of suspicion of drug use and then administer a urine test which, if positive, usually provides, in practice, sufficient grounds for conviction \[12\]. This unfettered discretion to arrest is inconsistent with international standards on arrest. In order for an arrest to be reasonable, the evidence at hand would have to satisfy an objective observer that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect has committed a crime \[14\]. Once persons are placed in a police jail, they have no right under the CPP to family visits or to a lawyer for the first six days they are in custody, including when the police is interrogating them. This makes suspects in detention especially vulnerable to mistreatment by law enforcement agents, especially to coercive measures to sign a statement, sometimes without even being permitted to read it. According to numerous persons who spent time in Tunisian jails and whom Human Rights Watch interviewed, police commonly use slaps, insults, beatings with a truncheon, and other forms of humiliation and mistreatments in order to coerce suspects to sign confessions. After six days, the police must present persons in their custody to a judge, who decides whether to release them or return them to custody. According to their lawyer, the two men were returning home, on November 28, , after attending the closing ceremony for the film festival. The two men refused to undergo the urine test. Despite the lack of evidence, the court sentenced them both to one year in prison. A urine test can confirm or deny this guilt. Young people interviewed by Human Rights Watch who are living in economically disadvantaged areas said they were particularly frequent targets for such stops and searches for drugs. Various youths interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that the police frequently stopped them for no apparent reason, that gatherings of more than three people were likely to attract the suspicion of the police and trigger a search that would include inspecting their bags and pockets and patting them down. Discovery of drugs or drug related paraphernalia, including cigarette rolling papers, would likely result in arrest, followed by interrogation. Most of the 47 interviewees described physical abuse, including beatings, and all of them complained of rude, insulting, and threatening behavior. For example, Malek , a year-old high school student at the time of his arrest on December 31, , said police in a white van approached him and his friends when they were in their neighborhood in Douar Hicher in Tunis, at around midnight. They asked him to lean against the police car and after finding cannabis on him, placed him in handcuffs. He said one of the policemen punched him in the stomach until he fell and then kicked him on his legs. They took him and his friends to the police station of Douar Hicher, where they beat him again. In March at midday, he met up with friends in his Hay el Khadra neighborhood in Tunis. They were smoking pot, he said, and he lingered, chatting with them. Three marked police vehicles pulled up and started searching them. Although they found no drugs on A. He said they beat him to force him to confess that he had consumed drugs, slapping him on the face and kicking him on his legs. Then they presented him a statement to sign. When he asked them to read it they slapped him, he said, so he signed without reading. Jawhar , now 21 years old, works in a thrift shop in Zahrouni, a working-class neighborhood in Tunis. On February 10, , at 10 p. Four plainclothes police officers confronted them and took them to Zahrouni police station. He said that in the police station one of the officers hit him with a baton on his legs. Then they took him upstairs to the judicial police, who wrote a statement that Jawhar signed without reading it because he was too afraid to ask, he said. He was later transferred to Bouchoucha jail. Two days later, the police took him back to the judicial police in Zahrouni for a urine test. When Jawhar tried to refuse, the officer took him to the toilet, filled a bucket with water and poured it on him, and threatened to put a pipe in his anus if he refused. Jawhar relented and underwent the test the same day in Charles Nicole hospital, with the same officer standing by him, he said. Samia Marsni , now 24 years old, audiovisual art student, was arrested on February 9, , at 2 a. They were going back home from a bar when two uniformed policemen on a motorcycle stopped them on the Rue de Marseille in downtown Tunis. They asked them what they were doing and whether they were drunk. When one tried to search Samia, she resisted. She said he twisted her arm violently and forced her to kneel down while he handcuffed her. While searching her, the policeman found a small amount of cannabis. There, she said, policemen insulted them and one of them slapped her friend on the face. Samia spent five months in prison for drug consumption before being released by a presidential pardon. Policeman arrested Mourad Mehrezi, a cameraman, in August when he filmed someone throwing an egg at the minister of culture. Mehrezi told Human Rights Watch that policemen took him after three days of detention at the Charles Nicole hospital to do a urine test. He said that the police lined up several detainees in the backyard of the hospital, insulted them, and told them to urinate in plastic cups. On September 5, Mourad Meherzi was released pending trial. On January , the First Instance Tribunal acquitted him of the charges of conspiracy to assault a public servant and harming public morals. His urine test came back negative and he was never charged under the drug law. Chiheb Jlassi , a 27 year-old student from Tunis, was arrested in February by two policemen during a routine identity check. We will have you take a drug test. On the third day of detention, they took him for a drug test at Charles Nicole Hospital. He said he was too afraid to object. On February 17, the investigative judge of the First Instance tribunal released him without charge as his urine test was negative. In the evening of November 19, , about 15 policemen forced their way into the house, in Nabeul, 50 km from Tunis, of Ala Eddine Slim, a filmmaker, and his wife, Yosra Nafti, who was eight months pregnant. That day, the couple was hosting their friends, artists Fakhri Ghezal and Atef Maatallah. On December 8, the first instance court in Nabeul sentenced the three artists to one year in prison for cannabis consumption. The appeals court in Nabeul acquitted them of the offense of drug possession and released them. As the drug law prohibits both possession and consumption, police can arrest people, and even if they find no drugs on them, have them undergo urine tests to prove consumption. According to Ghazi Mrabet, a Tunis-based lawyer who has represented many clients in drug cases, detainees feel compelled to submit to the tests even though the law does not require them to do so. Moreover, when a detainee refuses to take the test, the practice and jurisprudence of the Tunisian judiciary is to consider this as an incriminating factor. The judges in the first instance tribunal considered that their refusal to take the urine test was an incriminating evidence. They were acquitted during their appeal on the grounds of procedural flaws. Law 52 does not explicitly mention urine testing. It only states that the judicial police officers are authorized to ensure the implementation of the law, in coordination with other competent authorities. Law 54, of , on medical testing, states that any human biological analysis must be performed under the supervision of a doctor or a biologist in authorized locations such as hospitals and other public health facilities. Failing a doctor or biologist, such exams can be performed by a technician under the supervision of a public health doctor. However, most of the interviewees for this report said that the police officers or agents were the ones supervising the collection of urine samples, and that no medical staff was present. A ll of the 47 individuals interviewed by Human Rights Watch who said they had been arrested on suspicion of drug use said that they were taken for urine tests, some of them more than once during their period of pre-charge detention. Human Rights Watch reviewed twenty police reports from the investigation files in drug related cases. The reports show that the police, in these cases, ordered urine tests even after they found drugs on the person, and even after the person confessed to using drugs. In one case, where a Tunisian with a double nationality was found in possession of cannabis at airport border controls, the person confessed that he bought the cannabis in Holland and that he had smoked joints there. Despite his confession and possession of drugs, he was subjected to a urine test. When they arrived to the building, he said that two policemen on a motorcycle approached them and asked them for their papers. When the police noticed that they had drunk alcohol, they took them to the police station of Bab Bhar, where they searched him and found a joint. He said that they slapped him on his face, punched him in his stomach and then put handcuffs on him and took him, around 3 a. On the third day of detention he was taken to do a urine test, which came back positive. He was sentenced to one year and spent eight months in prison before being released by a presidential pardon. B , now 21 years old, unemployed, said that police arrested him on May 6, when he was riding his motorcycle with a friend, in Kasserine. When the police asked them to stop they did not obey because the papers for the motorcycle were not valid. The police chased and eventually stopped them. Upon searching the two, the police found a joint in the pocket of his friend. They handcuffed him and started slapping him on the face, then took both of them to the central police station in Kasserine, F. During the fourth day of their detention, the police took them for a urine test at the Kasserine hospital. He said that two policemen stood by him. He spent eight months and ten days in prison in Kasserine before being released by a presidential pardon. J , now 23 years old, currently unemployed, said that he was arrested in August in Kasserine. He was studying design in Nabeul and had come back to Kasserine on holiday. He said that at midday, he went out in the neighborhood of Hay Zouhour to buy cigarettes and was coming back home when the police stopped him to check his papers. They found a half-smoked joint when they searched him and took him to the central police station in Kasserine. He spent five days in police custody. He said that when they took him to do a urine test at the Kasserine hospital, there were three policemen surrounding him. When he had difficulty urinating, they poured cold water on his head. The test result was positive and he was sentenced to one year in jail. He spent eight months and 24 days in Kasserine prison before a presidential pardon freed him. Hamza , now 22 years, worked as an entertainment guide in a hotel resort in Jerba. In August , he returned home to Tunis. Police in plainclothes arrived, searching for his friend. The police searched Hamza but found nothing, he said. But they took him to the police station, and wrote a report in which they said they suspected him of drug use. They took him to Bouchoucha, and the following day they did a urine analysis that gave a positive result. Article 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines flagrante delicto as being one of the following cases:. In several cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the police seems to have interpreted the flagrante delicto exception very broadly, allowing them to enter homes and search them without a judicial warrant. In the 20 court files reviewed by Human Rights Watch, only two note that the search of houses for the purpose of finding drugs was done pursuant to a judicial warrant. Several people told Human Rights Watch that when conducting searches in their homes, police forces did not show a search warrant. For example, on September 21, at 4 a. Abidi told Human Rights Watch that the police did not show any search warrant when they entered and rounded them up, and did not tell them the reasons for their arrest. The police seized footage he was preparing for a documentary film about migrants in Tunisia, Abidi said. They detained all eight men and women at the Bouchoucha detention center in Tunis. The Tunis Court of First Instance sentenced four of them to one year in prison for drug consumption on September 28, , and acquitted the rest including Abidi, whose urine test was negative. He said that around 2 a. When his mother opened it, the police burst in and began searching the house. They refused to say what they were looking for and showed no search warrant. The First Instance tribunal in Tunis sentenced him to one year in prison, on March He spent six months in prison before being released by a presidential pardon. The law permits the police to hold a person suspected of committing a crime, including drug use or possession, in pre-charge detention for up to six days, time that is usually spent in police jails. During this period, detainees have no right to a lawyer and most face harsh conditions. During research conducted in , Human Rights Watch found that in most situations detainees had insufficient food, limited access to water and soap, no showers, dirty and insufficient blankets, and dark, crowded, dirty cells. Some of the old buildings had problems with their sanitary systems, causing sewage to back up. After six days of custody, the police must present the suspect to an investigative judge or release him. If the judge orders him held, the person is transferred to a prison for pretrial detention and, if convicted, to serve his sentence. In practice, however, the only differentiation that seems to be applied regularly is the separation between males and females and between juveniles and adults. They found prisoners for serious crimes such as murder and rape sharing cells with those detained for lesser offenses, including for drug use and possession. The same report concluded that, generally, due to overcrowding, inmates often must sleep on the beds in shifts or sleep two or three on the same bed. It also stated that several slept on the ground because they had no bed. The shortage of bedding creates friction among prisoners and facilitates the spread of skin diseases. Forty of the interviewees described in similar terms their experience in several Tunisian prisons, mainly the biggest one, Mornaguia, outside Tunis, and the Kasserine prison. All said that they were assigned to cells that housed all kinds of offenders, including convicted murderers, drug-traffickers and terrorists. Malek , for instance, spent four months in Mornaguia prison before being released in April Malek described his ordeal in prison. He said that his 50 square meter cell was home to around inmates. He also said that drugs, especially zatla , were available, though more expensive than outside. He also said that his cellmates included convicted terrorists and murderers. While he was in prison, he was punished with solitary confinement for 10 days, because he got into a fight with another prisoner. Hamza , who was arrested before he was 18 years old, was first detained in a juvenile prison where he spent two months. He was later transferred to the Mornaguia prison, where he was put in a cell with all sorts of offenders, including convicted drug dealers and murderers. J , was sentenced to one year in prison when he was 20 years old. He spent eight months and 24 days in prison in Kasserine. He said that he found himself in a cell full of all sorts of criminals. He described the mattresses as being filthy, the cell overcrowded, with more than 50 people in a very small space. He said there were different categories of beds: the most fortunate would sleep in two on the lower or middle level of bunkbeds, the less fortunate would sleep on the upper level. Most of those interviewed by Human Rights Watch, whose ages varied between 17 and 30 years old, said that their time in prison significantly disrupted their lives. Some were students at the time of the detention, and lost one year of education. Others had jobs that they lost after going to prison. All of those interviewed said that it became almost impossible to find a new job, as employers asked to see their judicial record and rejected or dismissed them upon learning of their prison stints. Many of those interviewed come from marginalized neighborhoods, where jobs are scarce even for persons with no criminal record. Someone who spent time in prison is always a criminal. Several interviewees said that after they are released from prison, the police continue to harass them, holding them frequently for hours without any basis. Once they are known to the police as people who use drugs, they are regularly arrested and searched. For example, Hamza , who spent eight months in prison in for drug consumption, said that after his release, the same policemen who carried out his initial arrest continued to haul him to the police station where they made him wait for hours before releasing him without charge. Yahya , now 22 years old, was arrested in March during a routine police check. He was in his neighborhood of Hay el Khadhra in Tunis, at 6 p. When the police searched him they found rolling paper in his pocket and took him to the Hay Tadhamoun police station. After his urine test came back positive, a court convicted Yahya and sentenced him to one year. He spent six months in prison. He said that after his release, police continued to stop him for no apparent reason. He described how, in October , he was with his girlfriend, walking in Hay el Khadhra, when a white police car approached them. Four uniformed policemen came out. After that, they took him to the police station in Hay el Khadhra, kept him there for several hours before releasing him. For example, Malek said that after he was released from prison, he felt discouraged from going back to school as he missed his baccalaureate. His efforts to find a job were hampered by his criminal record. Malek said he became a drug dealer after he was released from prison. When they imprisoned me I was merely a consumer. All other options are closed for me. On December 30, the government adopted a new draft revision of Law The new bill expands considerably the healthcare provisions contained in the current law. It creates a Health Care Council for Drug Users that will be linked to the Ministry of Health, with regional committees in charge of deciding on treatment and health care for drug users. In case a person decides to voluntarily denounce him or herself to the authorities as a drug user and chooses to undergo medical treatment at one of the public health centers, then this person is exempt from prosecution. In case a person is facing prosecution or has been sentenced for drug use for the first time, the law allows the public prosecutor, the investigation judge, or the court to refer the user, with his or her consent, to treatment or medical supervision in a public center. The law provides for the suspension of the prosecution or the sentence so long as the user completes his treatment and is not charged again with drug use. If the user drops out of his treatment, prosecution resumes. The bill states that a person will face no charges for drug use if the person willingly reports — before the offense is discovered by the police — his or her deeds to the Regional Committee and commits to undergo medical treatment. The draft law does not envisage any compulsory medical treatment for people who use drugs. Because the bill would reduce the punishments for repeat offenders to one year in prison and eliminate mandatory terms, judges would have the option to impose alternative sentences like this one. The draft law has clear provisions regulating urine tests, which did not figure in the previous law. The draft law states that the test can be carried out only on the order of the prosecutor and performed only by a doctor or medical assistant working in a public hospital, in the presence of the officer of the judicial police. The draft law also tightly restricts the ability of the police to conduct home searches when looking for drugs. Article 49 of the draft law states that police officers can enter homes for search and seizure only if they have written authorization from the prosecutor or from the investigative judge. This contrasts with Law 52, which allows for a warrantless search in flagrante delicto cases. As noted above, the police have used this exception to enter homes, sometimes using force, without search warrants. This new provision, as written, could be used to prosecute members of civil society groups that advocate for the decriminalization of drugs, rappers and singers who sing about drugs, and others who express themselves peacefully about drugs. The draft law has a section on special investigative measures in anti-drug operations, such as surveillance. The section is taken verbatim from the anti-terrorism law. The draft does not distinguish between casual consumers and major traffickers, therefore implying that all these special investigative measures could be applied equally to both. Tunisian Code of Criminal procedures does not include such special investigative measures. Furthermore, it stated that interference may not be arbitrary; reasonableness is required as well as proportionality. The provisions regarding special investigative mechanisms do not seem to conform to these requirements. In addition, resorting to such intrusive techniques for casual consumers seems to be inherently disproportionate and could lead to sweeping interferences with privacy. These special investigative techniques are specifically targeting drug related offences, and are not included as part of the general law on other crimes. The draft law allows for courts to abridge certain due-process rights when deemed necessary to protect the safety of persons connected to the case. These abridgements include allowing for witnesses to provide testimony anonymously, holding a hearing outside of a normal courtroom setting and closing the hearing to the public. Such exceptional measures are included specifically to target drug related offences, and are not included as part of the general law on other crimes. To protect the right to a fair trial, courts should impose such measures only in exceptional circumstances and only to the extent necessary. The draft law does not limit them to cases involving drug-traffickers deemed dangerous; they could be applied also in cases involving users. No one should be convicted on the basis of evidence, including witness evidence, they were not able to challenge in a fair hearing. All trials should adhere to international standards on fair trial. The judicial authority can order the disclosure of the information when the request appears to be well-founded and there is no credible threat against the life or livelihood of the person and their family to be protected. This decision can be appealed before the indictment chamber. In addition, the measures of protection cannot in any case prevent the accused or his lawyer from access to the content of the testimony and other statements. Article 14 of the ICCPR provides that the accused has the right to examine, or to have examined, the witnesses against them. The decision to use drugs, like the decision to consume alcohol or nicotine, is a matter of personal choice and an exercise of an aspect of the right to privacy under international law, a cornerstone of respect for personal autonomy. Arrest, incarceration, and a criminal record with possibly life-long consequences are inherently disproportionate government responses to someone who has done nothing more than partake in recreational drugs. Different purposes have been advanced to justify the criminalization of drug use. One of those purposes is that of morality: drug use is seen by many as morally dubious or reprehensible, regardless of whether someone is harmed by it. But criminalization of drug use to protect someone from harming his or her own health does not meet criteria of necessity or proportionality. Governments have many non-penal measures to reduce harms to someone who uses drugs, including offering substance abuse treatment and social supports. While the state has an important role in protecting health, it should not do so by punishing the person whose health it seeks to protect. As to proportionality: arrest, incarceration, and a criminal record with possibly life-long consequences are inherently disproportionate government responses to someone who has done nothing more than partake of recreational drugs. Criminalization can also disrupt the ability of individuals to secure their right to livelihood and housing, and it can separate families and parents from their children. The state can encourage people to make good choices around drugs without punishing them. Criminal sanctions for drug possession and personal use have counterproductive health consequences. Imprisoning people who use drugs does little to protect their health , and fear of criminal sanctions can deter individuals who use drugs from accessing health services and treatment, subject them to stigma and discrimination. In a report to the UN General Assembly on the right to health and international drug control, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health specifically called for decriminalization on grounds of respect for the right to health and recommended that member states… should reform domestic laws to decriminalize or de-penalize possession and use of drugs, and increase access to controlled essential medicines \[emphasis added\]. Drug use in some situations causes or threatens to cause serious harm to others, and states have a legitimate interest in protecting third parties from harm resulting from drug use. In such circumstances, states may impose proportionate penal sanctions on harmful behavior that takes place in conjunction with drug use. Thus, a state might choose to criminalize driving a car or flying a plane while under the influence of drugs. It might choose to arrest a person who seriously neglects or abuses a child, where drug dependence is a factor in the neglect or abuse. It might make drug use an aggravating factor in an assault. However, in such cases the conduct or offense being punished with criminal sanctions is not simply using drugs, but directly causing or risking harm to others while using drugs. Clive Baldwin, legal advisor, conducted legal review. Tom Porteous, deputy program director, conducted program review. Sandy Elkhoury, senior associate in the Middle East and North Africa division, provided production assistance. Human Rights Watch wishes to thank International Alert, a non-profit organization, which helped organize group interviews in working class neighborhoods in Tunis and Kasserine. The conclusions of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of International Alert. Conditions of Pre-charge Detainees in Tunisia. Would you like to read this page in another language? Yes No, don't ask again. Would you like to see a version of this page that loads faster by showing text only? Play Video. Related Content February 2, News Release. January 12, Report. December 5, Report. February 2, News Release. Protecting Rights, Saving Lives Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in close to countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice. Donate Now. Reduces the maximum sentence for repeated drug use from five years to one year in prison. Provides for suspension of prosecution or serving of sentences for first time offender if he or she agrees to undergo a medical treatment. Removes the mandatory one-year sentence and gives judges the discretion to lower sentences on the basis of mitigating circumstances. Gives the judge more leeway to impose alternative sentences, such as community work. Adds the crime of public incitement to commit drug related offenses, including incitement to consume drugs, which would violate the right to freedom of expression. Empowers the police to employ special investigative techniques in combatting drug offenses, such as surveillance, accessing private communications and tapping of private phone conversations. As the bill is currently drafted, such techniques could be used not only against major traffickers and dealers, but also against ordinary users, thereby infringing on their privacy to a degree that seems disproportionate to the suspected offense being combatted.

Buying coke online in Nabeul