Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are fundamental safeguards for the protection of human life and dignity. Article 2 enshrines the right to life and obliges states to take measures to prevent the loss of life, particularly for individuals under their control. Article 3 prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, establishing an absolute standard of protection against ill-treatment. While these articles differ in scope, they are closely interconnected as mistreatment that does not result in death may fall under Article 3, whereas systemic failures to protect life, including in the context of detention, may constitute a violation of Article 2.

In 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examined multiple cases against Italy, addressing the lack of medical care for detainees, poor detention conditions for migrants, collective expulsions, and the protection of vulnerable groups.

J.A. and Others v. Italy

On 30 March 2023, the ECtHR ruled on J.A. and Others v. Italy. This case concerned four Tunisian nationals who were taken to the Lampedusa “hotspot” after being rescued by an Italian ship in the Mediterranean and were later removed to Tunisia. They complained that they had been deprived of their liberty without a formal decision or the possibility of legal challenge and that their deferred refusal of entry (respingimento differito) amounted to collective expulsion. 

The ECtHR found violations of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2, and 4, and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, ECHR. The Court ruled that the Italian Government had failed to refute claims that the conditions at the Lampedusa hotspot were inadequate. The applicants had been held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, without access to appropriate facilities or legal assistance, which put them in a situation of extreme vulnerability. The Court emphasised that reception conditions must meet basic standards to ensure respect for human dignity, particularly for migrants in distress. The Court also held that the applicants' stay at the hotspot amounted to de facto detention without a legal basis, in violation of Article 5 ECHR. Moreover, their expulsion orders had been issued without an individual assessment, breaching Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. As the applicants were unable to understand or challenge these decisions, the Court concluded that Italy had failed to respect its obligations, particularly under Article 3, by exposing them to degrading conditions incompatible with human rights standards.

M.A. v. Italy

On 31 August 2023, the ECtHR issued its decision on the case M.A. v. Italy. The case concerns the accommodation of an unaccompanied minor migrant, an alleged victim of sexual abuse, in the ‘Osvaldo Cappelletti’ adult reception centre in Como for nearly eight months. She alleged that her placement failed to account for her vulnerability, exposing her to inappropriate conditions and lacking essential safeguards. Relying on Article 3 of the ECHR, she argued that the material conditions in the centre, such as overcrowding, poor hygiene, and inadequate services, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. However, the ECtHR found this part of the complaint unsubstantiated and declared it inadmissible.

The Court, however, deemed admissible her complaint concerning her prolonged stay in an adult facility despite her status as a minor and a survivor of sexual violence. A psychological assessment by Médecins Sans Frontières confirmed that such placement posed a serious risk to her fragile psychological state, as the centre lacked tailored support services. The Italian Government argued that authorities had not been formally notified of this assessment. Nonetheless, the Court unanimously found a violation of Article 3, holding that the applicant’s accommodation failed to provide the necessary protection, exposing her to further distress and potential harm. 

Consequently, the Court ordered Italy to pay the applicant EUR 6,000 in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 4,000 for costs and expenses, with interest applicable in case of late payment. It was deemed unnecessary to examine the complaints under Articles 8 and 13 and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims. 

This ruling reaffirms the State’s obligation to ensure that reception conditions for unaccompanied minors, particularly those with histories of abuse, comply with Article 3 and do not subject them to further psychological harm.

Ainis and Others v. Italy

On 14 September 2023, the ECtHR delivered its judgment in the case Ainis and Others v. Italy concerning the death of C.C. from a drug overdose while in police custody. The applicants, C.C.'s partner, daughter, and mother, alleged that the authorities had failed to provide adequate medical assistance, conduct a proper search, and ensure sufficient supervision, in breach of Italy’s positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention. 

By six votes to one, the Court found a violation of Article 2, holding that the authorities had failed to take reasonable measures to protect C.C.’s life. It cited the lack of medical intervention, the failure to check for drugs upon arrival at the police headquarters, and inadequate monitoring in custody. Italy was ordered to pay the applicants € 30,000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage and €10,000 for costs and expenses. Judge Bošnjak dissented, concluding that no breach of Article 2 had been established. He noted that domestic courts had found no medical intervention necessary, that C.C. had been searched but concealed the drugs, and that no obligation existed under domestic law to conduct a more invasive search. He further questioned the causal link between the alleged omissions and C.C.’s death, considering that the Court had not sufficiently demonstrated that the authorities' failures had directly contributed to the fatal outcome. The Court unanimously dismissed the remainder of the applicants’ claims. 

This judgment reinforces the fundamental principle that states have a duty to safeguard the right to life under Article 2, particularly in custodial settings where individuals are under the exclusive control of the authorities. It highlights the obligation to implement effective safeguards to prevent foreseeable risks, ensuring that law enforcement practices comply with human rights standards.

A.E. and Others v. Italy and W.A. and Others v. Italy

On 16 November 2023, the ECtHR delivered judgments in two cases concerning the treatment of Sudanese nationals by the Italian authorities: A.E. and Others v. Italy and W.A. and Others v. Italy. While both cases involved allegations of human rights violations against Sudanese migrants, the Court reached different conclusions regarding the claims.

In A.E. and Others v. Italy, the applicants challenged their unlawful detention and the attempted removal by the Italian authorities, citing violations of Articles 3, 5 §§ 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as Articles 8 and 13 of the ECHR. 

The Court found that the applicants had been subjected to degrading treatment, particularly during their arrest and transfer. It highlighted that the forcible undressing of the applicants during their arrest lacked any compelling justification and constituted a violation of Article 3. Additionally, the inadequate provision of food and water, extreme heat, and lack of information regarding their transfer led to further distress, reinforcing the finding of degrading treatment. Furthermore, the second applicant was subjected to physical violence during an attempted removal, amounting to an additional violation of Article 3. The Court also ruled that the detention of the second, third, and fourth applicants was unlawful under Article 5 §§ 1, 2, and 4. The Court unanimously found violations of Article 3 (degrading treatment during arrest and transfer and ill-treatment of the second applicant) and Article 5 §§ 1, 2, and 4 (unlawful detention of the second, third, and fourth applicants). It awarded non-pecuniary damages of €8,000 to the first applicant, €10,000 to the second applicant, and €9,000 each to the third and fourth applicants, in addition to €4,000 in costs and expenses. The remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction were dismissed.

Conversely, in W.A. and Others v. Italy, the applicants alleged that they were victims of a collective expulsion in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and that their forced return to Sudan exposed them to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3. The case arose from the repatriation of forty Sudanese nationals from Turin to Khartoum on 24 August 2016. The Italian authorities contested the identities of the applicants, maintaining they never entered Italian territory and that at least one of them had refused to seek asylum. The Justice of the Peace of the city of Imperia validated the removal order, citing the Memorandum of Understanding between Italy and Sudan (aimed at easing the return procedures) and the applicant’s alleged lack of intention to apply for protection. The applicants claimed that they were expelled without individual assessments, legal assistance, and access to human rights organisations, despite expressing fears of persecution due to their Darfuri ethnicity. 

The Court ultimately found no violation of Article 3, as the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of ill-treatment upon return. 

These judgments underscore the ECtHR’s differentiated approach to cases of migration-related human rights violations, recognising degrading treatment and unlawful detention in A.E. and Others v. Italy while rejecting claims of ill-treatment upon return in W.A. and Others v. Italy due to insufficient evidence.