| Applicant name | AL-HAWSAWI |
| Applicant type | natural person |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | LITHUANIA |
| Application no. | 6383/17 |
| Date | 16/01/2024 |
| Judges | Arnfinn Bårdsen, President, Jovan Ilievski, Egidijus Kūris, Pauliine Koskelo, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Diana Sârcu, Davor Derenčinović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | No ground; not lawful |
| Type of privacy | Bodily privacy; relational privacy |
| Keywords | torture; secret CIA prison |
| Facts of the case | Case stands in line with other cases concerning black-op CIA interogation sites on European soil of suspects of terrorism, mostly of people with a non-European nationality. |
| Analysis | There are preliminary question over matters of evidence and proof: did the events complained of take place, did they take place on Lithuanian territory, did the Lithuanian authorities know about the events, etc? The Court refers to previous case law and established principles and finds that the government has not brought sufficient facts that would challenge any of these assumptions. The Court finds a violation of Article 2, 3, 5, 6, 13 and also 8 ECHR. With respect to the latter, the applicant complained that Lithuania had permitted or enabled the CIA to subject him to physical abuse and to deprive him of any contact with his family. The Court finds: ‘Having regard to its conclusions concerning the respondent State’s responsibility under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention (see paragraphs 217-218 and 229 above), the Court is of the view that Lithuania’s actions and omissions in respect of the applicant’s detention and transfer likewise engaged its responsibility under Article 8 of the Convention. Considering that the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life occurred in the context of the imposition of fundamentally unlawful, undisclosed detention, it must be regarded as not “in accordance with the law” and as inherently lacking any conceivable justification under paragraph 2 of that Article’. |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 13 |
| Damage awarded | Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts: (i) to the applicant EUR 100,000 (one hundred thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, in respect of non–pecuniary damage; (ii) to REDRESS EUR 30,000 (thirty thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount, in respect of costs and expenses; |
| Documents | Judgment |