On 29 May 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) notified the Italian government of the filing of two applications lodged against Italy, concerning the failure to arrest, in January 2025, Libyan General Osama Almasri (or Elmasri) Njeem. The applications Y v. Italy (application no. 13270/25) and Z v. Italy (no. 7051/26) will be treated as a priority due to the importance and urgency of the common issue shared by both cases (Article 41 of the ECtHR Rules). 

Application no. 13270/25, submitted on 16 April 2025, concerns a Sudanese national who fled South Sudan and sought refuge in Libya in 2018. After multiple attempts to reach Europe, he was detained in the Triq al-Sika camp and later in the Al-Jadida camp, controlled by Almasri’s militias, where he was tortured and witnessed atrocities committed against other detained migrants. The applicant was then forcibly incorporated into Almasri’s militia and transferred, in 2020, to the Mitiga military base, where he was subjected to forced labour and witnessed torture and inhumane acts inflicted on migrants. In 2022, fleeing from Camp Mitiga, he reached Italy, where he was recognised as a refugee and founded the association “Refugees in Libya” to bring the case of atrocities committed in Libya against migrants before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The application to the ECtHR concerns the failure of the Italian authorities to execute the ICC arrest warrant against Almasri, who was present on Italian territory in January 2025. Italy, on that occasion, not only invalidated Almasri’s initial arrest by the police but also repatriated the Libyan citizen to his homeland on a state flight, in a state of freedom. (It is recalled that, regarding this matter, the ICC referred Italy to the Assembly of States Parties of the ICC Statute for violating the cooperation obligation established by Article 87.7). According to the applicant, Italy violated Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), having failed in its duty to actively protect the applicant’s right to life and to be free from torture. The domestic remedies filed by some individuals (not by the applicant) against the responsible politicians for the failure to arrest have not been pursued, as the Italian Parliament voted against authorising proceedings. 

Regarding this case, the ECtHR requests the State and the applicant to submit their observations on a series of points on which the Court itself will decide. Specifically, whether, under Article 1 of the ECHR, Italy has jurisdiction over the alleged violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, given that the abuses took place in Libya; whether the applicant can be considered a victim of such conduct; and whether all domestic remedies have been exhausted. 

The case Z v. Italy (no. 7051/26), filed on 7 February 2026, concerns a now 30-year-old Ivorian woman. At the age of 4, she underwent the traditional practice of genital mutilation and, in subsequent years, was subjected to sexual abuse by her adoptive father. Still an adolescent, she managed to escape to Libya, where she was reduced to slavery and eventually transferred to Camp Mitiga. There, she suffered further abuse and mistreatment, including from Almasri, director of the detention centre and head of the paramilitary police forces. In 2017, she managed to reach Italy, and in 2020, the Court of Catania recognised her refugee status. In February 2025, following the deportation of Almasri ordered by Italian authorities, the applicant filed a report with the Rome court. Based on this and similar complaints, the Rome prosecutor’s office initiated criminal proceedings against the Italian Minister of Justice Nordio, the Minister of the Interior Piantedosi, and the Undersecretary to the Prime Minister Mantovano. However, as previously noted, on 9 October 2025, the Italian Parliament, competent to grant or deny immunity under Article 96 of the Constitution, refused to authorise proceedings against the three government members, and on 28 October, the “ministerial court” at the Rome court dismissed the prosecutor’s request. The request to raise a constitutional issue was also rejected by the same court as manifestly unfounded. The applicant claims that this case constitutes a violation of her right of access to justice (Article 6.1 of the ECHR) as a victim of the crimes attributed to Almasri, as well as a violation of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), and 4 (prohibition of slavery) of the ECHR, rights which entail non-derogable positive and negative obligations (Article 15 of the ECHR). 

Regarding this second case, the ECtHR asks the parties to express their views on jurisdiction, victim status, and exhaustion of domestic remedies, as well as on whether the Italian system allows seeking civil compensation for damages resulting from the failure to arrest Almasri independently of a penal proceeding.