The Court of Lecce granted refugee status to a Nigerian woman whose application for international protection was rejected by the Territorial Commission of Caserta, after three hearings in which the applicant detailed her reasons to leave Nigeria due to the economic difficultie. She left with the help of a woman she paid and she was subjected to a voodoo oath. She travelled through Agadez and Libya, suffering violence during the journey. The court noted that the applicant presented her "story in great detail, with particular reference to the fact that she was forced into prostitution and, therefore, being the victim of acts of torture by the subjects who forced her into prostitution."

The Court of Lecce considered that the applicant’s statements are corroborated with country of origin information and various sources that investigate human trafficking in Nigeria. The Court stressed that “in order to find a well-founded fear of persecution, both the subjective (fear) and the objective (validity) components must be present. A person may actually have suffered persecution in the past and yet have no fear of being persecuted in the future. This happens, for example, when the persecutions suffered are remote in time and there is no longer any relationship with current events since, in the meantime, the situation in the country of origin has changed radically. In any case, having suffered persecutions in the past makes the fear of being able to suffer them again in the future well founded. These interpretative criteria find today a recognition expressed in art. 3, co. 4 of Legislative Decree 251/2007. The fact that the applicant has already suffered persecution [...] or direct threats of persecution [...] constitutes a serious indication of the validity of the applicant's fear of persecution or of the actual risk of suffering serious harm, unless elements or reasons are identified to believe that persecution or serious harm will not be repeated. In cases where the persecutions suffered in the past are of exceptional gravity, even where a future repetition of the same appears objectively unrealistic or unlikely, the person who has been affected can be recognized as a refugee (see in art.1-C, no. 5 and 6, par. 2 of the Geneva Convention the reference to "imperative reasons deriving from previous persecutions"). According to the UNHCR Handbook, par. 136, it is not possible to repatriate an individual who has been affected, personally or indirectly through his family, by atrocious forms of persecution from which s/he is still suffering trauma".

The Court cites EASO COI Report on Nigeria, 2018.