Cases against Italy before European Court of Human Rights could clarify States’ duty to cooperate with international justice amid mounting threats to the ICC

2 November 2026 –REDRESS, Route Justice,  TRIAL International, and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) have submitted third-party interventions to the European Court of Human Rights in two cases challenging Italy’s failure to surrender Osama Elmasry Njeem to the International Criminal Court (ICC). While REDRESS, Route Justice, and TRIAL international argue that States’ human rights obligations generally require them to cooperate with the ICC to ensure accountability for torture and other international crimes, FIDH’s intervention addresses the admissibility of the applications

The cases (Y v. Italy and Z v. Italy) concern Osama Elmasry Njeem, who was wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Libya. He was arrested in Italy in January 2025, released two days later and returned to Libya on a State flight.

These cases raise a question with implications far beyond Italy: when surrendering a suspect to an international court is essential to securing accountability, can a State’s failure to cooperate breach its human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights?

The victims in the case allege that Italy’s conduct breached its obligations under the rights to life and freedom from torture.

REDRESS, Route Justice, and TRIAL International argue that a suspect’s presence on a State’s territory, a request for arrest and surrender from a competent international court, international obligations to investigate the alleged crimes, and the absence of a realistic alternative avenue for accountability can together establish the jurisdictional link needed to engage the State’s procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention (the right to life and the prohibition of torture). Once those obligations are engaged, they may require meaningful cooperation with the international court where this is reasonably necessary to secure effective accountability.

The intervention asks the European Court to recognise that, where international proceedings offer the only realistic prospect of accountability, States must use the powers reasonably available to them diligently, effectively, and in good faith. Their conduct must be assessed against their wider international obligations, including obligations under the Rome Statute and the peremptory prohibitions of torture and crimes against humanity.

FIDH has filed a separate third-party intervention in the same cases. It argues that the Assembly of States Parties’ non-cooperation procedure following an ICC finding does not bar individual applications under the European Convention. FIDH maintains that the procedures concern different parties and complaints, and that the Assembly’s procedure is not comparable to an international investigation or settlement, given its distinct features and potential effects, which differ from those of individual applications seeking redress for violations of Convention rights.

The cases come at a critical moment for the ICC, which faces sanctions and other measures aimed at obstructing its work and intimidating those who work for or cooperate with it. These threats make effective State cooperation all the more important to safeguarding access to international justice.

“At a time when the ICC is under attack, defending international justice requires practical cooperation that enables investigations and proceedings to move forward,” said Julie Bardeche, REDRESS Senior Legal Advisor “The consequences of failing to cooperate are borne by survivors whose opportunities for justice are already scarce.”

Libya cases show what cooperation can achieve

The arrest and surrender of another suspect in the ICC’s Libya situation demonstrate the practical difference State cooperation can make. Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri was arrested by German authorities on 16 July 2025 and surrendered to the ICC on 1 December 2025. In July 2026, the Court confirmed the charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity against him and committed him to trial.

His surrender enabled the allegations against him to be examined through judicial proceedings. By contrast, the cases against Italy raise the question of the   human rights consequences when a State releases and returns a suspect rather than surrendering him to the ICC.

The organisations urge States to fulfil their cooperation obligations consistently and ensure that their commitments to international justice translate into meaningful opportunities for survivors to obtain accountability.

Notes to editors

• The intervention provides legal submissions as third-party interveners; the organisations are not bringing these applications.
• The submission addresses the circumstances in which obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR may encompass cooperation with a competent international criminal court.
• The proceedings concern State responsibility under human rights law, not the determination of an individual suspect’s criminal guilt.

• About the Global Initiative Against Impunity: the joint amicus brief and FIDH’s separate intervention 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.

For more information or interview requests, contact:
For REDRESS: Eva Sanchis, Head of Communications; eva@redress.org.
For TRIAL International: media@trialinternational.org