The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled on Tuesday that attempts to bar two Syrian migrants from reaching Cyprian territory and their subsequent expulsion violated multiple provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judges unanimously found violations of Article 3 prohibiting torture and degrading treatment; Article 4 of the additional Protocol 4, prohibiting collective expulsion of migrants; and Article 13, which enshrines the right to an effective remedy. As a result, the court ordered Cyprus to pay about €50,000 jointly to the applicants.

The applicants, Syrian nationals M.A. and Z.R, fled their war-torn home country to Lebanon, but could not stay there because of the near impossibility of claiming asylum under that country’s laws. Rights organizations have recently criticized Lebanon for mistreating asylum seekers. Crossing the Mediterranean by boat with the help of a smuggler, the applicants were apprehended and held captive at sea for two days by Cyprian authorities. Their claims to ask for asylum were denied and the two of them, together with a larger group of migrants including minors, were misled to think they were guided ashore, but transferred back to Lebanon, where they were handed over to the police and faced detention.

Based on third-party submissions and Civil society reports, the court found that the facts and allegations, which were undisputed by the government, were credible. It particularly referred to a Human Rights Watch report uncovering the systematic mistreatment of refugees in Cyprus in collaboration with the Lebanese authorities. Taking this into account, the fact that the applicants were stranded at sea was the basis for the Article 3 violation. Article 4 of Protocol 4 of the ECHR on the other hand is only triggered if migrants are expelled, or pushed back, “collectively” without regard for the “individual considerations” of the persons. The ECtHR found this to be the case and therefore a violation of the fundamental principle of non-refoulement under refugee law.

The court rejected the government’s argument that Lebanon is a safe third country and its reference to a bilateral agreement with Lebanon stating that:

In this respect, the Court reiterates that States, and Cyprus in the present case, cannot evade their own responsibility by relying on obligations arising out of bilateral agreements with other countries, in this case Lebanon (see Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy)

Lebanon and Cyprus have recently drawn criticism for widespread violations of refugees’ rights to seek asylum and illegal expulsions.