I’m nonetheless in shock. The publication of S.S. and Others v Italy on 12 June 2025 was lengthy awaited. After months of labor together with the candidates, seven years later, it is a disgruntling consequence – not just for the candidates, however for the worldwide human rights neighborhood as a complete. As lead counsel, it’s troublesome to cover my disappointment at what I contemplate a myopic ruling by the European Courtroom of Human Rights, which is nonetheless sure to supply very consequential outcomes – probably of the magnitude of Banković. That is the primary case delivered to the Courtroom in regards to the Italian ‘pullback’ coverage, applied via cooperation with Libyan actors, within the context of the externalisation coverage carried out below the umbrella of a number of accords, together with a devoted Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of 2017, and with EU backing.
The case issues the violent ‘refoulement by proxy’ on 6 November 2017 of a bunch of roughly 130 migrants from a sinking dinghy by the Libyan Coastguard, appearing on the request of the Italian authorities and interfering with the rescue efforts of the NGO vessel Sea-Watch 3. Whereas Sea Watch was finally in a position to rescue and produce to security in Italy 59 passengers, not less than 20 folks died earlier than or in the course of the operation and 47 passengers had been finally ‘pulled again’ to Libya to face sick remedy. The candidates within the case embody twelve survivors of the deadly incident, amongst whom the surviving dad and mom of two kids who drowned. Whereas ten of the candidates had been rescued by Sea Watch and brought to Italy, two of them had been forcibly returned to Libya by the Libyan Coastguard, the place they endured ‘nightmarish’ circumstances (S.S., para. 28, citing UNHCR).
