Category World News

More than 40 people are set to face charges of conspiracies against the Tunisian state and its president, Kais Saied, in a large-scale trial in Tunisia.

The trial was originally scheduled to begin on March 4, but was moved to April 11 and then resumed for a week.

Some of Tunisia’s most senior opposition politicians, diplomats, and media figures claim the charges, including collaborating with “foreign powers” to undermine Saied’s rule, are trumped up and a sign of Tunisia’s democratic backsliding.

Nearly all of the defendants are facing death row or lengthy jail sentences.

Since 1991, Tunisian courts have effectively suspended executions.

In this case, would some of the defendants receive a death sentence? Would it be put into practice, then?

Let’s examine this more closely.

Does Tunisia still have a death penalty?

Judges are still able to decide whether to carry out the death penalty, but it hasn’t since 1991, putting a de facto moratorium on it.

Tunisia has consistently supported UN efforts to put a global moratorium on the use of the death penalty since 2012, despite the 2014 constitution’s specific provisional provisions for legal executions.

The death penalty has not been eliminated, though.

In Tunisia, have people been given the death penalty?

The penalty is still a topic of law and sentences, despite the “Butcher of Nabeul” serial killer Naceur Damergi, who was hanged in 1991, being the last to be executed in Tunisia.

Eight people were given death sentences for the 2013 murder of opposition politician Mohammed Brahmi, and four were given death sentences for the killing of Chokri Belaid, who was also convicted of the murder of another politician, Chokri Belaid, in February of this year.

In 2022, 16 people who had been accused of being ISIL (ISIS) members were given death sentences for their involvement in the 2016 attack on Ben Guerdane, which resulted in the deaths of 13 security forces members and seven civilians.

In addition, a Tunisian court sentenced eight people to death in January 2020 for their involvement in the 2015 suicide bombing of a Tunisian presidential guard bus, which left 20 people dead and 20 injured.

Do some defendants in “constitutional cases” face the death penalty?

According to Article 72 of the Penal Code, Jaouhar Ben Mbarek, Khayam Turki, Issam Chebi, Ghazi Chaouachi, Ridha Belhaj, and Abdelhamid Jelassi are accused, among other crimes, of attempting to “change the nature of the state.”

They would likely receive the death penalty if found guilty.

Former Justice Minister Noureddine Bhiri, who is alleged to have authored a number of social media posts, is one of the other defendants accused of trying to alter the nature of the state.

Other crimes against defendants include having a “terrorist” group and plotting against state security, both of which are capital crimes.

What is President Saied’s opinion of the death penalty?

He backs it.

Kais Saied readily admitted his support for the death penalty during the first presidential debates in 2019 as long as it was carried out in accordance with the law.

In response to the brutal murder of 29-year-old Rahma Lahmar in 2020, Saii once more addressed the issue, telling his security council that murder deserves the death penalty.

Hundreds of people have been killed in US bombing raids on Yemen’s Ras Isa fuel port, according to Houthi-affiliated media. Since the US launched a bombing campaign on March 15, the strikes have been among the deadliest.

One person was killed in a drone attack in Sumy, northeast of Ukraine, while another was killed in a similar attack by a Russian missile strike in Kharkiv.

According to Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov and emergency services, at least five children were among the dozens of people who were hurt in the attack on Kharkiv on Friday morning, which left 15 residential buildings, a business, and an educational facility.

At least one person was killed and another hurt when a drone struck a bakery making Easter cakes in Sumy.

According to Zein Basravi, a reporter from Kyiv, Russia also targeted Kyiv, Dnipro, Mykolaiv, and Lviv.

Around 5am local time, when curfews come to an end and people begin their daily lives, “we saw multiple missile, drone, artillery, and rocket attacks in cities across the country,” he said.

One person died and 74 were hurt in Kharkiv’s civil infrastructure. Of the 74, five were children aged 3, 4, 14, 16, and a 17-year-old boy. Numerous apartments and vehicles were damaged, according to Basravi.

No reports of dead or injured have been made in Dnipro, but we do know that a missile attack targeted a neighborhood with offices, including a gym, hotel, and office complex, and left quite a lot of damage.

He claimed that nearly 20 drones and three cruise missiles had been downed by Ukrainian air defenses.

Civilian targets

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, president of Russia, stated on Thursday that despite Russia’s apparent reduction in its focus on energy infrastructure, missile and drone attacks have remained unaffected overall. Instead, he continued, it is attacking Ukraine’s civilian sites.

Moscow also received a warning about potential escalation if Germany launches Taurus long-range missiles against Ukraine.

Vassily Nebenzia, the ambassador of Russia, stated at the UN on Thursday that this action would signal Germany’s entry into the conflict.

He claimed that “these nations are using their proxy forces to fight Russia.” “The delivery of Taurus missiles would add another step in the direction of escalation.”

The Taurus missile system is a potentially revolutionary addition to Ukraine’s arsenal because it has a range of more than 500 kilometers (310 miles) and can penetrate fortified positions.

Nebenzia also alleged Kyiv of ignoring the partial truce signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in a phone call in mid-March.

He claimed that Ukraine carried out more than 120 attacks, including on Russian power infrastructure, despite Russia’s compliance with the agreement.

The partial ceasefire in terms of energy infrastructure was not implemented by Ukraine. Talking about a ceasefire is therefore unwise at this point, he said.

Zelenskyy accuses China of providing weapons to Russia.

Zelenskyy accused China of providing weapons to Russia for the first time, adding to the tension. He claimed during a speech in Kyiv that Beijing was producing arms and providing artillery within Russian territory.

Without specifying whether he meant shells, launchers, or both, he said, “We finally have information that China is supplying weapons to the Russian Federation.”

Beijing on Friday denied providing lethal weapons to any Ukrainian opposition party.

China has long maintained that it is not a participant in the conflict. Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed its support for a peaceful resolution just last week and rejected any claims of direct involvement.

Federal Judge James Boasberg said on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump’s administration could face criminal contempt of court for disobeying an order halting alleged Venezuelan gang members’ deportations if they refused to file a deposition.

Boasberg has given the US government one week to remedy its dismissal of his order by providing the deported men with the right to due process in court. The decision has been challenged by the Trump administration. The judge’s decision on Wednesday is just the latest in a long line of legal challenges Trump’s executive orders and actions face.

So, what does it mean to be held in contempt of court? What comes next? What would happen if the president steadfastly disregarded a court’s rulings?

What happened?

The Trump administration was prevented from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to carry out deportations by Boasberg’s temporary restraining order late on March 15. The District of Columbia’s chief judge is Bosberg.

The Alien Enemies Act gives the US president the discretion to detain or deport non-citizens during wartime. Without a hearing, the president has the authority to carry out these deportations solely based on citizenship.

Boasberg also mandated that deportation flights en route to El Salvador turn around and return while issuing the restraining order.

Hours after this restraining order was issued, on the morning of March 16, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele claimed in an X post that his country had received 238 members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and 23 members of the Salvadoran gang MS-13 from the US. Additionally, Bucele also posted a news item about Boasberg’s decision, which was titled “Oopsie… Too Late” and featured an emoji with a cry-with-laughter emoji.

Oopsie…

Too late a picture twitter.com/nDHL6deLJq

The alleged gang members are being held in El Salvador’s Centro de Confinamiento (Centro de Confinamiento), or CECOT, a maximum-security prison.

In a post on March 18 on his Truth Social platform, Trump called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and called for his impeachment. Chief Justice John Roberts, who criticized Trump’s impeachment claim, said that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement regarding a judicial decision.”

Boasberg also demanded that the government verify the flight information of the deported detainees’ aircraft, to determine whether it had the ability to turn around and return to the US in accordance with his instructions.

But on March 24, the US Department of Justice revealed that the Trump administration was invoking the “state secrets privilege” to avoid providing these details. When military or national security interests are in jeopardy, the doctrine is intended to be applied.

Boasberg testified at a hearing on April 3 to determine whether the Trump administration had violated the restraining order. The Justice Department denied this, saying the flights had already left the US by the time the restraining order was filed.

On April 7, the US Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to deport immigrants, holding that they must first undergo a court hearing.

Judge Boasberg’s statement: what?

In a 46-page ruling on Wednesday, Boasberg wrote that the Trump administration’s actions were “sufficient for the court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt”.

He claimed that despite his temporary restraining order, the US government had rushed the deportees to El Salvador before they could file a deposition challenge in court.

The Constitution forbids willful disregard of judicial orders, particularly by coordinate branch officials who have sworn an oath to support them, according to Boasberg.

Boasberg also noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio reposted Bukele’s post in which he had reposted the news snippet. According to Boasberg, “Defendants’ boasts indicated that they had purposefully and gleefully defied the Court’s Order.”

What does “contradictory in court” mean?

Contempt of court refers to the willful disobedience of the court of law or its officers.

Civil contempt, which occurs when a person violates a court order or interferes with court proceedings, can also occur, or criminal contempt, which occurs when someone intentionally or willfully disregards a court’s orders.

In the majority of cases, courts criticize those who are found guilty of civil contempt but don’t punish those who eventually complie with their orders.

Criminal contempt of court, on the other hand, carries a punishment spelled out in the statute books – a fine of up to $1, 000, a prison sentence of up to six months, or both.

According to Bruce Fein, an American lawyer with a focus on constitutional and international law, “failing to faithfully execute the laws as required by Article 2 of the Constitution would be an impeachable offence.” The US president has specific authority and responsibilities, according to Article 2 of the US Constitution. One such responsibility is that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.

What will the White House do after this?

According to Boasberg, White House officials can change their disregard for his restraining order to prevent being held in criminal contempt. They can do this by allowing the deported men to challenge their deportations in court. He set a deadline of April 23 for the White House.

In order to bring charges against the officials who chose not to turn the planes around and disobeyed his orders, the White House could contact them.

In this case, the Justice Department has appealed the ruling before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to Just Security, a non-partisan digital law and policy journal, the Trump administration has more than 190 legal challenges to its policies overall.

According to the US government, it committed an “administrative error” by deporting Salvadoran citizen Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, 29, to CECOT. On April 10, the US Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 decision that Trump should facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the US. US District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland announced on Tuesday that she would investigate whether Abrego Garcia had broken a law that the Trump administration had violated. Xinis claimed she has no intention of yet holding the government in contempt.

What happens if the White House refuses to obey a court’s orders?

Boasberg has threatened to do so by holding specific officials in contempt of a court.

However, the president has the authority to pardon officials who have been found guilty of violating the law. During his first term in 2017, Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, a former county sheriff, who was found guilty of criminal contempt after he defied a court order asking him to stop racially profiling Latinos. The government can challenge a court’s decision in this case, as the White House has done in the White House.

The Supreme Court can be reached by that process of appeal.

But ultimately, the task of enforcing a contempt order falls on the US Marshals Service, which comes under the Department of Justice, a part of the Trump administration. Although it is expected that law enforcement officials adhere to court orders, this hasn’t always been the case.

Fein claimed that Trump could be held in contempt by the court.

Congress could also impeach him for violating a court order. However, the motion would need a two-thirds majority in the Senate and a majority in the House to be effective. The Senate currently has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents, while the House currently has 218 Republicans and 213 Democrats.

A Congress “currently controlled by Republicans, will not act unless the American people demand the same through phone calls, emails, and demonstrations”, Fein said.

Bottom line: Congress and ultimately the American people are now the ones to decide whether to continue with a government of laws or a government of men.

Has the Trump administration previously broken law?

Yes, it has – during Trump’s first term.

Trump signed an executive order enforcing a ban on entry for citizens of several Muslim-majority nations shortly after taking office in 2017. The ban was overturned after a number of federal judges issued orders to suspend it. However, Democrats and lawyers at airports complained that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents were going against these suspensions and detaining refugees and travellers from the Muslim countries.

In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court overturned the travel ban, which had been suspended by several lower court decisions.

Trump isn’t the first president to find himself in a fight with the courts, despite his well-known conflicts with judges.

Some have come close to defying even Supreme Court orders.

Have US presidents previously disregarded Supreme Court decisions?

Possibly . The most notable example of this is former President Abraham Lincoln defying former Chief Justice Roger Taney. In 1861, Abraham Lincoln revoked a habeas corpus order to imprison people who he thought were sympathisers of the Confederacy. A detainee may file a lawsuit against their detention in court using a centuries-old common law principle known as Habeas Corpus. Chief Justice Taney held that Congress had the power to suspend the writ, not the US president. Quinn largely disregarded Taney’s opinion. However, Taney was “riding circuit” at the time, and he and his opinion were filed with the District of Maryland Circuit Court, not the US Supreme Court, and historians continue to debate the authority that Taney used to make his decision.

At the beginning of World War II in 1942, Democrat President Franklin D Roosevelt invoked a proclamation authorising the trial of eight German saboteurs at a military tribunal. The Supreme Court eventually supported the president’s policy, despite Roosevelt’s suggestion that he would proceed with it regardless of whether the Supreme Court believed him to be correct.

US presidents have also nearly defied the Supreme Court in some cases. In 1974, in the wake of the Watergate Scandal, former President Richard Nixon claimed that the concept of executive privilege allowed him to withhold sensitive information, such as communication between officials and tape recordings, from investigators. Nixon ultimately agreed with the Supreme Court, and the latter eventually agreed to comply with the court’s order shortly afterward. Nixon resigned two weeks after the decision was made. &nbsp,

When his post-9/11 strategy for national security clashed with a Supreme Court decision regarding the treatment of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, the Republican president from 2001 to 2009. However, Bush eventually revoked his Supreme Court decision.

Presidents have also been called on to enforce Supreme Court contempt orders. After the governor of Arkansas supported the segregationists, President Dwight Eisenhower sent a thousand army soldiers to Arkansas in 1957 to enforce the Supreme Court’s desegregation ruling.

Presidents haven’t always been deferred to the Supreme Court.