Under Tunisian criminal procedure, pretrial detention is intended as an exceptional measure, not a standard punishment. When an investigating judge fails to move the case forward, the legal basis for keeping activists in custody begins to erode. Law requires periodic reviews to justify whether continued detention remains necessary for the investigation.
If a judge shows prolonged inactivity, it may violate the principle of a reasonable trial duration. Defense lawyers often argue that such stagnation turns detention into an extrajudicial penalty. This creates a direct conflict with the constitutional right to liberty. In many instances, lawyers will file a motion for release based on this procedural stagnation. They argue that the state cannot hold individuals indefinitely simply because the judiciary has stalled.
Ultimately, while inactivity alone might not automatically nullify a detention order, it provides strong grounds for a judge to grant bail or release. If the prosecution fails to provide new evidence or push for indictment, the detention loses its legitimacy. The court must decide if the delay stems from legitimate investigative complexities or mere administrative neglect. If it is the latter, the legal justification for holding the activists weakens considerably.
