Experts of the Committee against Torture Praise Absence of Deaths in Italian Juvenile Penal Institutions, Raise Questions on High Rates of Suicide in Prisons and the Practice of Outsourcing Migrant Detention to Albania
The Committee against Torture this afternoon concluded its review of the seventh periodic report of Italy on efforts made to implement the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Committee Experts praised Italy for the fact that no deaths had been recorded in juvenile penal institutions, while raising questions on the high suicide rates in prisons and the practice of outsourcing detention of migrants to Albania.
Erdogan Iscan, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Italy, said
it was positive that there had been no death recorded in juvenile penal institutions, asking if the State party could confirm that information.
Claude Heller, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur for Italy, said a major concern was that thousands of persons were in a precarious situation when they were detained in overcrowded cells, in poor conditions. There were high suicide rates, with 91 persons committing suicide in 2025. Mr. Iscan said the Committee noted that suicides represented a significant component of deaths in custody. Had all instances been promptly and impartially investigated by an independent entity, including on the results of investigations into those deaths? What measures had been taken to prevent the recurrence of similar cases in the future?
Mr. Heller also said that under the law, migrants intercepted on the high seas could be sent to third countries which Italy had agreements with, which had triggered the removal of migrants to Albania. There had been reports regarding the detention centre in Albania, including on sanitary measures and the treatment of persons held there. Could Italy comment on this matter? Mr. Iscan said the practice of outsourcing detention to Albania raised certain controversial issues and the Committee was concerned about the lack of clarity on jurisdiction governing these centres. Which State authority, Italy or Albania, was responsible to ensure fundamental legal safeguards, including access to a lawyer, family visits and medical examination, for those persons transferred from Italy to Albania?
Giovanni Battista Iannuzzi, Chair of the Inter-ministerial Committee for Human Rights of Italy and head of the delegation, said following the Committee's recommendations in previous reviews, Italy had introduced the crime of torture into the Penal Code with law 110 of 2017, and acknowledged the debate regarding the scope of the provision. A significant legislative reform was introduced, establishing that the statute of limitations for criminal offences was permanently suspended, once the first-instance judgment had been delivered. Italy acknowledged the problems affecting the prison system, including overcrowding. The current Government was firmly committed to addressing its root causes.
The delegation said suicide prevention in detention facilities was a very important topic, and Italy had two plans in this regard, one focusing on the adult population and the other targeting juvenile prison facilities. A permanent working group monitored the application of the two national plans. The regions were aware the system must work in unison.
The delegation said that as of April 2025, the Albanian Government had made available certain geographical areas to the Italian Government, where the centres for repatriation were located. Migrants who had received a final decision to be repatriated were transferred from the centre in Albania the same way they would be transferred from a centre on the Italian territory. When the migrant arrived in the centre in Albania, it was the Italian jurisdiction that applied under the Italy/Albania agreement. The migrant was permitted to seek asylum when they arrived in Albania, as well as all legal guarantees which applied in Italy, including the right to appoint a lawyer, and to have contact with their family.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Iannuzzi thanked the Committee for the dialogue. The relationship between Italy and the Committee had a shared purpose; Italy believed in the Committee’s work and looked forward to continuing the dialogue.
In closing, Mr. Heller thanked the delegation for their detailed answers provided and the constructive dialogue.
The delegation of Italy consisted of representatives from the Inter-ministerial Committee for Human Rights; the Ministry of Interior; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport; the Ministry of Health; and the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, are available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 21 April at 10 a.m. to begin its consideration of the second periodic report of Gabon (CAT/C/GAB/2).
Report
The Committee has before it the seventh periodic report of Italy (CAT/C/ITA/7).
Presentation of Report
GIOVANNI BATTISTA IANNUZZI, Chair of the Inter-ministerial Committee for Human Rights of Italy, commended the Committee for the rigour and independence with which it discharged its mandate. The long time elapsed between the presentation of the list of issues, and the meeting brought forward the possibility to submit recently updated information. The crime of torture was central in Italy's constitutional architecture, as article 13 of the Constitution prohibited any form of violence against persons under restriction of their liberty, and article 27 established that punishment must respect human dignity and aim to socially rehabilitate the convicted person.
Following the Committee's recommendations in previous reviews, Italy introduced the crime of torture into the Penal Code with law 110 of 2017, and acknowledged the debate regarding the scope of the provision. Italy remained engaged with the discussion and was committed to ensuring that the legislative framework fully reflected the obligations enshrined in the Convention. A significant legislative reform was introduced, establishing that the statute of limitations for criminal offences was permanently suspended, once the first-instance judgment had been delivered. Italy's Constitutional Court had progressively extended protections against inhuman treatment through its case law, including in landmark judgments on conditions of detention. The Court's decisions reinforced the principle that punishment could never be inhumane, and that the State bore full responsibility for the lives and dignity of those entrusted to its custody.
Italy acknowledged the problems affecting the prison system, including overcrowding. The current Government was firmly committed to addressing its 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 rehabilitation programmes. The Government’s objective was 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.
The State recognised the vulnerability of migrants, asylum seekers and stateless persons with respect to the risks covered by the Convention. The pressure on Italy's migration management system was well documented, and no one underestimated the human rights implications of sustained migratory flows, particularly in the context of reception, identification, and temporary holding facilities. Italy remained committed to ensuring that the prohibition of non-refoulement was respected in all operational contexts, and acknowledged the concerns expressed by the Committee regarding conditions in certain reception facilities. The State was engaged in a programme of improvement involving facility upgrades, personnel training, and the monitoring by the national preventive mechanism.
Finally, efforts had been intensified to combat all forms of gender-based violence through the adoption of numerous legislative and operational measures aimed at strengthening prevention and repression, enhancing the protection of victims, and ensuring the prosecution of perpetrators. In conclusion Italy reaffirmed its full commitment to cooperation with the Committee and welcomed the Convention's review mechanism as a cornerstone of the international human rights architecture.
Questions by Committee Experts
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chairperson and Country Rapporteur for Italy, said Italy was committed to the treaty body system and constructively participated in United Nations bodies, including being a member of the Human Rights Council from 2026 to 2028. Italy was actively involved in the abolition of the death penalty and was conducting a campaign for an absolute moratorium on its use, which was useful for the Committee’s work.
Law 110/2017 on torture introduced the crime of torture into articles in the Criminal Code. The maximum period of statute of limitations was 22 years and six months when substantive physical damage occurred and 37 years and six months when death occurred. The Committee was concerned that certain elements were undefined, and that the legislation treated torture as a generic crime which could be committed by any individual, lessening the responsibility of the State’s public officials. Could the delegation comment on these observations? How many cases had been reported with so-called “aggravated circumstances”? Was the State party making efforts to ensure there was no statute of limitation for torture?
The Committee was concerned by political statements in Italy which called for the abolition of torture from the Penal Code. Could more information on this, which would be a step backwards, be provided? There were different human rights mechanisms, including the Ombudsman on the rights of the child and the Ombudsman on the rights of detainees. Why had there been no establishment of a national human rights institution? Italy was the only European Union Member State without such an institution; it should be a priority for the country. How was the board of the National Guarantor set up? What was the role of the executive and legislative authorities in the composition of this important body?
The Committee had been informed of the existence of a system which followed up on forced asylums returns. Was this programme still in existence? There was a list of laws and bills on preventive detention and the use of alternative measures to detention, to ensure there was more efficiency in the system. In how many cases had alternative measures of custody been handed down?
It appeared that the State was complying with requirements to provide inmates with access to a lawyer, a doctor, and informing their families. Regarding the law on the penitentiary system, act 154/1975, it was understood this specialised regime applied to groups of organised crime such as the Sicilian mafia. The issue of solitary confinement of 22 hours could last up to 15 days under this system. The law on prisons was applicable to the most vulnerable detainees which was an issue of concern for the Committee. Article 72 of the Criminal Code, where a judge may order solitary confinement for a detainee who had committed multiple crimes, could go from two months to three years.
The Committee was aware that Italy was one of the countries most affected by humanitarian crises, due to the mass flows of people who had arrived in recent years. While arrivals had fallen recently, tens of thousands of people continued to arrive by boats through one of the most fatal migratory routes in the world. Just a few days ago, there had been a case where over 90 people drowned. Some 40,000 individuals had arrived by sea in 2025 alone, mostly from Bangladesh, Eritrea, Egypt, Afghanistan and Türkiye, among others. The number of asylum seekers had increased in recent years, placing Italy in third place in the number of requests after Germany and Spain. Some 330,000 refugees currently lived in the country.
Italy’s efforts in search and rescue were commendable; however, the Committee was concerned that this situation was changing. Could the Committee provide examples of so-called “public order grounds” which would permit deportation?
Mass deportations had increased exponentially and the Committee was concerned at a lack of case-by-case basis to identify individuals who may be subject to torture if they were deported. A project from the International Organization of Migration included information on the identification of vulnerable persons and information from operators at these critical points. Was this project still in force?
Provisions stipulated that all States must establish a zone for search and rescue at sea. For individuals who had arrived in Italy from rescue operations, the typical measure taken was pushback and return, with some exceptions. Did the principle of non-refoulment continue to apply in these circumstances? The Committee recommended that the State party establish a record of cases of torture during the asylum process, to ensure a more consistent policy. When an asylum application was filed, was legal assistance provided to the individual? Italy had adopted laws and decrees aimed at curbing irregular migration, and increased measures aimed at forced return. It had also sought to adopt bilateral agreements.
According to European legislation, a safe country was one where a person could be returned to without fear of torture, persecution or violence during armed conflict. There was a memorandum of understanding between Libya and Italy since 2018, which had been extended despite irregularities, including grave violations of human rights by the coast guard and security agents, as well as returns to countries which could not be considered as safe. Extensive human rights violations, including torture and sexual abuse had been documented as being committed by members of the coast guard. However, despite this situation and the ongoing situation in Libya due to the armed conflict, the Italian authorities had not adopted any additional measures in this regard. Could the delegation comment on this? Was the State planning to amend or revise the conditions of its migratory policy?
Information received by the Committee found that migrants were divided into so-called “economic migrants” or based on their country of origin, to determine whether or not they should be granted international protection. Was there some kind of policy of discouragement so that displaced persons did not request asylum? The Committee had also heard reports about the deplorable conditions of the 11 detention centres in the country prior to repatriation. It seemed these centres were not governed by proper law, but rather administrative decrees, and did not offer sufficient guarantees to ensure the rights of the individuals held there, who were often submitted to ill-treatment. Could the delegation comment on this?
Ships were kept off the coast from many days, and the Committee had received information that individuals were submitted to mistreatment, with authorities keeping the boats far away from rescue and recovery facilities. Charges had been filed against six officials and two coast guard officials for not allowing a boat to disembark in Calabria, with 94 people on board, including 12 children who subsequently all died at sea. Doctors without Borders said human rights defenders were impeded when they tried to rescue people at sea.
In February this year, the Italian Government adopted a draft law for a one-to-six-month naval blockade preventing vessels from reaching Italian territorial waters, focusing on migrant boats and non-governmental organization boats attempting to rescue them. It would be applicable when the Italian authorities believed there were threats to public order, including high risk global events, increased migratory flows, and an increase of terrorist attacks. What sanctions would be applied in the case of violations of these provisions? According to legal experts, this legislation ran counter to global provisions as there could be no prohibition of rescue vehicles.
Under the law, migrants intercepted on the high seas could be sent to third countries which Italy had agreements with, which had triggered the removal of migrants to Albania. There had been reports regarding the detention centre in Albania, including on sanitary measures and the treatment of persons held there. Could Italy comment on this matter? There had been the removal of 73 individuals from Italy to the detention camp in the northwest in Albania, as their countries of origin were unsafe, which was supported by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Could information be provided on the number of cases of extradition and which cases requested such extraditions during the period under review?
Regarding the response to the crimes of torture reported in different prisons around the country, what investigations had been undertaken for these cases and what had they revealed? A major concern was that thousands of persons were in a precarious situation when they were detained in overcrowded cells, in poor conditions. There were high suicide rates, with 91 persons committing suicide in 2025. Up to 18 February this year, there were more than 63,000 detainees in Italian prisons, whereas the capacity was around 51,000. This was a critical issue.
The so-called “Security Decree” included provisions of a bill before parliament which had been criticised for limiting freedom of expression and association. These provisions had become law in June and criminalised protests in migrant detention centres, among other restrictions. It included the establishment of 40 new criminal crimes, and increased aggravating circumstances for determining charges and governing police interventions into prisons. Inter-prisoner violence had notably increased between 2021 and 2025, with over 5,100 incidents reported. What was Italy’s explanation for this increase of violence in prisons? What was the reason underlying this violence? What was failing in the prison system and what was working?
It seemed that passive resistance now fell under criminalised conduct, including hunger strikes, which were often used by detainees to draw the attention of authorities. These acts should be decriminalised which would be a positive step. Could the delegation comment on this? The law which aimed to strengthen public safety appeared to violate the rights of detainees, in the view of the Committee.
Decree 23 of 2026 provided for pretrial detention of 12 hours without any judicial authorisation. The Committee was concerned by the racist political discourse against migrants made by politicians. Information had been received that Italy was putting a plan in place to combat xenophobia and violence against migrants, which was praiseworthy. What was the stage of implementation of the plan? What other actions had been taken to prevent hate speech and violence against migrants, the Roma and Sinti population, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons?
Legislation on terrorism in Italy referred to United Nations resolutions, and the State welcomed the update on the number of cases of arrest on terrorism charges for 2025. According to Human Rights Watch, Italy expelled alleged terrorists; how many expulsions had been ordered in this regard?
ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Italy, said
that while recent developments demonstrated that hard power was rising, regretfully, at the expense of the United Nations Charter, international law and diplomacy, the rules-based international order had not collapsed. He remained convinced that the United Nations Charter would remain a living instrument of international law.
A cross-regional group of more than 80 States, including the Italian Republic, had issued a joint declaration at the sixty-first Human Rights Council on 2 March 2026. The Committee commended the State party for undersigning this joint declaration that called for defending and strengthening multilateralism within an international order based on respect for international law and universal human rights. Additionally, on March 31, the General Assembly adopted a resolution to strengthen how United Nations mandates were created, implemented and reviewed across the system. The Committee praised the State party for having supported this initiative.
Were all fundamental legal safeguards fully implemented in practice from the outset of deprivation of liberty, including the right to be informed of their rights and charges against them, access to a lawyer, right to request and receive medical examination, and right to communicate with a relative or any other person of their choice? Were detention registers kept up to date? Did the State party ensure the availability of legal aid and interpretation services?
The Committee noted that law enforcement agencies had the power to detain persons for purposes of identification for 12 hours, which may be extended up to 24 hours with notification to the Prosecutor’s Office. What was the legal basis, purpose and practice of preventive detention? Had this practice been subject to judicial review by a domestic court, the Constitutional Court or the European Court of Justice? What was the compatibility of this practice with the Italian legislation and obligations under international human rights law?
The Committee noted that, based on the data released by the Ministry of Justice, the official overcrowding rate was 125 per cent, with the real overcrowding rate as high as 138 per cent, according to some non-governmental organizations. Overcrowding impaired sanitary and health conditions and provided fertile ground for acts of torture and ill-treatment, as well as increasing the risk of prisoner violence. What measures were planned to address the issue of prison overcrowding?
According to information received, the juvenile prison population continued to increase. In October 2022, juvenile penal institutions hosted 392 children and young adults, which had reached 568 by December 2025, marking a 45 per cent increase. The Committee was informed that young people who were under 18 years of age when they committed a criminal offence and who would have been eligible to remain in juvenile facilities until the age of 25, had been transferred to adult prisons upon turning 18. Could the State party clarify the legal norms and practices in this regard? What was the staff and detainee ratios in juvenile facilities? What was the current situation with regard to the special detention regime under article 41-bis of the law on the penitentiary system?
It was positive that there had been no death recorded in juvenile penal institutions. Could the State party confirm this information? On the other hand, the Committee noted that suicides represented a significant component of deaths in custody. Had all instances been promptly and impartially investigated by an independent entity, including on the results of investigations into those deaths? What measures had been taken to prevent the recurrence of similar cases in the future? Had the relatives received compensations in these cases?
Had the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok Rules been incorporated into Italian legislation and training programmes? Would the State party consider revising its legislation on solitary confinement, with a view to aligning it with international standards?
Did the State party maintain an incommunicado detention regime? What was the current situation in law and practice? Under what circumstances was incommunicado detention authorised and what was the competent organ to authorise incommunicado detention? Was a register kept for the practice of incommunicado detention?
Were State officials suspended for being suspected of having perpetrated acts of torture or ill-treatment? The Committee needed to be informed of the current situation, both in terms of legislation and practice, on whether all complaints of torture and ill-treatment were promptly investigated in an impartial manner by an independent body. With the exception of a few cases, most cases of the last three years were still in the preliminary investigation stage. Why were these investigations taking so long? 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? Had alleged perpetrators of those acts been removed from public service pending the outcome of the investigation of the complaint?
What measures had the State party taken to ensure that all newly admitted detainees had prompt access to comprehensive medical examinations by a doctor without a prison guard present, unless the doctor so requested? Had there been alleged violations of these legislative norms? If so, were prompt investigations launched and what had been their outcomes?
The practice of outsourcing detention to Albania raised certain controversial issues and the Committee was concerned about the lack of clarity on jurisdiction governing these centres. Which State authority, Italy or Albania, was responsible to ensure fundamental legal safeguards, including access to a lawyer, family visits and medical examination, for those persons transferred from Italy to Albania? In cases of alleged violations of the Convention obligations, which State authority carried out investigations, convicted perpetrators who were found guilty, and provided redress to victims? Did the Italian national preventive mechanism have the authority to inquire about allegations of violations? Which State party was to be accountable to the Committee with respect to the issues concerning those persons transferred from Italy to Albania? Which State was to be respondent in the case of an individual complaint being lodged with the Committee?
A Committee Expert said Italy’s presence emphasised its commitment to the human rights treaty body system. The report showed many areas of progress. Could the State party provide updated information about the training programmes on torture which were provided to all civil and military personnel and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment? Had the State party developed and applied a methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of educational and training programmes? If developed and applied, what were the results of such evaluations? Were there proposed alternatives to coercive interrogation methods? How often was training held, which institutions delivered training, and what budgets were allocated?
Could the State party provide information on redress and compensation measures, including the means of rehabilitation ordered by the courts or other State bodies and provided to victims of torture or ill-treatment or their families? How many requests of compensation had been submitted, granted and provided? Were there any reparation programmes, including the treatment of trauma and forms of rehabilitation made available to victims? Could data be supplied on the material, human and budgetary resources allocated for their effective functioning?
Had there have been any cases in practice whereby defendants alleged that their confessions were extracted under torture? Had any allegations been investigated immediately, effectively and independently? What had been the outcomes of these investigations? Had alleged victims been provided with medical examinations and granted redress and compensation? Could information be provided on mandatory training on non-coercive interrogation techniques, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, and the obligation of the judiciary to invalidate confessions and witness statements made under torture?
Another Committee Expert acknowledged Italy’s considerable efforts to manage the penitentiary system under difficult circumstances, including the pandemic. The Committee was mindful of positive measures taken, including efforts taken to expand alternatives to detention, to improve the work of the national guarantor for the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, and to improve access to medical care in prisons.
A significant proportion of detainees had mental health issues, with treatment relying mainly on medication. How did Italy ensure timely transfer to appropriate therapeutic settings? How was the State addressing shortages of psychiatric staff in institutions and guaranteeing conditions provided for by the Convention? There was a significant increase in the suicide rate, according to the Ministry of Justice of Italy. What steps was the State taking to improve this situation? What measures were being taken to improve understaffing, burnout and other challenges among prison staff?
One Committee Expert asked for examples of Italian courts referring to international human rights law, including the Convention? What was the reasoning behind Italy’s efforts, along with Denmark, to contain interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights on non-refoulment?
A Committee Expert asked if Italy intended to initiate a similar process relating to the work of the Committee, as was being undertaken for the European Court of Human Rights?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the widest possible range of conducts were outlined in the Italian legal system with reference to the crime of torture, with involvement of a State official mentioned as an aggravating factor. From Italy’s perspective, the definition of torture was clear and was in-line with the Convention. The legal text provided for cases where the crime was committed by a public official, which carried an increased prison sentence. If torture was used to extract an admission, this was also considered an aggravating factor.
Italy’s penitentiary system was well regulated and followed clear procedures. No one could be allowed into a prison facility without an arrest warrant issued by a judicial authority, which described their reason for being taken to a prison structure for pre-detention procedures. A database recorded all necessary data of the person, including where they were from, why they were there, and whether they had been in a prison facility before. The State could check on this information at any point in time.
This step was then followed by the mandatory medical examination procedure, performed by a physician, with law enforcement agents remaining outside the room. The medical report was then shared with the Director of the prison facility and in case of the violation of the rights of the prisoner, this would be immediately transferred to a judicial authority. There were cultural mediators, nurses, psychologists and many other members of staff who were part of the reception system for new detainees, tasked with conducting a thorough analysis of the person being brought to the facility. These people were present if the detainee wished to lodge a claim about ill-treatment.
The delegation said the Government did not have a position on the bills presented to eradicate the crime of torture. The situation was currently unchanged. The number of convictions of torture was high; there were more convictions than dismissals. There were 14 convictions in 2024 with no dismissals and six convictions in 2025 with no dismissals; 34 persons had been suspended under disciplinary action. Some investigations were still ongoing; a total of 200 people were involved in criminal proceedings accused of torture.
If a person was arrested by the judicial authority, the Prosecutor received a notice; each Prosecutor’s Office could be contacted 24 hours a day. From the notice of arrest, the Prosecutor could cancel the arrest if it was clear that the basis of the arrest was not verified. The person was required to be brought before the Prosecutor within 24 hours, with the arrest requiring validation before 48 hours. If this did not occur, the person could be freed. Persons who were arrested had the right to speak with a lawyer. Those under investigation for specific crimes could have their communication with persons outside limited, if they were considered to be a security threat.
Solitary confinement was permitted in certain cases under law, including as a measure in a disciplinary context, and if justified by specific circumstances. Cases of solitary confinement could also be ordered by the judicial authority on grounds linked to the investigation. The maximum period solitary confinement could be applied was 15 days. Some contacts with families on the phone and with staff in the prison facility were permitted during solitary confinement, and health checks were conducted every day.
There were 64,101 detainees currently in Italy. No final decision made by the judge could be based on interrogations where there had not been visual or audio recordings. During interrogations, no penitentiary staff were present, just the lawyer and the judicial authority. This allowed for a detainee to present potential evidence of ill-treatment if it had occurred in the facility. The statements made by the individual were required to be recorded. Even in cases of a final verdict, one could appeal the decision if evidence emerged.
Italy firmly supported the International Criminal Court and had always cooperated with the Court in supporting key investigations. Italy did not plan to appeal the Court’s decision.
Italy had 15 bilateral treaties regarding extradition. Only the one with the United Arab Emirates had a clause with extradition linked to cases of torture.
Italy’s prison structure was particularly complex; detainees were divided between those who belonged to organised crime and those who did not. This was an evaluation made on the kind of crime in prison. Those involved in organised crime were considered as part of a high security environment and were kept separate from the rest of the inmates. Evaluation was made on how dangerous and powerful these people were. There were between 9,000 to 10,000 of these detainees.
Detainees who were a lower risk category were often permitted to spend more than 10 hours outside of their cells. There had been more than 5,000 cases of aggression and fights in prisons. More than 38 per cent of detainees were free to walk around for most of the day and mingle with other detainees. This increased the chance of these kinds of episodes occurring.
All cells in Italy had been measured and certified and their surface area was recorded in an online system. According to the system, there were more than 46,000 detainees in more than four square metres, which excluded the furniture in the cell. Detainees were moved to where there was more space available. A fund had been earmarked to create 10,000 more prison places by 2027 to combat the issue of the overcrowding.
There were many people in the prison system who had health problems, including those affected by substance abuse and mental issues. The State was engaging with this part of the population and the penitentiary administration had allocated five million euros to hire psychologists for the penitentiary facilities.
In 2024, one of the decrees provided for the exchange of data between ministries on individuals affected by mental disorders and addiction, to make treatment measures more effective.
There had been an issue regarding the transfer of minors when they turned 18. A decree had been implemented which allowed the director of a juvenile detention facility to request the transfer of detainees who had reached the age of 21, if they were posing a security threat to their facility and other detainees.
Italy aimed to jointly manage migration flows through the Mediterranean and the Balkan routes. It was vital to share responsibility and technical means with all stakeholders. Libya was an important interlocutor; it was a transit country for thousands of migrants. The memorandum clearly spelled out the international obligations of both countries, including under the international human rights treaties. A project launched in collaboration with the International Organization on Migration aimed to support and strengthen Libya’s capacity to manage its borders and migration flows, supporting search and rescue operations and the fight against trafficking. The training courses were fully in compliance with international treaties on human rights.
Individuals who were deemed to be dangerous to the public order and represented a risk to international security could be placed in detention in a centre for repatriation facility, which were managed by prefectures. A ruling from the Constitutional Court spelt out the obligation of the Italian State to ensure the conditions in place in such facilities. The guarantor provided regular reports which clearly explained the conditions in such centres. Migrants who were detained could also lodge claims with the guarantor.
As of April 2025, the Albanian Government had made available certain geographical areas to the Italian Government, where the centres for repatriation were located. Migrants who had received a final decision to be repatriated were transferred from the centre in Albania the same way they would be transferred from a centre on the Italian territory. When the migrant arrived in the centre in Albania, it was the Italian jurisdiction that applied under the Italy/Albania agreement. The migrant was permitted to seek asylum when they arrived in Albania, as well as all legal guarantees which applied in Italy, including the right to appoint a lawyer, and to have contact with their family.
The non-refoulment principle was universal and also applied on the Albanian territory. When migrants arrived in Albania, they were immediately informed of how they could obtain legal aid, which was guaranteed. There were also agreements with the Albanian Government to access hospitals and health clinics if there was a health emergency. The agreement laid out the modality of care for migrants in Albania.
The protection of fundamental rights of migrants represented one of the subjects of training courses of law enforcement agents, particularly for those working in repatriation centres. The principle of non-refoulment was guaranteed throughout the asylum request and during the expulsion procedure. The migrant also had the possibility of requesting a suspension of the proceedings to guarantee judicial protection. Even if a person came from a safe country of origin, their personal situation was evaluated; if the situation was not considered to be safe for that person, the repatriation did not take place. In 2025, the State had more than 133,000 requests for refugee status, with six per cent recognising refugee status, and around 25 per cent recognising some kind of protection status.
Collaboration with the International Organization on Migration was still ongoing, but not under the 2019 project mentioned by the Committee. There was new collaboration with projects on linguistic mediation services for migrants in repatriation centres.
The operations of search and rescue were provided for in the international convention which stated that every State had the authority in its waters to conduct these operations. Libya had established rescue operations in July 2017. Italy’s search and rescue operations did not prohibit the approaching of other vessels and coordinated all factors of search and rescue, savings lives at sea. Some 294 people had died last year, and some members of the coast guard were under investigation. The Italian coast guard operated in highly complex environments and had saved more than 1.8 million people in the last 40 years. Trainings courses were provided to members of the coast guard which covered the issue of torture.
Italy had created several programmes focusing on mental health. A national plan had been created focusing on mental health, with a range of actions to support mental health in detention contexts. Local health units had to work closely with judicial authorities to identify treatment options for detainees. Psychiatric prison hospitals had been closed and replaced by prison local health units. If they could not deal with a case, the detainee would be treated in local health units outside the prison. The regions must support judicial authorities to ensure these compulsory health measures were applied. Italy was undertaking a reform of the penitentiary health system.
Suicide prevention in detention facilities was a very important topic, and Italy had two plans in this regard, one focusing on the adult population and the other targeting juvenile prison facilities. A permanent working group monitored the application of the two national plans. Regions were aware that the system must work in unison.
Questions by Committee Experts
ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur for Italy, said
the Committee had received information from civil society showing concrete cases which were contrary to the State party’s assertion that prisoners were entitled to a medical evaluation. Could the delegation comment on this?
There were 254 deaths recoded in prisons in 2025, with six being suicides. Causes for 50 deaths remained undetermined pending forensic verification, which did not comply with the principles of prompt investigations under the Convention.
A Committee Expert asked the delegation to comment on specific cases, including a case involving the Israeli Defence Forces and the use of universal jurisdiction by the State party.
Another Expert said Italy hosted foreign officers to support tourists in major cities. Italian police also conducted joint pursuits with countries such as Malta to enhance public safety in tourism areas. This represented a significant step forward in bilateral law collaboration and reflected a joint commitment to the protection of human rights. How did the State party evaluate this type of cooperation? Was it seen as a good practice which could be rolled out with other countries?
An Expert asked if migrants transferred to the centres in Albania received any written decisions on transfers and if they could appeal the decisions?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said if an individual was not an asylum seeker, they could be kept at the centre in Albania for a maximum of 18 months. If an asylum application was lodged, it was 60 days. If the asylum application was positive, the individual would be transferred to Italy; otherwise, they would be returned to their country. All legal guarantees were in place within the centres. Currently, under the law, there was no need for a written decision to determine a transfer, both in Italy and Albania. Migrants who were transferred to Albania were not subject to repatriation. The end point was a repatriation operation when the conditions were in place to do so.
Under Italian law, if medical personnel had suspicions that ill-treatment had occurred, they were duty bound to immediately speak to judicial authorities within 48 hours.
The press had recently shared news about alleged crimes of torture investigated by the Rome Prosecutor, around events that happened in the context of the so-called “flotilla”.
Italy had several bilateral agreements, including with Malta, where State police regularly exchanged information with their counterparts in the main tourist seasons. These were positive exchanges for the administration.
The Committee had mentioned statistical data about 109 deaths in custody which were still being investigated. Some of the prisons were large and located in urban areas, which had recently seen an influx of young adult prisoners. Italian civil society and the penitentiary system were committed to supporting such populations. Suicide attempts in prison facilities had increased. This issue was not being overlooked.
Closing Remarks
GIOVANNI BATTISTA IANNUZZI, Chair of the Inter-ministerial Committee for Human Rights of Italy, thanked the Committee for the dialogue and would consider the recommendations in a constructive spirit. The relationship between Italy and the Committee had a shared purpose; Italy believed in the Committee’s work and looked forward to continuing the dialogue.
CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chairperson, thanked the delegation members for the detailed answers they had provided and the constructive dialogue. The recommendations and comments of the Committee aimed to assist the State party in improving the issues identified, and to better implement the provisions of the Convention.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CAT26.004E