- In a third-party intervention, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) argues that the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) finding of Italy’s non-compliance with the Rome Statute and the ongoing non-cooperation procedure before the Assembly of States Parties, should not prevent the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) from examining individual applications alleging human rights violations arising from Italy’s failure to surrender a Libyan suspect to the ICC.
- FIDH stresses that victims must not be denied the opportunity to seek redress before the ECtHR and calls for recognition of the distinct but complementary obligations of states to cooperate with international criminal justice mechanisms and to protect individual human rights.
- In a separate third-party intervention in the same proceedings, REDRESS, Route Justice and TRIAL International address the scope of states’ procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in relation to serious international crimes committed abroad, arguing that where certain jurisdictional criteria are met, such obligations require meaningful cooperation with the ICC to secure accountability.
Paris, 2 November 2026. On 30 October, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) filed a third-party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in support of two applications against Italy (Y v. Italy] and Z v. Italy]) concerning its failure to surrender Osama Elmasry Njeem to the ICC in January 2025, despite an ICC arrest warrant.
FIDH stresses that proceedings against a state for non-cooperation with the ICC do not make individual human rights complaints against that state inadmissible before the ECtHR. The two applications raise distinct questions about Italy’s obligations to protect individual rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including the right to an effective investigation and access to a court. FIDH’s intervention explains why the ICC non-cooperation procedure, which includes both the non-compliance proceeding at the ICC and the ongoing referral before the Assembly of States Parties (ASP), does not preclude the ECtHR from examining these alleged human rights violations. The applicants allege that Italy’s failure to surrender Mr Njeem, alongside other alleged failures, has undermined their ability to obtain accountability for serious abuses they suffered in Libya.
The cases also highlight a fundamental challenge to international justice: the ICC depends on states to execute its arrest warrants, and failure to cooperate can undermine accountability for the gravest international crimes. States Parties to the Rome Statute, including Italy, must uphold their cooperation obligations. When a state fails to do so, the consequences extend beyond its relationship with the Court, potentially depriving victims of meaningful opportunities to obtain justice and redress. At a time when the ICC faces growing political pressure and challenges to states’ cooperation, this case underscores the importance of upholding the Rome Statute’s cooperation framework.
The stakes are particularly high in Libya, where accountability for serious international crimes remains essential. Mr Njeem is suspected of serious crimes allegedly committed at Mitiga Prison, including murder, torture, rape and other sexual violence. FIDH and its partners have separately documented the abuses of migrants and refugees in Libya, amounting to crimes against humanity, and called for accountability through a joint report and an Article 15 communication to the ICC.
“States cannot treat cooperation with the ICC as a merely procedural obligation. When a state fails to execute an arrest warrant, it risks undermining the pursuit of justice for victims of the gravest crimes. The ECtHR must be able to examine whether that failure also violates individual rights protected by the Convention, and ensure that victims are not left without an effective avenue for redress,” said Alexis Deswaef, FIDH President.
By intervening in these proceedings, FIDH seeks to ensure that the ICC non-cooperation procedure is understood as a distinct but complementary mechanism from the protection of individual rights under the ECHR. The case offers the ECtHR an important opportunity to clarify the relationship between states’ obligations to cooperate with international criminal justice and their responsibility to guarantee effective human rights protection.
Background
– The ICC case
On 18 January 2025, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Mr Njeem in connection with the situation in Libya. He is suspected of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, torture, rape and other sexual violence, allegedly committed in Libya from February 2015 onwards, including at Mitiga Prison.
Italian authorities arrested Mr Njeem in Turin on 19 January 2025 but returned him to Libya two days later, despite the ICC’s request for cooperation. On 17 October 2025, the ICC found that Italy had failed to comply with its obligations under the Rome Statute by failing to execute the request to arrest and surrender Mr Njeem. On 29 January 2026, the ICC Presidency referred Italy’s non-compliance to the Assembly of States Parties.
– The ECtHR applications and FIDH’s intervention
Two applications have been lodged against Italy before the ECtHR. Applicant Y%7D]., whose application was lodged on 16 April 2025, alleges violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, concerning the right to life and the prohibition of torture, in connection with Italy’s alleged failure to fulfil its procedural obligations to investigate serious violations and ensure accountability. He also argues that these obligations may require cooperation with foreign or international authorities in transnational cases. Applicant Z%7D]., whose application was lodged on 7 February 2026, alleges, among other matters, a violation of Article 6 § 1, concerning the right of access to a court, as well as failures to address alleged violations of fundamental rights, including the prohibitions of torture, slavery and forced labour.
FIDH’s third-party intervention addresses the admissibility of these applications under Article 35 § 2(b) of the Convention. It argues that the applications are not substantially the same as the ICC’s non-cooperation procedure because they involve different parties and complaints. It further argues that the ICC’s non-cooperation procedure does not constitute another procedure of international investigation or settlement that would bar the ECtHR from examining the applicants’ claims, as it is not capable of providing individual victims with effective protection or redress.
The intervention therefore highlights a key distinction: the non-cooperation procedure concerns Italy’s Rome Statute obligations towards the ICC, whereas proceedings before the ECtHR allow individuals to seek justice and redress for alleged violations of their Convention rights.
– Complementary third-party intervention
In a separate third-party intervention in the same proceedings, REDRESS, Route Justice and TRIAL International address the scope of states’ procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in relation to serious international crimes committed abroad. They argue that a State’s procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights extends to securing accountability for torture, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed abroad where a suspect is present on its territory. The brief submits that the suspect’s presence, a competent international court’s request for arrest and surrender, relevant international obligations to investigate or prosecute, and the absence of realistic alternative avenues for accountability can together establish the necessary jurisdictional link under Article 1. Once that link exists, meaningful cooperation with the international court is required where reasonably necessary to secure accountability, particularly given the substantial obstacles to effective proceedings in Libya. Although these are obligations of means rather than guaranteed results, the brief contends that compliance must be assessed rigorously against the wider international legal framework, including the Rome Statute and the Convention against Torture: a State must use its available powers diligently and in good faith, and not frustrate proceedings or allow impunity.
FIDH’s intervention and the joint amicus brief by REDRESS, Route Justice and TRIAL International were undertaken within the framework of the Global Initiative Against Impunity for International Crimes and Serious Human Rights Violations: Making Justice Work. Co-funded by the European Union, this civil society-led programme promotes survivor-centred, inclusive justice and accountability for serious human rights violations and international crimes.
