The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) recently ordered Lithuania to pay €30,000 to Saudi citizen Abd al-Rahim Hussein al-Nashiri for his detention in a secret CIA prison, marking the third such ruling against the country. While the Lithuanian government has committed to implementing the judgment, officials maintain that no further domestic investigations into these historical allegations are necessary, citing previous parliamentary findings and ongoing prosecutorial reviews.
Legal Precedents and ECHR Rulings Against Lithuania
The ECtHR ruling involving al-Nashiri follows a consistent legal trajectory. According to the court’s findings, a secret CIA detention site operated in Lithuania between 2005 and 2006. Previous cases have resulted in significant awards, including a €100,000 payment ordered in January 2024 for the unlawful detention of Mustafa al-Hawsawi and an earlier 2018 ruling concerning Abu Zubaydah.
Lithuanian authorities have consistently contested these characterizations. The Ministry of Justice has previously argued that the facility in Antaviliai, near Vilnius, served as a support center for intelligence operations rather than a prison. Officials assert that aircraft arriving at the site were transporting communication equipment rather than detainees. Despite these denials, the ECtHR has repeatedly relied on investigations by human rights organizations to establish the existence of the detention site.
Did you know?
The ECtHR has ruled against Lithuania in three separate cases regarding the operation of secret CIA facilities. While the state has paid compensation, it maintains that these conclusions are based on external human rights reporting rather than official state evidence.
Government Stance on Further Investigation
Lithuanian Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkiavicius has stated there is no need for new inquiries into the matter. According to press secretary Gyadas Saliga, the government views the existing framework—which includes a 2009 parliamentary investigation by the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defense—as sufficient. That 2009 inquiry concluded that while the conditions for holding detainees existed, it did not establish the fact of transporting detainees from the CIA to Lithuania.
The Prosecutor General’s Office confirms that an investigation initiated in 2010 and renewed in 2015 remains open. However, prosecutors report they have not received significant data from international partners or the United States to advance the case. Božena Zaborska-Zdanovič, a spokesperson for the Minister of Justice, confirmed that while the government will not appeal the latest ECtHR decision to the Grand Chamber, it intends to handle required diplomatic communications regarding the death penalty via formal channels.
Diplomatic Challenges and the Death Penalty
The ECtHR mandate requires Lithuania to seek guarantees from the U.S. government that al-Nashiri will not face the death penalty. President Gitanas Nausėda has acknowledged the necessity of complying with international court orders but noted the sensitivity of the request. In an interview with BNS, Nausėda expressed concern that such a direct appeal to Washington could be interpreted as interference in American internal affairs.
When tracking international human rights litigation, monitor the distinction between “enforcement of judgment” and “domestic fact-finding.” Lithuania’s current strategy is to comply with the court’s financial and diplomatic requirements without reopening internal investigations that the government considers exhausted.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Why does the ECtHR rule against Lithuania if the state denies the prison existed? The court bases its decisions on evidence and investigations from human rights organizations, which the Lithuanian government argues differ from their own official records.
- Will Lithuania appeal the latest court ruling? No. The Ministry of Justice has confirmed it will not take the case to the Grand Chamber, meaning the judgment will come into force in a few months.
- What is the status of the ongoing investigation in Lithuania? An investigation has been active since 2010 and was renewed in 2015, but prosecutors report a lack of evidence from international partners to reach a different conclusion.
Have thoughts on the intersection of international law and national security? Subscribe to our newsletter for updates on human rights litigation or join the discussion in the comments section below.
Related reading
