When four young Cubans fleeing political persecution arrived in Lithuania, they hoped to claim asylum. Instead, they were pushed into a dangerous limbo, denied access to protection, and subjected to abuse. Their experience is a stark warning of what is at stake as political pressure mounts on Europe’s human rights court to reinterpret its foundational principles.
These four young Cubans — then all barely 20 years old — fled first to Russia, one of the few countries they could enter without a visa. Facing threats of deportation, they made a desperate overland journey to Lithuania, transiting briefly through Belarus before arriving in March 2022.
They believed that, in line with international and European law, they could claim asylum once on Lithuanian soil. Instead, they recount being met with force, their phones and passports being seized, and suffering verbal and physical abuse at the hands of Lithuanian border guards who then forcibly removed them back to Belarus — not through a legal border post, but into a snowy forest. No explanation, no hearing, no asylum process.
For the next two weeks, they recount being caught in a violent and degrading “ping-pong” between Belarusian and Lithuanian authorities, being subjected to at least six pushbacks despite having obtained emergency protective measures from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). They survived by sleeping under trees in sub-zero temperatures. They suffered frostbite and bear lasting psychological trauma.
Pattern of dangerous asylum pushbacks across Europe
This is not just their story — it is part of a documented pattern of abuse at Europe’s eastern borders. Reports by Amnesty International, the Lithuanian Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières, and even Frontex’s own Fundamental Rights Office describe systematic, often brutal, collective expulsions, with utter disregard for the consequences of such returns.
Independent investigations have also shed light on what happens after people are forcibly removed to Belarus. In one case documented by Human Rights Watch, migrants at the Polish border were forced at gunpoint into freezing rivers. In another, border guards used police dogs, beatings, and even threats of immolation. A 2024 civil society report, funded by the EU, documented 116 border-related deaths across Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland — most due to hypothermia or drowning during forced border crossings.
This dehumanising violence has been justified by some EU member states as a response to the “instrumentalisation” of migration by Belarus. Yet no political challenge, however real, can excuse violations of the core, non-derogable human right of non-refoulement — the principle that no one should be returned to a place where they face torture or persecution.
The four Cuban applicants eventually formalised their asylum claims and were granted protection by Lithuania in March 2023. But they continue to suffer the consequences of what they endured. They have since brought a case to the ECtHR: C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania.
The case, for which hearings were held in February 2025, is pending before the court’s Grand Chamber, which hears cases with a potentially serious bearing on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Principles of human rights at stake
As politicians across Europe have come under pressure to reduce the number of migrants arriving by irregular routes, the principles of the ECHR have been called into question. In May this year, nine EU member states issued a letter calling for a “new and open-minded conversation” about the ECtHR’s role and its interpretation of the Convention — specifically in the context of migration.
Many of these same states have intervened in the young Cubans’ case, urging the Court to adopt a more “contextual” approach to interpreting Article 3 of the ECHR, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
If accepted, this would mark a dangerous shift. Article 3 has long been interpreted as absolute: No-one, under any circumstances, should be subjected to torture or degrading treatment — not even in times of emergency or crisis. Weakening this standard risks undermining the very purpose of the Convention, and erodes the principle that dignity belongs to all, regardless of status.
As the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty, put it: “Today the focus is on migrants; tomorrow it will be another vulnerable minority group; eventually it could be any of us.” This question goes to the heart of what kind of Europe we want to live in.
Risks of group expulsions of asylum seekers
Another area under scrutiny in this case is Article 4, Protocol 4, which prohibits the collective expulsion of foreigners. The Court has already given more permissive guidance in N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, concluding in its 2020 judgement that irregular border crossings could justify summary returns.
The Lithuanian case is a chance to correct course and reaffirm that all people — even those who arrive irregularly — have the right to a fair and individual assessment of their asylum claims. This is a defining moment.
European policymakers must uphold the independence of the ECtHR, resisting attempts to politicise its jurisprudence. They should also reaffirm the absolute nature of core human rights norms, including Article 3.
At the national level, politicians must ensure access to asylum procedures at the EU’s borders, regardless of how a person arrives; and replace unlawful pushbacks with reception systems based on dignity, law, and due process.
As O’Flaherty rightly noted, border control and human rights are not mutually exclusive. The capacity used to forcibly remove people can — and must — be redirected toward providing access to legal procedures and assessing vulnerability.
When the ECtHR rules in the C.O.C.G. case, its decision will not only determine whether four young asylum seekers were mistreated. It will signal whether Europe still believes in the universality of human dignity.
Let it be a message that Europe stands for the rule of law, even — especially — when it is difficult.
The views expressed in this op-ed are her own and do not reflect those of her employers or any affiliated institutions or organisations.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.