Published on 29 May 2026
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 7051/26
Z against Italy
lodged on 7 February 2026
communicated on 13 May 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
This application concerns the Italian Government’s failure to execute an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) against Mr Osama Elmasry Njeem (also known as Mr Osama Almasri Njeem, hereinafter “Mr Njeem”).
The applicant’s arrival in ItalyThe applicant is an Ivory Coast national born on 1 January 1996. She was subjected to female genital mutilation at the age of four and sexually abused by her adoptive father for several years. While still a minor, she escaped to Libya, where she was held in slavery, subjected to further sexual abuse and eventually brought to Mitiga prison. There, she was a victim of torture, sexual violence and ill-treatment at the hands, among others, of Mr Njeem, director of the prison centre and chief of the Libyan paramilitary police.
The applicant arrived in Italy aboard a vessel on 16 April 2017. By a decision of 13 January 2020, the Court of Catania granted her international protection. In particular, it was considered that the applicant’s statements of the sexual abuse and violence as described above were credible and supported by medical evidence.
The International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant against Mr Njeem and his arrestOn 2 October 2024, the ICC Prosecutor requested an arrest warrant against Mr Njeem for several war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the Mitiga detention centre from around February 2015 onwards. On 9 October 2024, the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered the arrest of Mr Njeem and the identification and seizure of his property.
On 17 January 2025, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Mr Njeem, who was charged with outrages upon personal dignity, cruel treatment, torture, rape, sexual violence, sexual slavery, murder and crimes against humanity.
On 19 January 2025, Mr Njeem was located in a hotel in Turin, arrested by the Italian police and placed in pre-trial detention. On the afternoon of 21 January 2025, the Ministry of Justice issued a press release stating that, given the complexity of the case, the Minister of the Interior was considering forwarding the ICC’s request to the Italian Public Prosecutor’s Office in Rome.
On 21 January 2025, the Rome Court of Appeal refused to validate Mr Njeem’s arrest, ordered his release and lifted the seizure of his property on the grounds that the internal procedure for handing him over to the ICC had not been duly followed. In particular, the Rome Court of Appeal considered that Article 716 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Arrest by the police”) was not to be applied within the procedure set out by Law no. 237 of 20 December 2012 (“Rules for compliance with the provisions of the Statute establishing the ICC”), which requested the intervention of the Ministry of Justice. Mr Njeem was repatriated to Libya on the same day.
The procedure before the International Criminal CourtOn 17 February 2025, the ICC invited the Italian Republic to provide submissions concerning its failure to surrender Mr Njeem to it following his arrest. The Italian authorities submitted that the above-mentioned procedural obstacles hindered the enforcement of the arrest warrant under domestic law, in addition to reasons of public policy and national security as well as alleged errors in the warrant. These arguments were rejected as ill-founded by the ICC, which concluded that, by not properly executing its request for the arrest and surrender of Mr Njeem while he was on Italian territory, and by not consulting and cooperating with the ICC, Italy failed to comply with its obligations under the Rome Statute.
On 17 October 2025, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC concluded unanimously that Italy had failed in its obligation to cooperate and execute Mr Njeem’s arrest warrant.
By a decision of 26 January 2026, the ICC further referred the matter of Italy’s non-compliance to the Assembly of State Parties.
The domestic criminal proceedings lodged by the applicantOn 6 February 2025, further to the repatriation of Mr Njeem, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint before the Court of Rome in her capacity as a victim of the acts of torture, sexual violence and ill-treatment that she endured in Libya, and for which Mr Njeem is being prosecuted by the ICC, requesting clarification of the failure to surrender Mr Njeem to the ICC and of his repatriation, and seeking a determination of the criminal responsibility of those concerned.
Based on this request and of others of the same kind, the Rome prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings. The investigations concerned among others the criminal responsibility of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Interior and the Deputy Secretary of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, the Rome Prosecutor transferred the case to the panel for ministerial offences of the Rome Court (procedure no. 1/2025). The applicant requested access the documents of the case file in her capacity as a victim of the facts underlying the arrest warrant which remained non‑executed by the Italian Government. Her request was granted to the extent of the materials available at the time.
Under Article 96 of the Constitution, the panel for ministerial offences of the Rome Court further requested the Chamber of Deputies to grant authorisation to pursue procedure no. 1/2025. This authorisation was denied by decision of 9 October 2025.
On 28 October 2025, the panel for ministerial offences then dismissed the request to open criminal proceedings against, among others, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Interior and the Deputy Secretary of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers for offences allegedly committed in the context of the procedure for the execution of the ICC arrest warrant for Mr Njeem.
In the meantime, on 14 October 2025, the applicant requested the panel for ministerial offences that a question be raised before the Constitutional Court to assess whether the principle of separation of powers had been respected in this case. By decision of 16 October 2025, this request was rejected.
The applicant’s complaintsIn her capacity as a victim of the facts set out above, the applicant complained that both the refusal of the Chamber of Deputies to authorise the continuation of the criminal procedure and the non-enforcement of the arrest warrant of the ICC constituted an interference with her right to access a tribunal, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
She also alleged that a denial of justice occurred in her case as the circumstances described above have impeded to shed light on the facts of her case, including the violation of her right to life, the prohibition of torture and of inhuman and degrading treatment and the prohibition of slavery or servitude, protected under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention. She underlined that those are non-derogable rights under Article 15 of the Convention.
The applicant claimed that the arguments invoked by the Chamber of Deputies grounding the refusal to authorise the continuation of the criminal procedure were ill-founded and, in any event, disproportionate compared to her interest of having criminal responsibility established for the serious human rights violations she had suffered.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? In particular, did the applicant, who had victim status in the criminal proceedings, pursue civil claims in that case so as to bring the civil limb of Article 6 § 1 into play (see Fabbri and Others v. San Marino [GC], nos. 6319/21 and 2 others, §§ 76-93, 24 September 2024, with further references)?
If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, stemming from the alleged violation of her right to life (Article 2 of the Convention), of her right not to be subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3 of the Convention) and of her freedom from slavery or servitude (Article 4 of the Convention), in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see also Fabbri and Others, cited above, § 151)?
2. Does the Italian Government have jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention regarding the facts of the present case?
In particular, is there a jurisdictional link between Italy and the applicant which triggers the respondent Government’s procedural obligations under Article 2 (see Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, §§ 206-208, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey [GC], no. 36925/07, §§ 178-190, 29 January 2019; Romeo Castaño v. Belgium, no. 351/17, §§ 36-43, 9 July 2019 and Hanan v. Germany [GC], no. 4871/16, §§ 132-145, 16 February 2021), Article 3 and Article 4 of the Convention?
3. Can the applicant claim to be a victim of the alleged breaches of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant exhaust all domestic remedies at her disposal as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
5. Under Article 35 § 2 b) of the Convention, is the present application substantially the same as a matter that has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation, namely the procedure pending before the International Criminal Court?
6. Has there been a violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 of the Convention under its/their procedural limb?
In particular, did the Italian Government have a duty under Articles 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 of the Convention to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in the enforcement of an arrest warrant issued by the latter against Mr Njeem? And, if so, was this duty violated in the present case?