EU rights court says Italy not responsible for Libyan coast guard actions over migrant boat sinking
The Strasbourg court declared the case inadmissible, finding Italy did not have 'effective control' of the expanse of waters off the coast of Tripoli where a small ship carrying some 150 people sank in 2017.
Twenty people died in the incident. Around 45 survivors onboard the ship said they were taken to Tajura Detention Center in Tripoli where they were beaten and abused.
The judges found that the captain and crew of the Libyan vessel Ras Jadir had acted independently when they answered a distress signal in the early morning hours on Nov. 6.
Italy has supplied the Libyans with funding, vessels and training as part of an agreement to slow the tide of migrants crossing the Mediterranean. The judges found, however, that this support did not prove 'Italy had taken over Libya's public-authority powers.'
A group of migrants was rescued by the humanitarian organization Sea Watch and were taken to Italy.
A ruling in favor of the 14 survivors who filed the complaint at the ECHR could have undermined international agreements made by several European Union countries with Libya, Turkey and others to prevent migrants from coming to European shores.
The ECHR handles complaints against the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. The intergovernmental organization is not an EU institution and was set up after the Second World War to promote peace and democracy.
Libya is not a member of the Council of Europe, so the court has no jurisdiction over the country's actions.
___
Follow AP's coverage of migration issues at https://apnews.com/hub/migration
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
25 minutes ago
NATO defense chiefs wrap talks on Ukraine security, but the path forward is unclear
Top U.S. and European defense officials spent much of this week privately discussing possible military options in Ukraine that would bolster the Eastern European country's protections against Russia. But the alliance's top military officials appeared to emerge without a concrete plan -- at least not one they were willing to discuss publicly. Gen. Dan Caine, President Donald Trump's top military adviser and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, invited several of his European counterparts to dinner at his home at Fort Myer in Virginia on Tuesday evening. The discussion continued Wednesday online with a briefing by Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, the top U.S. commander in Europe, who also serves as head of NATO forces, officials said. The talks were aimed at providing military options that Trump and other political leaders in the NATO alliance could use to guarantee Ukraine's security as part of a peace deal between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyy has aggressively sought security guarantees from the alliance to ensure Russia would not attack again. United Kingdom officials have said previously that Great Britain and France are prepared to lead a multinational force in Ukraine, but it was not clear how many troops would be involved, from which countries, or what exactly the troops would do. On Tuesday, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer hailed the possibility of NATO-backed security guarantees as a 'breakthrough,' noting that the U.S. was now working 'at pace' with 30 or so other countries, which he called a 'coalition of the willing,' to help Ukraine. 'These guarantees will ensure that if there is a peace, if there is a deal, then we hold to it and there isn't further conflict,' Starmer said in a video post on X. Likewise, Gen. Keith Kellogg, Trump's special envoy to Russia and Ukraine, said the security guarantees will ultimately help achieve any ceasefire in the three-year war. "If you bring in good security guarantees, this allows Zelenskyy some options as well to work with Putin so he can settle this conflict, and I think w'ere on a path to do that," Kellogg told Fox Business on Tuesday. But along with any commitment of troops, details on these possible security guarantees remained elusive Wednesday, as several officials said the discussions were still in the early stages and would need to become part of a broader political discussion going forward. Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, told ABC News Live on Wednesday it was unlikely that NATO would cobble together a security agreement that would be acceptable to both Ukraine and the Europeans and to Russia. 'What you may get is a ceasefire, perhaps even an armistice, a more formal ceasefire that would require NATO security or European security guarantees to Ukraine to ensure that Russia does not restart the war,' Daalder continued. NATO officials struck an optimistic tone Wednesday following meetings with their counterparts, while avoiding discussing specifics. 'NATO has faced important times before,' said Col. Martin L. O'Donnell, a spokesperson for Grynkewich and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, in a statement following the meetings. 'And these have only made our Alliance Stronger,' he added. Adm. Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of the NATO military committee, said members confirmed their support for Ukraine during the meeting Wednesday. The 'priority continues to be a just, credible and durable peace,' he wrote. For his part, Trump has said only that he won't send ground troops and suggested the U.S. could help with air assets. 'President Trump has been clear that the U.S. will not be sending boots on the ground, but may be willing to help in other ways,' a White House official told reporters on Wednesday.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
NATO defense chiefs hold ‘candid discussion' on security guarantees for Ukraine
Assurances that it won't be invaded again in the future are one of the keys for getting Ukraine to sign up for a peace deal with Russia. It wants Western help for its military, including weapons and training, to shore up its defenses, and Western officials are scrambling to figure out what commitments they might offer. Russia's top diplomat said Wednesday that the country would insist on being a part of any future security guarantees for Ukraine, a condition that European and Ukrainian officials widely see as absurd. Advertisement It was the clearest sign yet that enormous gaps remain in the negotiations over a possible end to Russia's invasion. And it added to the uncertainty over how a European effort to rally a 'coalition of the willing' to protect a postwar Ukraine, possibly with Western soldiers stationed inside the country, would fit into President Trump's plans for a peace deal with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Advertisement 'Seriously discussing issues of ensuring security without the Russian Federation is a utopia, a road to nowhere,' Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in Moscow after a meeting with his Jordanian counterpart. US General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO's supreme allied commander Europe, took part in the virtual talks, Dragone said. US General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was also due to participate, a US defense official said. Caine also met with European military chiefs Tuesday evening in Washington to assess the best military options for political leaders, according to the defense official, who wasn't authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. Trump met last Friday with Putin in Alaska and on Monday hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and prominent European leaders at the White House. Neither meeting delivered concrete progress. Trump is trying to steer Putin and Zelensky toward a settlement more than three years after Russia invaded its neighbor, but there are major obstacles. They include Ukraine's demands for Western-backed military assurances to ensure Russia won't mount another invasion in the coming years. 'We need strong security guarantees to ensure a truly secure and lasting peace,' Zelensky said in a Telegram post Wednesday after Russian missile and drone strikes hit six regions of Ukraine overnight. Kyiv's European allies are looking to set up a force that could backstop any peace agreement, and a coalition of 30 countries, including European nations, Japan, and Australia, has signed up to support the initiative. Military chiefs are figuring out how that security force might work. The role that the US might play is unclear. Trump on Tuesday ruled out sending US troops to help defend Ukraine against Russia. Advertisement Russia has repeatedly said that it would not accept NATO troops in Ukraine. Attacks on civilian areas in Sumy and Odesa overnight into Wednesday injured 15 people, including a family with three small children, Ukrainian authorities said. Russian strikes also targeted ports and fuel and energy infrastructure, officials said. Zelensky said the strikes 'only confirm the need for pressure on Moscow, the need to introduce new sanctions and tariffs until diplomacy works to its full potential.' Switzerland could host a Putin-Zelensky summit Trump said Monday he has Lavrov, in his Moscow press conference, said Russia is prepared to continue negotiations with Ukraine in any format. He said Putin proposed to Trump raising the level of representation in delegations that recently took part in largely fruitless direct talks in Istanbul. He added that 'a separate block [of talks] should be devoted to examining the political aspects of the settlement, along with the military and humanitarian ones.' Ukraine and Western leaders have accused Putin of dragging out peace negotiations in the hope of capturing more land before any settlement. French President Emmanuel Macron has said the summit could happen in Europe and proposed the Swiss city of Geneva. Switzerland has expressed its willingness to act as host. Putin's ability to travel abroad Advertisement Switzerland intends to ask the ICC to exempt it from sanctions in order to allow Putin in for a summit, according to a senior official in The Hague with direct knowledge of the request. The official was not authorized to speak about the proceedings and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
People Seriously Can't Believe Trump's Latest Statement About No Elections In 2028
On Monday, Donald Trump met with several European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and made some remarks that left the internet saying, "WTF." When asked if he was open to holding an election once peace is achieved, Zelenskyy replied, "Yes, of course." He explained there aren't elections during wartime as they're focused on security, but the goal is "truth everywhere, in the battlefield, in the sky, in the sea," so people can resume democratic, legal elections. Related: Trump interrupted the Ukrainian leader to confirm the bit about no elections during wartime. "Three and a half years from now, if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections," he said. "Oh, that's good," he concluded. Good for who??? Related: I really don't like this little smile at the end. Notably, this happened on the same day Trump made headlines for showing off his "Trump 2028" and "4 more years" merch. Obviously, people had a lot to say about this: Editor's Note: While we can't endorse what X has become, we can bring you the worthwhile moments that still exist there, curated and free of the surrounding chaos. Related: "A sitting US President 'jokes' about manufacturing a war to stop democracy and stay in power. Crazy how this shit is not a MUCH bigger deal and will instead be forgotten or dismissed," one X (formerly Twitter) user wrote. Another person said, "You can practically see the dim little lightbulb flicker on above his head. 'Wait a second... if my country is in a war... I don't have to leave the White House... EVER?! THAT'S GOOD!' It's the giddy, amoral excitement of a child who has just discovered a brand new and fantastic way to cheat at the game. Except the game is the Constitution of the United States." "It's not funny.... Cause you know DAMN well it has already crossed his mind, that to me is scary!!! YOU'RE NOT FUNNY TRUMP!!!!" Related: "Democrats need to step up and meet this loser and loser gop party where they are at! Ethics are no longer a part of the Republican party and everyone needs to realize that." And finally, "Don't get your hopes up, fuck-face. We've had elections during every war we've ever fought. And we've fought a lot of wars." What do you think about all this? LMK in the comments below! Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
