On May 3, 2016, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued its ruling in Abdi Mahamud v. Malta. The Court held that Malta violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)—which prohibits degrading treatment—as well as provisions of the Convention’s Article 5 right to liberty and security. The compliant was based on Malta’s prolonged detention of Abdi Mahamud while she awaited decisions on her asylum application and her request for provisional release from immigration detention based on ill-health and her status as a vulnerable person. According to the press release, Mahamud was intercepted by Maltese immigration police shortly after arriving in Malta by boat in May 2012. After she was confined to a detention facility and served an order of removal, Mahamud applied for asylum, citing a fear of nationality-based persecution should she be repatriated to her home country of Somalia. Detained while she awaited the result of her asylum application, Mahamud suffered headaches, earaches, and fainting, which resulted in frequent hospitalizations. Mahamud’s asylum claim was ultimately denied by Malta in December 2012. While her asylum application was pending, Mahamud applied for release from detention on account of her health. In December 2012, Mahamud was interviewed regarding her petition for release. She was verbally informed in April 2013 that she would be released and was subsequently released in September 2013. In her claim, Mahamud alleged that the conditions of her detention violated Article 3 of the ECHR due to overcrowding, limited access to outdoor exercise, lack of privacy, and lack of female staff at the Lyster Barracks detention facility. She cited as violations of Article 5 the prolonged length of the decisions regarding her asylum application and her petition for release from detention, as well as the overall length of her detention. Dismissing the Maltese government’s argument that Mahamud had failed to exhaust domestic law remedies, the ECtHR held that the conditions of Mahamud’s detention violated Article 3 of the ECHR. The Court also held that delays in processing Mahamud’s petitions for asylum and release and her subsequent detention violated Article 5. Judge Sajo dissented, finding insufficient evidence that detention conditions violated Article 3 and disagreeing with the finding that Mahamud’s initial detention violated Article 5. Mahamud was awarded twelve-thousand Euros in non-pecuniary damages and an additional two-thousand five-hundred Euros for costs and expenses.