Nasr and Ghali v. Italy

Application No. 44883/09 (2016)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Nasr and Ghali v. Italy

European Court of Human Rights
Application No. 44883/09 (2016)

Facts

Osama Nasr (plaintiff) was an Egyptian citizen who lived in Milan, Italy, with his wife, Nabila Ghali (plaintiff). Nasr had been granted asylum as a political refugee by the Italian government (defendant) because Nasr was a member of an Islamist group that the Egyptian government considered to be terrorist. In 2003, agents from the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) kidnapped Nasr and transferred Nasr to Egypt. The CIA agents acted with the Italian government’s knowledge and Italian agents’ cooperation. Nasr’s kidnapping was a so-called “extraordinary rendition”—a practice used by the United States after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to detain suspected terrorists and transfer them to black sites in countries where the detainees could be interrogated using torture and other tactics that were not allowed in the United States. Following the kidnapping, Nasr was detained and tortured in Egypt for more than a year. After Nasr’s release in 2004, an action was brought in Italian court to prosecute the parties responsible for the kidnapping and detention. However, because the court excluded evidence related to the kidnapping as covered by state-secret protection, the Italian agents involved in the kidnapping could not be convicted. Additionally, because the Italian government never requested the extradition of the American CIA agents, convictions of those agents could not be executed. Nasr and Ghali subsequently brought an action against the Italian government in the European Court of Human Rights. Among other things, Nasr and Ghali asserted a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention), which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership