VILNIUS – The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ordered Lithuania to pay €30,000 in damages to Saudi citizen Abd al-Rahim Hussein al-Nashiri, ruling that the man was subjected to unlawful detention within a secret CIA “black site” operated on Lithuanian soil.
The ruling further mandates that Lithuanian authorities seek formal guarantees from the United States government ensuring that al-Nashiri will not face the death penalty. The decision marks the latest legal defeat for Vilnius in a protracted series of challenges regarding the European state’s complicity in the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s extraordinary rendition program following the September 11 attacks.
The case underscores a persistent tension between European legal obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the geopolitical imperatives of NATO alliances. While the ECtHR has repeatedly established the existence of clandestine prisons in Europe, member states have frequently struggled to reconcile these findings with national security agreements and the lack of transparency from Washington.
Diplomatic Friction and Legal Obligations
The Lithuanian government has signaled its intent to comply with the financial aspects of the judgment, though it remains hesitant regarding the diplomatic demands placed upon it by the court. Under the ruling, Vilnius must not only compensate al-Nashiri but also make “all possible efforts” to obtain assurances from the U.S. that he will not be subjected to capital punishment or further ill-treatment.
“Lithuania will fully implement the ECtHR decision,” stated Božena Zaborska-Zdanovič, a spokesperson for the Minister of Justice, framing the judgment as a binding international obligation rather than a matter of political discretion.
However, the requirement to intervene in the legal fate of a prisoner held by the U.S. has created a diplomatic quandary. President Gitanas Nausėda has noted that while court decisions must be implemented, the obligation to approach the United States requires careful deliberation, as such an appeal “might appear as interference in American internal affairs.”
For Lithuania, a NATO member that hosts allied military infrastructure and relies heavily on U.S. security guarantees, the instruction to press Washington on the handling of a Guantánamo detainee tests how far a small state is prepared to go in enforcing Strasbourg judgments against a key security partner.
Zaborska-Zdanovič indicated that the appeal to the U.S. would be conducted “through diplomatic channels,” though she declined to provide specific details on the strategy or timeline. She further noted that the government would not appeal the decision to the Grand Chamber, meaning the ruling will come into force in several months and will require concrete steps from the Foreign Ministry and the Justice Ministry to demonstrate compliance.
Resistance to Internal Investigation
Despite the court’s findings, the Lithuanian executive branch continues to resist reopening domestic inquiries into the operation of the secret facility, signaling a narrow interpretation of what the judgment requires at home. Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkiavicius has explicitly stated that he sees no necessity for further investigations into the circumstances of the alleged prison.
“A parliamentary investigation has already been conducted in Lithuania. Law enforcement agencies are also conducting a pre-trial investigation coordinated by the Prosecutor General’s Office. The Prime Minister sees no need for additional actions,” conveyed press secretary Gyadas Saliga.
President Nausėda echoed this sentiment, stating that he also sees no need to further clarify the circumstances of the facility’s existence, despite the ECtHR’s repeated criticism of Lithuania’s failure to fully investigate and prosecute those responsible.
The reluctance to reopen the case stems from previous domestic probes that failed to mirror the ECtHR’s conclusions and left key findings politically and legally contested:
- 2009: The Seimas Committee on National Security and Defense conducted a parliamentary investigation; it concluded that the fact of transporting detainees to Lithuania was not established, though it admitted the conditions for such operations existed and that infrastructure compatible with a detention site had been created.
- 2010/2015: The Prosecutor’s Office initiated and later renewed a pre-trial investigation. Officials confirmed Wednesday that this probe remains open but highlighted a lack of “significant data” from the U.S. and other international partners, effectively stalling any move toward indictments.
Human rights lawyers have argued that ECtHR case law not only imposes an obligation to pay compensation but also requires “effective investigations” and, where feasible, accountability for officials involved in unlawful detention and ill-treatment. Lithuanian officials, by contrast, continue to emphasize procedural steps already taken, rather than the substantive gaps identified by the Strasbourg court.
The Legacy of the Antaviliai Facility
The legal battle centers on a facility located in Antaviliai, near the capital city of Vilnius. For years, Lithuanian authorities have maintained a narrative that the site served a different purpose than that described by human rights organizations and the ECtHR, describing it as part of broader intelligence cooperation rather than a detention center.
Official government explanations have consistently claimed that the Antaviliai facilities were not a prison but rather a “support center for intelligence.” Furthermore, the state has argued that suspicious aircraft observed landing in the region were transporting communication equipment rather than detainees, insisting that no Lithuanian officials had direct knowledge of CIA interrogation operations.
However, the ECtHR has dismissed these explanations in multiple rulings. The court first concluded in 2018 that a secret CIA prison operated in Lithuania between 2005 and 2006, specifically citing the detention of Saudi citizen Abu Zubaydah. In January 2024, the court awarded €100,000 to another Saudi citizen, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, for similar unlawful detention at the same site, finding that Lithuania had enabled his transfer, secret detention, and exposure to a real risk of torture.
The Ministry of Justice acknowledged two years ago that, during its own pre-trial investigation, the state “could not refute the conclusion that the prison operated with objective data or evidence.” That admission effectively brought Lithuania’s internal narrative closer to the Strasbourg findings, even as political leaders remain reluctant to reopen the question of individual responsibility.
The current ruling regarding al-Nashiri is the third of its kind against Lithuania, reinforcing the court’s position that the state provided the infrastructure necessary for the CIA to conduct “enhanced interrogation” techniques outside the purview of international law. It also deepens a jurisprudential record in which the ECtHR has repeatedly held European states liable for their role in the U.S. rendition and secret detention system.
For Lithuanian institutions, the judgment now creates a two-track challenge: managing sensitive diplomatic talks with Washington over a high-profile detainee still held at Guantánamo Bay, and deciding whether the country’s parliament, prosecutors and security services are willing to revisit decisions taken at the height of the post‑9/11 security partnership with the United States.
The Prosecutor General’s Office continues to maintain the 2010 investigation, pending the receipt of legal assistance and evidence from the United States. In practice, however, the momentum now appears to lie with Strasbourg, where each new ruling further constrains how far Lithuanian authorities can distance themselves from the legacy of Antaviliai.
Worth a look
