The case concerned two applicants from Somalia, who arrived to Malta after being rescued from a boat crossing from Libya on 1 October 2004. On arrival, they were identified by the police. They were not given the opportunity to apply for international protection, and after ten days they were taken by the police to be returned to Lybia. They were not given the possibility to speak with a UNHCR representative in Malta despite their request. The police forced them to take the airplane back to Libya, where they claim that they were arrested by Libyan authorities and interrogated, beaten and tortured. In November 2005 they were left in the desert and spent 14 days there without food or water. The two applicants managed to return to Tripoli and on 23 June 2006 they once again reached Malta. In Malta, they claimed to the First Hall Civil Court that the facts they were subject to give rise to an infringement of Article 3 and Article 13 of the ECHR, Article 36 of the Constitution of Malta, Article 4 of the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR and requesting to receive appropriate remedies for the violation of their fundamental rights.

The First Hall Civil Court considered that the applicants were exposed to torture and inhumane or degrading treatment upon their return to Libya, and therefore there was a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. The Ministry for Justice and the Interior and the Police Commissioner in his capacity as Principal Immigration Officer appealed this decision on grounds that the Court made an inaccurate assessment of the evidence regarding the treatment that the claimants received in Libya.

The Constitutional Court noted that, if the removal of a person gives rise to an infringement of Article 3 of the ECHR as there are substantial grounds to believe that that person would risk being subject to torture or inhumane and degrading treatment, there is an obligation not to remove the person. In this case, the Court considers that with regards to the first applicant, his testimony can be considered credible with regards to the treatment he received in Libya and it cannot be challenged at this stage as no other evidence, such as medical records, was previously requested by the appellant. This is not applicable to the other applicant as there is no testimony from his part and therefore no evidence to assess the treatment he received in Libya.

Considering the documents used to assess the situation in Libya at the time of removal, the Court ruled that the Maltese government ought to have known that the migrants were the risk of being tortured or treated inhumanely or degrading. The Court also ruled that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and of Article 36 of the Constitution on the part of the two applicants, within the limits of the fact that it was proven that the first applicant was subject to torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, while this was not proved for the second applicant.  Additionally, the Court ruled that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the ECHR with regards to the first applicant.