UN Transcripts — https://transcripts.un.org/en/cat/2240
2240th Meeting, 84th Session, Committee against Torture (CAT) — 15 April 2026
Language: en
Automatically generated transcript — may contain errors. Not an official United Nations record.

---
CAT · Chair · Claude Heller [0:02]:

A very good morning. We can start meeting 2240 of the Committee against Torture. And it's a very great pleasure for me to welcome the delegation from Italy who is coming to introduce the periodic report of the Committee. And greetings to the delegation who is led by Giovanni Battista Iannuzzi, who chairs the Inter-ministerial Committee on Human Rights. We can see that the delegation is diverse and we have representation from different ministries. And without further ado, I'll give the floor to the delegation for their introductory statement.


Italy · Chair of the Inter-ministerial Committee for Human Rights · Giovanni Battista Iannuzzi [1:23]:

Chair, thank you very much for having welcomed us. We're very happy to be here with you this morning. In fact, we remember that in 2017 you were country rapporteur for Italy. Chair of the Inter-ministerial Committee for Human Rights, the Italian national mechanism for implementation, reporting and follow-up. It is an honor for me to accompany the Italian delegation participating in this session of the Committee against Torture convened to consider the seventh periodic report submitted by Italy. At the outset, I wish to commend the Committee for the rigor and independence with which it discharges its mandate. The examination of Italy's periodic report is an opportunity we approach in a spirit of open dialogue, transparency and accountability that I believe is shared by all states party to the convention. We therefore count on the professionalism of the members of the Committee as we attribute the utmost consideration to the questioning during this review cycle. We see the Committee's observation and comments not as obstacles to manage but as instruments of improvement for our constant commitment to implement the convention in our country. The members of the delegation who will give practical effect to this approach include representatives of the Ministry of Justice, specifically from the Minister's office, from the Department of Penitentiary Administration and from the legislative office. The Ministry of Interior is here represented by high-ranking officials from the anti-crime directorate and from the immigration and border state police. The Ministry of Health is represented by officials from the Department of Human Health and the office of the protection of the health of vulnerable population groups. The general command of the Italian Coast Guard is also represented. Last but not least, the delegation includes my colleagues serving at the Directorate General for Political Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and our colleagues of the human rights team of the permanent mission of Italy as well. The interpreters enabling us to express ourselves in our mother tongue. It comes without saying that the long time elapsed between the presentation of the list of issues and this meeting brought as a useful consequence the possibility to submit recently updated information, enriching the elements at the Committee disposal since December 2021. Therefore, I would limit my comments to just a very few remarks. Here at stake is the crime of torture, a crime central in Italy's constitutional architecture since Article 13 of our Constitution prohibits any form of violence against persons under restriction of their liberty and Article 27 establishes that the punishment must respect human dignity and aim at the social rehabilitation of the convicted person. These are not programmatic statements, they are justiciable rights. Following the Committee's recommendations in previous reviews, Italy introduced the crime of torture into the penal code with Law 110 of 2017. We acknowledge the debate including observations by this Committee regarding the scope of the provision, in particular with respect to the requirement of repeated conduct. Italy remains engaged with this discussion and is committed to ensuring that the legislative framework fully reflects the obligations enshrined in the convention. In this regard, a significant legislative reform was introduced establishing that the statute of limitations for criminal offenses is permanently suspended or in any event ceases to run once the first instance judgment has been delivered. It is worth noting that Italy's Constitutional Court has progressively extended protections against inhuman treatment through its case law, including in landmark judgments on conditions of detention. The court's decisions have reinforced the principle articulated by the President of the Republic on multiple occasions that la pena non può mai essere disumana, punishment can never be inhumane, and that the state bears full responsibility for the lives and dignity of those entrusted to its custody. We do not shy away from acknowledging the problems affecting our prison system. Overcrowding is structural and long-standing. Conditions in Italian detention facilities constitute a challenge to the very constitutional values that the Republic must uphold. The current government is firmly committed to addressing the root causes through targeted investment ranging from the adaptation of detention facilities to the expansion and improved training of penitentiary staff, improved psychological support and healthcare within detention facilities and the expansion of vocational and rehabilitative programs. The government's objective is to create over 10,000 new prison places by the end of 2027 through an allocation of about 900 million euros for the period 2025-2027, restoring dignity to the prison system and ensuring better work conditions for prison staff. We recognize the vulnerability of migrants, asylum seekers and stateless persons with respect to the risk covered by the convention. The pressure on Italy's migration management system is well documented and no one underestimates the human rights implications of sustained migratory flows, particularly in the context of reception, identification and temporary holding facilities. While remaining committed to ensuring that the prohibition of non-refoulement is respected in all operational contexts, we acknowledge the concern expressed by the Committee regarding conditions in certain reception facilities. That is why we are engaged in a program of improvement involving facility upgrades, personnel training and the monitoring of the national preventive mechanism. Finally, we have significantly intensified our efforts in an area to which the government is deeply committed: combating all forms of gender-based violence through the adoption of numerous legislative and operative measures aiming at strengthening prevention and repression, enhancing the protection of victims and ensuring the prosecution of perpetrators. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Italy reaffirms its full commitment to cooperation with the Committee against Torture and welcomes the convention's review mechanism as a cornerstone of the international human rights architecture, an architecture based on the same fundamental principles of the Italian Constitution which guides the Italian role at the international level. On this ground, we will participate in this exchange today, ready to listen, to provide adequate replies and to follow up on the Committee's concluding observations. In one sentence, the path toward full compliance with the convention is one we intend to walk with conviction. Muchas gracias, señor presidente.


CAT · Chair · Claude Heller [1:11:40]:

Thank you very much for your presentation and your initial statement. Now, I am the first of the country rapporteurs and I'm going to be asking questions and making comments of my own and then this will be followed by the other country rapporteur, Erdoğan İşcan, and we will hear from further committee members after that. We hope that this will prove to be a constructive dialogue on issues of interest to the committee but also of interest to the state party of Italy. So, we once again welcome the delegation who's come here to present their report. We know that Italy is committed to the treaty body system and we know that there is a constructive participation from Italy in the different United Nations systems bodies, for example the Human Rights Council. And we know that Italy is a member of the Council for the period 2026 to 28. We also, we know that Italy is very involved in, proactively involved in certain issues, notably the abolition of the death penalty and we know that they're conducting a campaign for an absolute moratorium on the use of the death penalty. And this is something which is very useful for the work of the Committee against Torture. As you have said yourselves, we always see that there is a gap or a difference between the time when the list of issues is submitted and when the report is produced and we know that there have been updates since then as well and you've kept us informed of these. So we work on the basis of the different documents that are produced and received and we're also aware that at the moment there are Italian state policies that have been changed. So if the information we've received is already out of date then do please point this out to us.

So you have mentioned yourself Law 110 of 2017 on torture. So it's quite a recent law and this law introduced the crime of torture in Articles 163 and another article of the criminal code. Now the first article of the code provides a description of torture in the following way: any person, and I'm quoting, that with grave violence or threat or acting with cruelty provokes severe physical injury or verifiable psychological trauma to a person deprived of liberty who is an individual who is under their authority, supervision, control, care or assistance or who finds themselves in a situation of vulnerability which lessens their ability to defend themselves will be sentenced to four to ten years imprisonment if the crime is committed by means of multiple actions or if the actions imply or entail degrading treatment for the person, end of quotation.

So the law of 2017 has a much broader scope than Article 1 of the convention because the commission of the act by an official or someone who is responsible for a public service specifically due to the seriousness of the actions is provided for as aggravating circumstances in paragraph 2 and is sentenced to five to twelve years imprisonment. Now there are aggravating circumstances, for example even life imprisonment if the intended result of the acts of torture is the death of the victim. In these cases Article 157 of the penal code applies and there is no statute of limitations. For aggravating circumstances according to what is laid down in Articles 157 and 161 of the penal code, the maximum period of statute of limitations is 22 years and 6 months when the torture causes extremely serious physical damages and 37 years and 6 months when death is, occurs even if not premeditated. And then there is the crime of incitement to an official to commit an act of torture and here we have Article 4 of the law on diplomatic immunity of foreigners who are subjected to criminal trial or sentence for crimes of torture in another state or an international court with a view to their extradition.

So the committee has the following observations on all of this. The text of the law in our view implies a, the cumulative effect of various elements in order to establish an act of torture and this is a higher threshold than we have in the convention. The definition includes elements for example including violence and threats, cruelty, verifiable psychological trauma and these are, this is language that we don't find in Article 1 of the convention and which are very difficult to specify or indeed verify. Article 163 makes no reference to the intention including discrimination of the act of torture nor does it refer to consent or acquiescence and those are important elements of Article 1 of the Convention against Torture. The committee is also concerned that the legislation treats torture as a generic crime which can be committed by any individual and this lessens the responsibility of the state's public officials. Furthermore, Article 5 of Law 110 states that its implementation must not lead to an increasing costs or to incurring new financial expenditure in the state budget and in our view this is an omission from the commitments of the state which do have financial implications such as education, training of staff in the prevention of torture and Article 11 which deals with revised police interrogation technique and Article 14, compensation and reparation for victims including their rehabilitation. So we would very much like to receive your comments on these committee observations.

It would also be of interest to the committee to know how many cases have been reported with these so-called aggravated circumstances and whether the state party is intending to take any measures to ensure that there is indeed no statute of limitation for acts of torture. We also continue to be concerned as a committee by political statements made in Italy which call for the abolition of torture from the penal code. We would very much like more implementation and documentation of this because this would be a very clear step backwards both for the rule of law and for a democratic state.

I would now like to refer to the institutional human rights framework in Italy. It has come to our knowledge that there are different human rights mechanisms such as the national observatory on the rights of persons with disabilities, the national ombudsman for the rights of the child and the recently approved national ombudsman of the rights of detainees and persons deprived of liberty, the guarantor. So if we look at the 2022 report, we are struck by paragraph 7 which says and I quote: as to the establishment of a national institution for the promotion and protection of human rights, we are having animated discussions in the parliament.

Now this is a contentious issue because we know that there have been various bills submitted in parliament which have led nowhere. When Italy underwent the 2024 universal periodic review exercise, we heard about the bills in 2022 and that they're currently being debated in parliament. So we would like to better understand what reasons underlie the fact that there has been no establishment of such a national human rights institution. I believe Italy is the only EU member state that does not have a national human rights institution and we believe this should be a priority for the country given that there ought to be an independent body pursuant to the Paris Principles and with the sufficient human, technical and financial resources to be able to fulfill its mandate.

We've been informed that at the end of 2020 a law was approved defining the so-called national guarantor which was established in 2014 and that this was elevated to the national preventive mechanism pursuant to the optional protocol to the convention and it fulfills the role of the national preventive mechanism after being established in 2014. So we have a concern and would like to know how the board of the national guarantor is set up, particularly looking at the appointment of the director Mauro Palma. So what is the role of the executive and of the legislative authorities in the composition of this important body? As the optional protocol itself lays down, the national preventive mechanism must be an independent body and it must have the human and financial resources allocation which is appropriate for it to fulfill its mandate.

We also know that some organizations have submitted complaints, for example the association called Antigone. They submitted a large number of complaints and of all of the cases they submitted only one did they receive an answer to. We talk of activities and independent control for all of the activities carried out locally and nationally and the different mechanisms that exist. And paragraph 5 also mentions that the national preventive mechanism focused specifically on the particular risks of return, particularly looking at Article 3 of the convention and we'll be coming back to this. The national mechanism reminded the authorities that they must respect the rights of persons that are that have an expulsion order and that are exposed to risk in their country of origin. So in those cases they will respect of these recommendations.

In the previous report which we've received for this meeting, we are told of the existence of a national program of the asylum fund for integration which provides for a follow-up system of forced returns and the coordinating body is the national preventive mechanism. So to meet the goal of 3,000 supervised returns, the draft of the national preventive mechanism project was approved on the 21st of September 2020 which was at that time being implemented. So my question is whether this program is still in existence in 2026.

The report also states that there are existing legal guarantees and it says that the majority of the measures and the detention are in line with Article 3 of the Constitution and that all judicial guarantees and access to a lawyer, the contact of the defendant with family members are all provided for and guaranteed. Now it is said that from a legal perspective there is a list of laws and bills on a reduced use of preventive detention in case of misdemeanors and the increase in use of alternative measures to imprisonment before a sentence is delivered in order to ensure that there is more efficiency in the system.

Grouping together crimes whose punishment may become an administrative sanction in terms of the use of electronic monitoring devices for persons under house arrest. We would like to hear from you more regarding the number of cases about alternative measures to custody have been handed down. We have understood that the number of individuals in pre-trial detention has fallen consistently despite the overcrowding in prisons, increasing the number of sentenced detainees to over 73% by the end of 2024.

The report sets out the information that the state is complying with the rights of individuals who are detained, ensuring access to a lawyer, to a doctor, providing information to families and so on and so forth. In Article 111 of the Constitution, it stipulates the duty of the state to implement the principle of a fair trial within a reasonable time frame. This is understood to mean that the proceedings before a first instance court do not exceed three years, that they happen before three years. Before a second instance court, that should be two years and before the highest court, the Court of Cassation, that should be a one-year time frame.

I would echo the fact that the Human Rights Committee voiced its concern regarding excessive length of judicial proceedings and limited access to free legal aid because of the restrictive criteria to be able to benefit from it and the lack of information on options for legal aid and assistance.

Mr. İşcan will look at the next issue in more detail but I do want to touch upon something that has struck our attention, namely the special regime of deprivation of liberty regarding Article 41-bis of the law on the penitentiary system. 154 of the 26th of July 1975. Now we have understood that this specialized regime applies to crimes committed by organized groups such as the Sicilian Mafia, the Camorra and terrorist groups and others that do not cooperate with national authorities. In exceptional circumstances, the judicial authority, the judge, may prolong the interrogation and the questioning of up to five days. This Article 41-bis sets out restrictions for prisoners who hold a high-ranking post in a mafia organization and who have been imprisoned for some of the crimes that are mentioned in paragraph 1 of the aforementioned article.

The content of this article is striking because it enables the imposition of a regime of deprivation of liberty of up to four years with the possibility of extending that for a further two years. We're also struck by the alleged automatic extension of detention in such cases, the frequent rejection of appeal requests, the lack of judicial oversight and supervision of the extension orders of this type of detention and the severe restrictions imposed regarding the possibility of sharing a space with other detainees, of course referring here to the Nelson Mandela Rules. There's also the issue of solitary confinement of 22 hours under this system which can last 15 days max with a medical certificate as well as a series of other restrictions. The disciplinary sanction in Article 39 of the law on prisons is above all applicable to the most vulnerable detainees and this is also an issue of concern for us. We understand from the information that we have received that there have been over 1,900 disciplinary confinements in 2023 and 2024 and 33 and 26 by order of a judge. We would also draw attention to the fact that Article 72 of the criminal code, when a judge may order solitary confinement for a detainee who has committed multiple crimes, that this solitary confinement may go from two months to three years.

I should like to turn to something that you touched upon in your opening remarks on aspects related to Article 3 of the convention. The committee is aware that Italy is one of the most affected European countries, it is the most affected by humanitarian crises as a result of the mass flows of people who have arrived at the coastal borders over recent years. Between 2015 and 2024, over 900,000 people reached Italy's shores, most of them by sea or by the Balkanic route through the northern border with Slovenia. The sea arrivals do seem to have fallen in recent years according to the Italy International Rescue Committee but tens of thousands of people continue to arrive on boats on one of the most dangerous migratory routes, most fatal migratory routes in the world. There's not a month goes by when we don't hear of a tragedy in the Mediterranean. Just a few days ago we heard of a case where over 90 people drowned. Through to August 2025, over 42,000 individuals had arrived by sea this year alone. This is a figure that is higher than that of 2024, most of them from Bangladesh, Eritrea, Egypt. On the Balkanic route, the number is lower, 13,000 people from Afghanistan, Türkiye, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The number of asylum seekers has notably increased in recent years.

Over 158,000 cases in 2024 which would place Italy in third place in terms of number of asylum requests after Germany and Spain. The authorities have noted that this is around 36% and we understand that 330,000 refugees currently live in the country. There's no doubt that Italy's efforts were commendable, efforts made in terms of search and rescue operations of a very high number of people in the Mediterranean Sea, those covered by international protection and the humanitarian assistance that was provided. However, the committee is concerned that this situation has been changing over time and quite quickly.

At the universal periodic review, the state reiterated that the migratory strategy of Italy was focused on three main pillars: strengthening the fight against human trafficking and human trafficking and criminal organized criminal organizations, to promote safe migratory routes and to eradicate the underlying causes for irregular migration. Now we understand that national legislation and asylum requests that this is done in line with Article 19 of the so-called single text on migration which states that in no case can deportation or return be ordered to a state where the foreigner or asylum seeker may be subject to persecution on various grounds or may be returned to another state under the risk of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. And in line with what the report says, the existence of systematic and flagrant violations of human rights in that country must also be borne in mind when assessing the grounds for return.

Moreover, it states that the return or deportation of an individual to a state cannot take place if there are reasonable grounds to believe that that individual would be in danger unless it is on national security or public security, public order grounds. We would like examples of this please from you. One central issue that I think we need to address is that the deportations, mass deportations of people have increased exponentially and what the committee is concerned about is that there is no individual analysis on a case-by-case basis to identify individuals who may be subject to torture or ill-treatment during deportation proceedings. The report states that to assess the risk of violation, the nature and family links of the concerned person will be borne in mind, their social integration in Italy, how long they have been on the national territory and links to their country of origin. Law 173 of 2020 broadened the grounds for non-refoulement establishing judicial and administrative proceedings regarding that situation in line with the law and that the cases should be assessed individually and under no circumstances should collective repatriation take place. But as I say, this is the report from 2022 and that's where we get the impression that the policy or the decisions of the authorities are somewhat different to that reality.

The report refers to a project Aditus with the International Organization for Migration, the IOM, and that was concluded in 2019 and that included information on the disembarkation and the so-called hotspots and identification of vulnerabilities, particularly victims of trafficking and unaccompanied minors and information from operators in these centers at these critical points. My question is whether this Aditus project is still relevant, is it still in force, is it still happening? I think when we look at 2026 and the context now, it's important to recall the international legal framework for search and rescue operations at sea. This is covered by Article 89 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Convention on Marine Search and Rescue from 79. These provisions stipulate that all states must identify a zone of search and rescue at sea.

In the report, it states that search and rescue activities coordinated by the Italian Maritime Safety Organization are in line with international legislation and national legislation and in line with human rights standards without any discrimination. Return decisions regarding citizens who are from outside the European Union and the proceedings leading to the issuance of those decisions are allegedly in line with the decision from 2008/115 of the European Community on individuals who arrive in the national territory in an irregular manner autonomously as a result of rescue operations. The typical measure taken is pushbacks, is return as far as we've understood. This is made provision for in Article 10 para 2 of the single text on migration. This may grant temporary admission for urgent assistance. This is the most typical case of what happens with disembarkation of migrants' boats from sea or interception during prevention operations when it comes to irregular migration. Let me return then to the question as to when it comes to the principle of non-refoulement whether this continues to apply in these cases, in these circumstances.

The Ministry of the Interior since 2018 has been participating in a capacity building project regarding Libya co-financed by the European Union with the support for, with the Frontex project and migration which covers coast guards and efforts on the Libyan side. Now since the report, well rather in 2016, the committee received information to the effect that a large number of cases of asylum requests were being received and we are struck by the fact that the report mentions that requests from victims of torture, that it's not possible to assess the number of requests from victims of torture because the national committee for asylum requests does not have a database that is specific and that covers those victims. So we would be, we would highly recommend establishing a record, a registry of cases of torture so that you can have a more consistent policy. I should also like to ask about when an asylum application is filed, is there legal assistance provided to the individual concerned, to the person requesting the asylum, are they given legal assistance?

When it comes to returns, the report states that this is done on a case-by-case basis and that diplomatic guarantees are sought from the country of destination and that the extradition procedure is only possible for cases that are made provision for under international conventions. I think one of the most pressing issues for the current Italian government when it comes to migration management is that there has been growing reference to the issue of security with the goal of justifying more restrictive measures. This has led to the adoption of laws and decrees aiming to curb irregular migration and to increase measures aimed at forced return. Italy has also sought to adopt bilateral agreements, policies of offshoring border management through bilateral agreements and within the framework of the European Union.

The principle of non-refoulement is therefore being called into question. Law 132/2018 introduced the concept of country of safe origin or safe country of origin which according to NGOs would not take into account criteria such as the individual characteristics of social groups, political groups or religious groups which might expedite the process of forced repatriation. From December 2025, the government has been considered, has considered 19 countries as safe. This is perhaps the longest list in the European Union: Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cabo Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Morocco, Montenegro, Peru, Senegal, Serbia, Sri Lanka and Peru. Now in line with European Union legislation, a so-called safe country is one where an individual can be returned to without fear of persecution, torture or ill-treatment or violence as a result of an armed conflict.

There is a memorandum of understanding between Libya and Italy. This has been in force since 2017 establishing cooperation on migration and particularly with the coast guard of the North African country which conducts interception operations at sea. The memorandum was extended from 2019 without amendment despite evidence of irregularities in the situations of the migrants or asylum seekers including grave violations of human rights by the coast guard service and by other security agents, inclusion with criminal groups and human traffickers. Returns have continued to countries that cannot be considered to be safe given the very many human rights violations and the risk that those rescued in international waters might be subject to ill-treatment or torture. The policy regarding Libya has led to the fact that thousands of refugees and asylum seekers have been left trapped in a state where they're exposed to serious human rights violations. Thousands of individuals have been arbitrarily detained and held in centers that are under the control of the Ministry of the Interior or other sites that are controlled by militia and criminal groups. Both the United Nations support mission in Libya, UNSMIL, and the United Nations panel of experts on Libya in their reports to the Security Council, they have documented extensive, extensively documented human rights violations including summary executions, torture, sexual violations and abuse, extortion and extortion committed by members of the coast guard, inclusion with criminal groups and human traffickers.

What we are concerned about is that despite this information and the still chaotic domestic situation in Libya as a result of the armed conflict, the Italian authorities have not adopted any measures which might amend or refer to the humanitarian pact, humanitarian impact that the cooperation policy on migration has had. It's clear for the committee that migration cooperation no matter how legal its foundation, that this cannot be counter to human rights and it cannot run counter to the provisions of the Convention against Torture. We would be very grateful to hear your comments on this and whether the state is planning to amend or revise these conditions of its migratory policy. I should also like to turn to the memorandum of the European Union with Tunisia adopted on the 16th of July 2023. It's very difficult to classify that state as a safe state and allow it to manage migratory procedures and manage migratory flow given the xenophobic rhetoric that is coming out of the highest levels of government regarding the fact that sub-Saharan migrants allegedly pose a serious threat.

Now as we've said, there are also allegations of automatic pushbacks at the border with Slovenia with the chain across the Balkans including Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia and also the port at the Greek ports. Information that we have received from via shadow reports and in the media is that in the so-called hotspots of Lampedusa, Trapani and Taranto, of these people are arbitrarily divided into possible asylum seekers and so-called economic migrants on the basis of their country of origin. And these criteria play an essential role in the first initial phase of identification of those who have been displaced to determine whether or not they should be granted international protection. Here we see prejudice, stereotypes and the evidence of the very little time available to take a proper due decision. Is there some kind of policy of discouragement so that displaced persons do not request asylum?

Now we've also had reports about the deplorable conditions of the 11 CPRs or detention centers prior to repatriation. This is something that the national preventive mechanism has reported on various times and this at a time when they're identifying persons and verifying their legal status. There is overcrowding and the authorities are not providing basic services or moving people to proper reception centers. So it seems that these centers are not governed by common law but rather by administrative decrees issued by the ministries and it appears that they do not offer the sufficient guarantees to ensure the substantive rights of persons who are held there and it seems that these are individuals who are also subjected to ill-treatment. We would very much like to hear the delegation's comments about this.

And we would also like to raise the question of ships or vessels which are kept far from the coast for many days and it seems that persons are subjected to ill-treatment and very poor conditions during these stays off the coast. We've had reports of many such events but according to information we've received since September 2025, the authorities has dealt this treatment to 24 vessels keeping the boats far away from rescue and recovery facilities. There were charges filed against six officials and two coast guard officials for not allowing a boat to disembark in Calabria. There were 94 people on board and 12 children and they all perished in the sea. The investigation said that the decision of the Ministry of Interior of 2019 to delay the dispatching of rescue operations for persons that were reaching the Italian coast led to avoidable loss of life.

So Doctors Without Borders and other organizations say that human rights defenders' work is prevented when they attempt to rescue people at sea and so there is the recommendation for the state to take measures to ensure that these are persons and associations that can do their job without fear of reprisals. It is our understanding that in 2025 more than 66,000 migrants disembark and these figures are similar to that for the previous year. We know that the European Parliament approved changes to the financing relating to standards that restrict the right to asylum by having such a long list of safe countries and for allowing the repatriation of migrants to their countries of origin. So we would like to highlight the information that in February of this year the Italian government adopted a draft law which allows for a one to six month naval blockade preventing vessels from reaching Italian territorial waters.

This is specifically focused on migrant boats and NGO vessels that attempt to rescue them. It will be applicable it appears when the authorities believe that there are changing circumstances or threats to public order, for example a real increase in migratory flows, a health emergency, a risk of entry of terrorists or high risk global events occurring. We would like you to explain what sanctions would be applied in the case of violations of these provisions. Now according to legal experts, this is legislation which runs counter to global provisions and there can be no prohibition of rescue vessels. Now there have been legislative changes in the European Union and in line with this the law says that migrants intercepted in the high seas can be sent to third countries, countries that Italy has agreements with. Now this seems to once again trigger the well-known removal of migrants to Albania outside the territory and this stemmed from the 2023 bilateral agreement with Albania.

So there have been reports about the detention conditions in the Gjadër detention center relating to the provision of personnel, health and sanitary measures and also the treatment of persons held there. We should also mention that in November of last year we had a meeting with the state of Albania when they were submitting their own report and we raised that matter with them too but we would nevertheless welcome your comments on this matter. We're also very much aware of the controversy relating to government powers, the government authorities and the judiciary. Now there had been the removal of 73 individuals to the Gjadër detention camp in the northwest of Albania in 2024 and 2025 and the decision taken was supported by the Court of Justice of the European Union. According to the law, these countries, the country of origin of these individuals were not safe but more recently two additional rulings were issued by Italian courts running counter to UN policy and this related to Carola Rackete, the captain of the boat and a German association that and this is a boat that took on 42 migrants on the Italian island of Lampedusa.

There was a court ruling therefore of a financial compensation to a 50-year-old Algerian migrant who had been expelled to Albania not knowing anything about their destination and had been an individual who'd been living in Italy for 19 years. Now we understand that this draft bill has 80 articles, it includes measures that restrict the right to asylum, that it limits the reasons that one might underlying a possible application but I don't want to speak at great length on these proposed amendments and changes. According to the Association for Legal Studies on Immigration, these are changes which are potentially arbitrary and which would strip power away from protection mechanisms. I also wish to refer to some matters on Articles 5 and 9 on extradition.

And I think it would be important to point out that pursuant to Italian law, it is possible to accuse and prosecute a person for the crime of torture only if the facts took place in Italy or if the victim is an Italian citizen. So nothing has changed relating to the non-implementation of the principle of international jurisdiction in this law. However, according to the Antigone association, it would be possible to exempt from this principle of territoriality because of Article 10 of the penal code which grants the Ministry of Justice the possibility of asking a court to proceed relating to crimes committed by foreign agents on foreign nationals outside Italy. So a number of foreigners have been arrested for committing crimes in a detention center and this relates to individuals that had been rescued by an NGO boat and were being held in Lampedusa. So similar cases had also been heard but before the introduction of the crime of torture.

We are struck by the fact that in January 2024 the authority detained a high-ranking official of the Libyan government following an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court on the grounds of alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was freed two days later, returned to his own country without informing the court officially. This is General Al-Smali, Director General of the judicial police who is known as the butcher of Tripoli in Libya and who subsequently was detained in his own country. Relating to the investigation of these cases, the parliamentary majority invoked immunity and we would welcome your comments on this. We would also like information on the number of cases of extradition and which cases requested such extraditions during the period under review.

Now due to a lack of time and also because other people will touch on different issues and I can pick up on these issues again tomorrow, there is the matter of the response to the investigation of crimes of torture that have taken place and that have been reported in different prisons around the country. In Ivrea, San Gimignano, there are cases in Turin, in Monza, Pavia, Villa Noppera and in juvenile prisons like Cesare Beccaria in Milan. There has been much focus on these cases and we would like to know about the investigations of these cases and what they have revealed. A major concern and we agree with NGO findings on this is that thousands of persons are in a very precarious situation when they are detained in overcrowded cells with very poor conditions, high suicide rate, more than 83 persons in 2024 committed suicide and 91 persons in 2025.

Now according to recent information and statistics from the Ministry of Justice, up to the 18th of February of this year, there were 63,800 plus detainees in Italian prisons whereas in fact the capacity is about 51,000, around that figure. We know that it's 124.4% over this amount, so serious overcrowding. Lucca prisons has 246% occupation, it's particularly critical. Tomorrow we will raise other issues such as the lack of identification of law enforcement officials and other matters related to this.

So I would like to conclude this initial statement by raising concerns relating to the weakening of the rule of law. We know that there is a decree, the so-called security decree, which includes provisions for a bill before parliament which has been criticized from many quarters given the unjustified limitation to freedom of expression and of association. These provisions became law in June. They increased sentences for participation in unauthorized demonstrations, they criminalized protests in migrant detention centers, in prisons and this includes issues such as passive resistance, refusal to obey orders etc. And the Senate approved this decree law number 148 which became law number 80 and it also introduced urgent measures on public security, protection of officials and prison staff and prison rules. Now some of the key elements in this legislation include the establishment of 14 new criminal crimes and increased aggravating circumstances for determining charges and governing police interventions and official intervention into prisons.

According to the revised report, inter-prisoner violence has noticeably increased between 2021 and 2025. 2,700 incidents have been reported initially and in fact the figure now is over 5,100. I would like to understand what your perception is or what your explanation is for this increase of violence in prisons. What is the reason underlying this violence? What is it that is failing in the prison system? What is it that is working? But basically what is the reason for this dramatic increase in violence? We understand that the response to such violence has been to promote a greater use of force by the authorities in order to quell riots and disturbances in detention centers and in prisons and that only the increase of force and the increase in criminal sanctions can solve the situation but the treatment can be equated to cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment.

Passive resistance it seems now falls under criminalized conduct and this includes hunger strikes, denying return to the cell or other forms of conduct that are often used by prisoners or detainees in order to draw the attention of the authorities. These acts should be decriminalized and that would be a positive step if this were so and we would like your comments on this. Along the same lines of the decree law, there's been change to some of the measures and in fact we've seen the difference in the definition of the so-called less favored persons, for example former patients of psychiatric hospitals and this also covers crimes for illegal squatting of houses and other types of conduct that now lead to excessive use of force. In our view the law which aims to strengthen public security and safety can violate rights and there can be a violation of the right to freedom of detainees if it is applied without the necessary safeguards.

The security decree of 2026 and this is decree 23 of 2026, its Article 7 provides for preventive or pre-trial detention of 12 hours without any judicial authorization and this during the public demonstration relating to any person suspected to posing a threat to public order. This can lead to arbitrary detentions. So there is the provision of prohibition of accessing urban, certain urban areas of persons accused of this during public demonstrations.

And finally, two more issues. The report mentions the observatory on acts of discrimination and this is to combat hate crimes. Now we have a concern because of the racist, xenophobic political discourse against minorities and migrants especially by politicians both at national and local level. In the universal periodic review, it was stated that Italy is currently putting in place a new national plan against racism, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance against ethnic minorities, migrant communities and in order to promote intercultural relationships and diversity. So this is praiseworthy but we would like to know more about what the state of implementation of this plan is and what measures have meanwhile been taken to combat violence on racial grounds and to prevent hate crimes against minority groups and non-citizens, particularly refugees, migrants, persons of African descent and the Roma, Sinti and Caminante communities as well as lesbian, gay, intersex, bisexual or transsexual persons. We have had reports of this from non-governmental organizations of quite a large number of such cases of discrimination.

And finally on terrorism. Legislation refers to United Nations resolutions and we welcome the update on the number of cases of arrest on terrorism charges for 2025. Now together with, according to Human Rights Watch, Italy expels alleged terrorism using a procedure relating to their actions in the country. We would like to know how many expulsions have been ordered pursuant to Article 13 paragraph 1 of Law 256 of 2018 relating to administrative expulsions for the maintenance of public order and national security pursuant to Article 3 of Law 144 of 2005 which governs such actions. This is part of the actions to prevent terrorism and is part of the emergency measures to counter global terrorism. We would like to know what your view is on these statements. So that brings my initial intervention to a close. I will raise further issues tomorrow and without further ado I'll give the floor to Mr. Erdoğan İşcan, our second country rapporteur.


CAT · Erdoğan İşcan [2:29:09]:

I thank you, Chair, and first rapporteur. Good morning, buongiorno. Allow me first to join Mr. Heller, the first rapporteur, in extending a warm welcome to the distinguished delegation of the Italian Republic. We listened with interest to the opening statement of the esteemed head of delegation, reiterating the state party's continued commitment to full cooperation with the committee as well as to its obligations under international law. We appreciate the forthcoming stance of the state party. I think I will not be using a long time to raise questions today. I will check the time and let other colleagues come forward to put forward their questions. I will try to be brief today and continue tomorrow as Mr. Heller, the first rapporteur, said he would. But at the outset, I wish to use a couple of minutes to raise a few observations in connection with the current situation in international relations. The founding pillars of international security architecture for the last 80 years have been multilateralism and the rule of international law. We observe with grave concern that multilateralism is called into question and the rule of international law is defied. Recent developments demonstrate that hard power is rising, regretfully at the expense of the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, international law as well as multilateral institutions and diplomacy. Nonetheless, despite those concerns that create pessimism, there are also developments that inspire optimism.

I can state plainly that the rules-based international order has not collapsed. International law has not been eroded. Multilateral institutions have not disappeared. What eroded is the political will to uphold these norms. I recall that a cross-regional group of more than 80 states, including the Italian Republic, issued a joint declaration at the 61st Human Rights Council last month in March, on 2 March 2026. The committee commends the state party for undersigning this joint declaration that calls for defending and strengthening multilateralism within an international order based on respect for international law and universal human rights. In this connection, I would also recall that two weeks ago, on the last day of March, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution to strengthen how UN mandates are created, implemented and reviewed across the system. It was a major milestone under the UN80 Initiative. The committee praises the state party for having supported this initiative. By creating mandates, member states instruct and guide the UN system on how to address global challenges, including supporting peace and security, delivering humanitarian aid, advancing development and protecting human rights. Indeed, this explains why we are having this dialogue. Member states created the conventions, including our convention, and mandated the treaty bodies, including this committee, to review compliance with obligations under each convention. Through this dialogue with states party, while noting the progress, we identify the areas where further progress may be needed, provide recommendations aimed at assisting states party to continue making progress with a view to ensuring full compliance with obligations under the convention.

Now I will be moving on to reviewing the seventh periodic report submitted by the state party, which was complemented by the recent update provided last month. The update was helpful to have a better understanding of the current policy and legislation. Nonetheless, allow me to underline that in addition to information on policy and legislation, facts on implementation and statistical data are equally important for the committee to conduct a sound analysis that would constitute the basis for recommendations. In keeping with the purposes of the treaty body strengthening process, we have given due consideration to the recent reviews by other treaty bodies and other international and regional human rights mechanisms as well as alternative reports submitted by civil society organizations. In this context, we have reviewed, among others, the fourth cycle review of the universal periodic review in January 2025, concluding observations by CEDAW in February 2024, report by GREVIO, the monitoring body of the Council of Europe's Istanbul Convention of December 2025, the CPT reports, recent reports in the last couple of years, as well as the report by the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights. Now I will turn to substantive issues in connection with the seventh periodic report. Please note that my questions will be of supplementary nature to what Mr. Heller, the first rapporteur, has already raised. We have reviewed separate topics while pursuing a coherent approach. Nonetheless, some topics are cross-cutting and I may be referring to the same issues while comments will focus on different perspectives.

My first topic will be related to the fundamental legal safeguards. The committee notes that certain legislative steps have been taken to address the concerns and recommendations. The committee has received information, basically from the CPT of the Council of Europe and other sources, that individuals are often unable to notify another person of their detention, that they do not meet their lawyer until just their presentation before a judge, that medical examinations taking place in presence of law enforcement officers, that they are not adequately informed of their rights, particularly foreigners, and lastly, registers in police stations are incomplete. I would request to the state party to provide information on the facts in practice. Are all fundamental legal safeguards, as defined in paragraph 4 of the list of issues, fully implemented in practice from the outset of deprivation of liberty? Please update the committee on the practice of all fundamental legal safeguards, including the right to be informed of their rights and charges against them, access to lawyer, right to request and receive medical examination, right to communicate with a relative or any other person of their choice. Are detention registers kept up to date? Does the state party ensure the availability of legal aid and interpretation services? What is the current norm and practice of maximum period during which a person may be held in custody following arrest on a criminal charge prior to being brought before a judicial authority? If there have been complaints by inmates, lawyers or family members, have they been investigated and if applicable measures taken to remedy the situation?

Next item on my list is preventive detention, to which Mr. Heller also referred in his presentation regarding this detention for 12 hours which may be extended up to 24 hours. The CPT report also raised this in 2023, report of March 2023 on its visit in March-April 2022. And I would add my voice to Mr. Heller's presentation and ask the state party to inform the committee of the legal basis, purpose and practice of preventive detention. Please provide information if this practice has been subject to judicial review by a domestic court, constitutional court or the European Court of Justice. Please clarify the compatibility of this practice with the Italian legislation in general and obligations under international human rights law. I'm moving to issues related to Article 11 of the convention. I will refer to specific cases under this item. The first is related to conditions of detention which covers as well prison overcrowding. Again, Mr. Heller referred to this item in his presentation and I would just refer to some supplementary items. The statistics was given also by Mr. Heller and it indicates that there is almost 17% increase in the prison population in the last five years. The committee notes that, based on the data released by the Ministry of Justice of the Italian Republic, the official overcrowding rate is 125%. According to the Liberties, a civil society organization, full name of which is the Civil Liberties Union for Europe, a civil society organization bringing together more than 40 NGOs in 22 countries, the real overcrowding rate is as high as 138%. Obviously overcrowding in places of deprivation of liberty severely impairs the quality of sanitation, hygiene and health services. It also provides fertile ground for acts of torture and ill-treatment and as also Mr. Heller stated, it raises the risk for inter-prisoner violence. We would appreciate hearing from the state party the measures taken or envisaged to be planned to be taken to address the issue of the question of prison overcrowding.

Next specific item will be juvenile prison conditions. According to the information provided by civil society, including by the Liberties, juvenile prison population continues to increase. In October 2022, juvenile penal institutions hosted 392 children and young adults. In March 2025, the number of young people reached in juvenile penal institutions reached 611. As of 15 December 2025, the number was 568, marking a 45% increase as compared to October 2022. The committee was informed that young people who were under 18 years of age when they committed a criminal offense and who would have been eligible to remain in juvenile facilities until the age of 25 have been transferred to adult prisons upon turning 18, the age of 18. The committee wishes to invite the state party to clarify the legal norms and practice in this regard. If those young people under 18 years of age when they committed a criminal offense are they transferred to adult prisons upon turning the age of 18 whereas they would be eligible to remain in juvenile facilities until the age of 25? If this information is correct, it would be appreciated if the state party could provide up-to-date information. The committee is concerned that the problem of overcrowding has undermined the quality of detention and limited educational and rehabilitative programs. As regards this issue also, what is the staff and detainee ratio in juvenile facilities? Is there a question of understaffing?

Mr. Heller also referred to the special detention regime. I will have only one specific question to add to his presentation. I would as regards this special detention regime, I would also recall the ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court, rulings of the Italian Constitutional Court, including judgment number 18/2022, whereby the court, the Constitutional Court, ruled that detention regimes must not undermine the procedural safeguards for detainees in line with the Convention against Torture. So we would appreciate hearing from the delegation what is the current situation with regard to special detention regime under Article 41-bis of the law on the penitentiary system.

Deaths in custody will be my next point. With regard to deaths in custody, the committee took note of the statistical data provided in the update. Nonetheless, I should underline that the data provided appeared incomplete. On the positive side, the committee notes that there has been no death recorded in the penal institutions, in the juvenile penal institutions. I would request if this information, request the state party to confirm if this information is correct. On the other hand, according to paragraph 205 of the update, the committee notes that suicides represent a significant component of deaths in custody. The committee invites the state party to provide information whether all instances have been promptly and impartially investigated by an independent entity and on the results of investigation into those deaths. The state party is also invited to inform the committee on the measures taken to prevent the recurrence of similar cases in the future. Have the relatives received compensation in those cases? Please provide up-to-date disaggregated data in respect of deaths in custody.

Next item is related to solitary confinement which was put forward by Mr. Heller. I will have just one additional point. It appears that there are serious concerns as to compatibility of legal norms and practice regarding solitary confinement with international standards which are covered by the Nelson Mandela Rules as well as the Bangkok Rules. Are these documents incorporated in legislation and training programs? And the committee would be interested in hearing whether the state party would consider revising its legislation and practice with a view to aligning it with international standards.

I move on to the last item under this section, which is related to incommunicado detention. Under international human rights law, states should take measures to ensure that all places of deprivation of liberty are officially recognized and that no incommunicado detention or detention in secret or unofficial places should be permitted. Prolonged incommunicado detention constitutes a form of ill-treatment. It may also facilitate the perpetration of torture. Does the state party maintain incommunicado detention regime? What is the current situation in law and practice? Under what circumstances is incommunicado detention, if applicable, authorized and what is the competent organ to authorize incommunicado detention? Is register kept for practice of incommunicado detention? Please provide statistical data with regard to the practice of incommunicado detention.

As regards Articles 12 and 13 of the convention, which are related to prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into allegations of torture and ill-treatment. In keeping with the obligations under this article, I wish to ask if state officials are suspected of having perpetrated acts of torture or ill-treatment, are they immediately suspended from duty for the duration of the investigation? Upon conviction, they must not be permitted to a position in which they may repeat acts of torture or ill-treatment. The committee needs to be informed of the current situation both in terms of legislation and practice, whether all complaints of torture and ill-treatment are promptly investigated in an impartial manner by an independent authority. It is also crucial to examine whether statistical data on such cases is collected for the purpose of keeping the interrogation rules under systematic review as required by the convention. The committee considers that legal provisions regulating statutes of limitations, amnesties and immunities hinder accountability for torture. Therefore, such regulations, including statutes of limitations, amnesties and immunities, should not be applicable in cases of alleged acts of torture.

The committee considers that prolonged or ineffective investigations of alleged acts of torture or ill-treatment might lead to perception of impunity. Please provide an update on the cases and please provide explanation as to why they are taking too long because the information provided to the committee indicates that except a few cases of 2021 and 2022 which were concluded with suspension or dismissal of the perpetrators, most cases in the last three years are still in the phase of preliminary investigation. This is also indicated in the state party's report in the update paragraphs 234 to 241 provided in response to the previous concluding observations of paragraphs 40 and 41 and the list of issues paragraphs 22 and 23. The information provided by the state party itself indicate that in the last five years the average annual number of allegations is only 4.4.

And investigations are prolonged and remain inconclusive. Would the state party envisage to take measures to expedite the investigations by an independent body to ensure proportionate sentences and criminal or disciplinary sanctions imposed on offenders? Please indicate whether alleged perpetrators of those acts have been removed from public service pending the outcome of the investigation of the complaint. It was the state party was invited by paragraph 23 of the list of issues to indicate the measures taken to ensure that all newly admitted detainees have prompt access to comprehensive medical examinations by a doctor without a prison guard present unless the doctor so requested. It was also invited to provide information on the number of cases reported by prison medical personnel as possible instances of torture or ill-treatment as well as on the measures taken to ensure adequate protection for health professionals documenting torture and ill-treatment from intimidation, retaliation or other forms of reprisal.

The CPT reports based on its visit to the state party indicate that medical staff are unaware of their reporting obligations and in some cases they have declined to report for fear of reprisal. The committee invites the state party to provide information about the implementation of these legislative norms. If there have been alleged violations of legislation, have the state party initiated prompt and independent investigations into such allegations? What have been the outcomes of those investigations?

Chair, in the interest of time, I will leave the remaining questions to our next round of questions in order to allow time for other colleagues. But I wish if you allow me, I wish to use another three minutes to put forward my perspective with regard to outsourcing migrants and refugees to Albania. With regard to this policy of outsourcing from my perspective, I have a couple of concrete questions, answers of which will be helpful for us to understand and to see the situation clearly and come up with proper recommendations with regard to obligations under our convention. First of all, this practice, this policy of outsourcing raises certain controversial issues that deserve clarification in terms of accountability vis-à-vis obligations under our convention. Both states are independent and sovereign subjects of international law. As states party to the convention, they both committed themselves to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures in any territory under their respective jurisdictions. No state may be held accountable for the measures implemented in any territory under the jurisdiction of another state party. The committee remains concerned that the lack of clarity on the jurisdiction governing these centers and on the possibility for full and unhindered visit by the national preventive mechanism undermines the protection provided by the convention. On these basis, on the basis of these considerations, I have the following questions. Which state authority, Italy or Albania, is responsible to ensure fundamental legal safeguards including access to lawyer, family visits and medical examinations for those persons transferred from Italy to Albania?

In cases of alleged violations of convention obligations, which state authority, Italy or Albania, carries out investigations, convicts perpetrators who are found guilty and provides redress to victims? Does the Italian NPM have authority to inquire allegations of violations? With which state party, Italy or Albania, is to be accountable to the committee with respect to the issues concerning those persons transferred from Italy to Albania? Which state is to be respondent in case of an individual complaint is lodged with the committee? The committee would appreciate if the delegation could provide clarification in response to these questions. I would also underline that this controversial practice seems to be setting a precedent to other states which might undermine effective commitment to the peremptory norm of prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. This concludes my today's intervention, Chair. I will raise the remaining questions in the next round of questions. Thank you, sir.


CAT · Chair · Claude Heller [3:00:24]:

Thank you very much and let me offer the floor to other committee members. I would ask them to speak as briefly as possible. I'll give the floor to Lorena González Pinto.


CAT · Lorena González Pinto [3:00:45]:

Thank you very much, Chair. Now my very first words are words of welcome for the delegation of Italy. The fact that you're here testifies to Italy's commitment to everything you undertook when you ratified the human rights treaties. And I also welcome the seventh report and its update which you've submitted to us, which we have read very carefully and where we've seen that there are many, much areas of progress having accepted recommendations that have been made. Now, seizing the opportunity of this dialogue, I will focus on three key issues pursuant to the convention. First of all, the obligation of education and training which is recognized in Article 10. Also the obligation to allow access to reparation, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of torture pursuant to Article 14 and the inadmissibility of evidence which is obtained under or extorted under duress.

Now on Article 10 of the convention, there's a requirement for states party to provide education on the prohibition of torture, particularly for law enforcement and security personnel and public officials. So this includes the armed forces, polices, intelligence agents that may be involved in the detention or have any kind of role in detention. There's also must be training for medical staff, forensic experts, prosecutors, administrative officers and members of the national preventive mechanism. This is a key component of the legal commitment related to the absolute prohibition of torture. In previous observations, we indicated a lack of information on the evaluation of the impact of such training programs and it was recommended that there be development and implementation of a strategy allowing for an evaluation of the impact of educational and training programs, particularly those provided for under the those relating to the Convention against Torture and the Istanbul Protocol. So we welcome the information provided by the state in the seventh report and its updated version and I wanted to say that the committee welcomes and takes good note of all this information. However, we've not been able to find detailed information on whether the state party has developed and implemented a method to assess how impactful the programs actually are.

So in the light of this, I have four specific questions. First of all, we would like to know whether the state party has developed and implemented a method to assess the efficacy of the programs. If you have, this leads to my second question. Please provide information on the outcome of such evaluations of the programs, including what indicators you used, the impact assessed in the institutions and what measures have been taken on the content relating to the content of training. Could you please also tell us whether the training programs include specific training on the practical implementation of the Istanbul Protocol from 2022 for early detection of torture and ill-treatment? There's also the question of non-coercive interrogation methods which can be based on the principles of effective interrogation for the investigation and information gathering, the Méndez principles as they're known, in order to change police practices, whether there's any specific proposed alternative to coercive interrogation methods aiming for a confession. I would also like to ask whether you can provide information on how often training is held, on what institutions deliver such training and what human and budgetary resources are allocated to it. And how do you guarantee that the knowledge acquired through this training is actually used in practice?

The second issue I mentioned was access to reparation, compensation and rehabilitation provided for under Article 14 of the convention. Now this article indicates that each state party has to guarantee that the victim of an act of torture obtains reparation. Now reparation includes the concept of effective remedy and comprehensive reparation. This includes compensation and satisfaction and the guarantee of non-recurrence. Now the states party have obligations relating to proceedings and substantive obligations as well. Now procedural guarantees require states party to promote legislation and put in place complaints mechanisms and ensure that such mechanisms are legitimate, effective and accessible for all victims. And they should also be predictable, which means that they must have a clear, transparent procedure with set deadlines and where every step of the proceedings is known. The substantive obligations cover reparation, compensation, satisfaction and the right to truth and as I said earlier, the guarantee of non-recurrence.

As was indicated in the 2017 concluding observations and as CAT says in its general comment number 3 of 2012, there is the question of the scope of the state party's obligations under Article 14 which states must provide full effective reparations for victims of torture including compensation and measures for comprehensive reparation. So this should be done in a with a long-term view and there must be appropriate services provided. In the committee, we've taken note of the information provided indicating the proceedings concluded and paid for in terms of Article 35-6 of the Italian Penitentiary Act. So we'd like to ask three specific things in relation to this key issue. First of all, could the state party please provide information on measures of redress and compensation including the means of the rehabilitation ordered by the court or by other state bodies and which were actually provided to victims of torture or their family members? We would also welcome data on the number of requests for compensation submitted, the number which were then granted and the amounts ordered and which were actually paid out. Also information about the human and financial resources allocated for rehabilitation.

Now the third point or issue that I'd like to raise relates to Article 15 of the convention which says that any evidence obtained under torture is inadmissible. Now the inadmissibility of evidence obtained under torture, the exclusion rules as they're known, is a key principle both in international and in domestic law. Article 15 says that the states party have the obligation of ensuring that any statement that is made which is obtained under torture cannot be invoked as evidence in any proceedings. This renders the proceedings null and void. So we take note of the legislative amendment which you report in your seventh report and the update to it recently sent. Nevertheless, we would welcome receiving additional information relating to the implementation of this norm and how it's used in practice.

So there are three key questions to ask at this stage. First of all, we would welcome information on whether there have been any cases in practice where defendants allege that their confessions were extracted under torture. And if there were such allegations, we would like to ask about the practical implementation of this norm including details of cases when detainees allege that their confessions were extracted under torture, what was the outcome of investigations, what compensation was granted to the victims? Also whether there was any medical examination of the victims that reported the evidence being extracted under torture. And the final question relates to the obligation of education and training on this key issue. Could you provide information on the mandatory training provided on non-coercive integration techniques, on the prohibition of torture and especially on the obligation of the judiciary to invalidate such confessions or witness statements made under torture? So that would leave my other comments for tomorrow.


CAT · Chair · Claude Heller [3:13:45]:

Thank you. I'll give the floor to Anna Racu. Please speak briefly now and tomorrow you can raise other issues.


CAT · Anna Racu [3:14:03]:

Thank you, Chair. So I would like to thank the delegation for the information submitted in the report and for your engagement with our committee. We also want to acknowledge the considerable efforts undertaken to manage the penitentiary system under particularly difficult circumstances, notably during the pandemic in 2020-2021, which placed significant pressure on prison staff and led to serious tensions and even riots in several facilities, especially in in Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna regions. We are also mindful of positive measures taken including efforts to expand alternative to detention, to improve the work of national guarantor for the rights of person deprived of liberty and to improve access to medical care in prisons. At the same time, we have some questions and some serious concern related to several areas.

First, I would like to mention that there is a significant proportion of detainees with mental health conditions and according to some sources, the treatment appear to be or to rely predominantly on medication. Several NGOs indicate that person with mental disorders may be held in isolation or remain in ordinary prison regime while awaiting transfer to specific units such as residences for the execution of security measures, REMS. In light of the findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, could the delegation clarify how it ensure timely transfer to appropriate therapeutic settings and could the delegation clarify how the state addresses shortages of psychiatric staff in REMS institution and guarantees conditions including material conditions online or provided by our convention?

My colleague Mr. İşcan already mentioned the issue of deaths in custody. I would like to refer to the official data from the Ministry of Justice that there is a significant increase in suicides rate from 53 in 2019 to 83 in 2024. It's an official statistic provided by Ministry of Justice of Italy. So we would like to hear your views and explanation and to elaborate on on measures to improve the prevention and also identification of risks and access to mental care, particularly in old or overcrowded facilities in Italy.

And finally, my last point on shortage of staff. We would like to ask you about the measures to address understaffing, burnout and other challenges among prison staff and how these efforts contribute to improving overall detention conditions. I know that there are some positive initiatives in some regions and we would like to hear how you intend to expand all these initiatives at the level of whole country. So many thanks in advance and thank you once again for your engagement with our committee.


CAT · Chair · Claude Heller [3:20:15]:

The last speaker, Peter. Very briefly, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for coming here and for the dialogue with us. Very much appreciated. Just a very quick follow-up question to the question from my colleague Mr. Contesse because in this joint statement from last year, December 10th last year, signed by Italy and also by my home state Denmark, it is suggested that the court, the European Court of Human Rights, should change practice to make it easier to expel foreigners even if they might be at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in their home state. Now I believe that the practice of our committee, the Committee against Torture, is very similar to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to deportation to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. We do not accept deportation to inhuman or degrading treatment. So I was wondering, and I hope not, I hope not, but I was wondering if it is also the intention of Italy and maybe some of the other states involved in this process in the Council of Europe to initiate a process in relation to our committee, in relation to the practice of our committee, to change the practice of our committee as those states want to change the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. I hope not, but I'd like to hear if you could confirm that to me. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Head of delegation, as you've been able to see, this is a report which has been the focus of very much interest from committee and its members. Obviously tomorrow you will have much more time to be able to address all of these questions. As I said before, we can have a 10 or 15 minute break now so that you can begin to coordinate how you're going to be provide these initial answers.


Italy · Chair of the Inter-ministerial Committee for Human Rights · Giovanni Battista Iannuzzi [3:22:26]:

Yes, thank you very much. That's very useful. A 10-minute break then and we'll meet again afterwards.

I would like to thank you for the questions that we received and I would like to give the floor to the Ministry of Justice.


Italy · Representative of the Ministry of Justice [3:44:38]:

Good morning. We would like to thank you for your questions. I would like to begin with the question concerning the reception, the transposition into Italian law of Article 1 of the convention, specifically concerning the legal guarantees and the changes that occurred in 2017. The chairperson mentioned that the Italian state is in line with the convention. I wish to clarify a few points, namely the definition of torture and the criteria that are spelled out in our legal framework and in the rulings issued by the Italian courts and the Court of Cassation which apply to the Italian territory. This point is clear. The widest possible range of conducts spelled out by the Italian legal system with reference to the crime of torture is clear. Let me give you a practical example in the interrogation context. If there are several examples of conduct but the context is that one, then the crime of torture can be applied. I would also like to add that the state official in this case is mentioned as an aggravating factor and is linked to an increased prison sentence. Now the case in which torture is used to extract an admission is again an aggravating factor and there is no reason to prove that because that would be more complicated. So from our viewpoint, the current system provides for all the protection enshrined in the convention.

Now what is mentioned is anyone who through violence or serious threats or by acting cruelly causes severe physical suffering or verifiable psychological harm to a person deprived of liberty and this for us is fully in line with the convention which mentions acute psychological and physical suffering. So we don't see any difference in those two definitions. This applies to anyone. The legal text, however, provides for cases in which the crime is committed by a public official. This is an aggravating factor and is linked to an increased prison sentence. Now I wish to clarify a point raised by Mr. İşcan concerning entry into the prison facilities and the registration procedures which apply to all people who are at that step and particularly the medical examination and all the examinations that precede actual entry into the prison facility. So we would like to clarify the steps that lead to that point. There was a mention to claims about potential violations that occurred during that phase and whether the person has had access to a medical examination without law enforcement officers present in the room. First of all, allow me to clarify our system is very well regulated and it follows clear procedures that are linked to the criminal code and to the regulations of the penitentiary system. No one can be allowed into a prison facility without an arrest warrant. So this is a issued by a judicial authority and that describes the reason why this person is taken to a prison structure for pre-detention procedures. So the procedure is clear. The person is taken there by the law enforcement agencies and there are a few clear steps before they can be actually registered and receive a matriculation number. This is not on an actual paper but it is a procedure that is linked to a national database which collects all data of that person, basic personal data whether they come from the European Union or outside of the EU, the reason why they have been brought there and the reasons spelled out by the judicial authority, all data that are necessary for the full registration, whether the person has already been in one in any prison facilities before. Once these data are logged into the system, they are recorded there. So at any point in time, we can check whether the individual has been received in a specific prison facility, whether they are held there alone or with others. We have access to the entire overview with the specifics. After that step, you have the medical examination procedure which is mandatory. Let me clarify. It is a medical examination performed by a professional, by a physician. There are two parties obviously, the person being brought there and the physician. The law enforcement agencies are very discreet, they stay outside of the room to ensure that supervision is provided for. It is in fact required by the healthcare personnel and it is in my viewpoint inevitable. There is always the potential threat of a reaction on the part of the person being brought there, they might be in a state of anxiety. So what we try to do is to ask the law enforcement officials to remain outside of the room and not intervene. That being said, the real circumstances are that the person is brought there into that room, they might be in a state of anxiety and it is also possible that they might not be in a state to make claims concerning the way they're being treated. Well at any case, the medical professional is required to fill in a report and to describe exactly what is being observed. This is necessary by law. This report is then shared with the director of the prison facility with all the legal steps that you may imagine and in that case if there is a claim then this report is immediately referred to a judicial authority in case of potential violations of their rights or mistreatment. So that claim would be immediately transferred to the judicial authority. The report as I said is compiled by the medical professional who will then specify whether there are signs of such mistreatment so that the judicial authority has all the elements required to then act based on this. If the person being detained at that point in time does not have full confidence in those authorities, this does not mean that they do not have access to this claim procedure at a later point in time. In our prison facilities we have several units at work. You have the prison officers, you have people responsible for the training programs, medical personnel. There are several professional figures that deal with every aspect of the life of the detainees. You have cultural mediators, you have nurses, psychologists and all of these members of staff are part of this reception system. They represent several roles and they are tasked with really conducting a thorough analysis of the person that is being brought to such a facility from a psychological viewpoint, from a judicial viewpoint. So you have all of the different figures including the psychiatrist, you have the volunteers that focus on specific aspects of the detainees including potential addictions etc. So the detainee really has access to a variety of professional figures so that they can really relate to them and talk about potential problems. So this may happen immediately after arriving at the prison facility but it can also happen later at a later point in time. There is a wide range of professional figures that are at disposal there present whether the person wants to if the person wants to lodge a claim about potential mistreatment. This is the reality, this is what we observe really in our facilities. There was one case in 2024 at the Verona prison facility where a person was brought there and they were registered by a police officer in a manner that can be defined as not being thorough and this person, this detainee said that they were beaten in that case. This specific police officer talked to the director of the facility and then to the medical personnel.


CAT · Chair · Claude Heller [3:51:11]:

I'm sorry to interrupt you but in fact we've gone over the allotted time for this meeting today. We will have time tomorrow to continue to hear your answers to the questions that have been asked. So thank you.