Violence and inadequate safeguards: the UN’s worrying report on torture in Italy

Brussels – From the definition of torture to living conditions in prisons, from agreements with Libya and Albania to the situation of migrants in return centres, via government decrees and the criminalisation of work aimed at protecting human rights: the concluding observations on Italy drawn up by the United Nations Committee Against Torture paint a national picture that gives cause for “concern”. A twelve-page report that scrutinises the state’s system of safeguards and protections for individuals. And the findings are damning and alarming. 

The Committee against Torture (CAT) is a body comprising 10 independent experts that monitors the implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by its member states. Its work aims to hold states to account for human rights violations by systematically investigating reports of torture in order to stop and prevent this crime.

 According to the document, Italy gets off to a bad start right from the outset, namely with the very definition of the term “torture” contained in the Criminal Code, which does not comply with that established by the Convention because it omits essential elements, such as the intention and purpose behind acts of torture, and includes others—such as “serious threats” and “verifiable psychological trauma”. Furthermore, in the Italian criminal justice system, torture is treated as a generic offence that can be committed by anyone, whilst the involvement of a public officia—which is, in fact, its defining feature—is included only as an aggravating circumstance: an element deplored by the Committee, which also states that it is “concerned about recent attempts in Parliament to abolish the offence of torture and replace it with an aggravating circumstance.” 

A major shortcoming for the CAT is the lack of an independent national human rights institution, which the country has not yet established, while it is worrying that there are allegations of “political appointments, based on political considerations, to key roles within the National Guarantor for the rights of persons deprived of their liberty.” It is the independence and the perceived credibility of the guarantor that pay the price.

Chapter on detention

Here, the Committee sounds the alarm over “allegations that people are not always able to inform a relative or another person of their choice of their detention,” the fact that “medical examinations sometimes take place in the presence of law enforcement officers,” and that “people are not always sufficiently informed of their rights, particularly foreign nationals who do not speak Italian,” that “they may be detained for up to 96 hours before being brought before a judge,” and that, “in cases where certain offences are suspected, they may still be detained for up to five days without access to a lawyer.” This extensive list is compounded by reports of “difficulties in accessing legal aid” and the fact that in some cases people “were unable to meet their legal representative until shortly before their appearance before the judge, compromising their ability to prepare their defence.” Also dangerous are the provisions “allowing law enforcement to hold people for up to 24 hours for identification purposes,” and the allegations that, since people held in this way are not technically under arrest, “detentions are not properly recorded, and detainees do not benefit from all the necessary safeguards.” 

Living conditions in prisons 

The first cause for concern highlighted in this paragraph is prison overcrowding, which “has reached levels of up to 138 per cent, with thousands of prisoners housed in spaces of less than 4 square metres per person”. However, the document goes further and points to a deplorable situation also due to “the deterioration of material conditions, reduced access to educational, recreational, and vocational activities and to medical care, as well as violence amongst prisoners” which, exacerbated “by insufficient staffing,” “also makes it difficult, in practice, to implement the principles of dynamic security in any meaningful way.” With specific regard to psychological care during detention, the Committee is concerned that “the treatment of prisoners with mental disorders relies predominantly on the administration of medication” and that “prisoners with mental health problems may be held in solitary confinement or remain in prison for long periods while awaiting transfer to residential facilities for the enforcement of security measures,” the so-called REMS. 

Particular attention is drawn to special detention regimes, as the Committee remains concerned about the severe restrictions imposed by the special detention regime provided for in Article 41 bis of the Prison Act, and by the fact that these measures are applied for an initial period of four years, renewable every two years. It is also noted with concern that “a judge may sentence a person to periods of solitary confinement ranging from two months to three years,” and that there are no means of appeal available to prisoners. 

In addition to this, experts highlight the significant number of deaths in prison: from the start of 2026 to 14 May, the magazine Ristretti Orizzonti has already recorded 80 deaths, 22 of which were suicides, while the peak in the number of people who took their own lives behind bars—91— was reached in 2024. “The Committee remains concerned by persistently high levels of deaths in custody in the State Party, with high numbers of suicides reported, particularly among the foreign detainee population and individuals held in regimes of solitary confinement.”

Furthermore, it is noted with concern that “a large proportion of deaths in custody are attributed to causes which
remain undetermined pending forensic clarification, indicating significant delays in carrying
out forensic examinations.”

What about torture in prisons?

The Committee notes and “welcomes” the fact that investigations and criminal proceedings are being conducted in Italy in relation to alleged acts of torture, but regrets that it has not been “able to ascertain the number of public officials” or other persons acting at their instigation or with their consent who are subject to investigation and criminal proceedings. This is due “to the broad definition of torture provided for in the State’s national legislation, which allows for the criminal prosecution of any individual for the offence of torture regardless of State involvement.” Furthermore, in cases of investigations and criminal proceedings against public officials, the Committee “
regrets information indicating that public
officials are often not suspended from duty pending the outcomes,” and the “notable delays in the conclusion of investigations and criminal proceedings relating to acts of torture”, with repercussions “not only on the victims,
but also on the
perception of the public at large vis-à-vis justice and accountability.

”

Migrants

Here, CAT experts are “concerned” that the practical implementation of the principle of non-refoulement “appears increasingly undermined by policies that link migration management to security and prioritise deterrence and forced returns.” This is compounded by allegations of “arbitrary” categorisation of people in reception centres—the hotspots—into asylum seekers or economic migrants, largely on the basis of nationality. Another alarm is sounded regarding the fact that asylum seekers do not always receive an individualised decision, but that there is a “collective expulsion.” Furthermore, appeals against negative asylum decisions do not always automatically suspend the previous rejection pending the new ruling, and the screening and identification processes at the hotspots are “insufficient to identify people in vulnerable situations, including victims of torture or ill-treatment”. These issues are compounded by “allegations of pushbacks at the border with Slovenia” and “at Adriatic ports.” 

And then comes the Memorandum of Understanding of 2 February 2017 between Italy and Libya: “The Committee remains concerned that it continues to be implemented,” the document states. Because there are allegations of both “substantial assistance and cooperation provided by the Italian authorities in search and rescue operations conducted by the Libyan authorities” and “‘privatised pushbacks‘ whereby Italian
authorities request commercial ships to return individuals in need of protection to the custody
of the Libyan authorities,
including individuals

in situations of vulnerability.” 

Serious concern has been expressed “regarding allegations of excessive use of force and ill-treatment by special intervention units of the police (Interforze), the dilapidated and
and overly carceral conditions, and the almost total lack of meaningful activities for detainees in 
Pre-removal Detention Centres

(CPR).” Furthermore, “people placed in these centres following the serving of prison sentences may be housed alongside people with no criminal record,” while “to avoid detention, people may be required to pay an unreasonably high bond, amounting to between 2,500 and 5,000 euros.” The extension of detention limits in CPRs for foreign nationals to up to 18 months is also a cause for concern. 

In addition to the agreement with Libya, the Committee is also concerned about the Protocol agreed with Tirana, particularly with regard to the subjection of asylum seekers detained under Italian jurisdiction in Albania to accelerated asylum procedures, the obstacles faced by detainees in accessing procedural safeguards such as access to information, legal assistance and representation, as well as psychological, social and humanitarian assistance, and the limited ability of detainees to participate fully in their own asylum proceedings. Also under scrutiny are allegations of shortcomings in the pre-transfer screening procedures, “which result in the transfer of people in vulnerable situations.” 

Finally, the Committee expresses concern at allegations that Italian prosecutors rarely invoke the principle of universal jurisdiction. It cites the Elmasry case. ”
In the context of the State Party’s obligation
to extradite or prosecute, the Committee takes note of the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber
of the International Criminal Court of 17 October 2025 on the State Party’s non-compliance
with a request for cooperation due to its failure to comply with the Court’s request for the
arrest and surrender of Osama Elmasry Njeem for alleged crimes against humanity and war
crimes, including torture and cruel treatment”
the document states.

Criminalisation of solidarity and restrictions on civic space

Among other points, the CAT document expresses grave concern over “allegations of judicial harassment of human rights defenders involved in assisting migrants, including those taking part in search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea, in particular regarding the criminalisation of their activities under the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the facilitation of illegal immigration.” According to experts, “disproportionate sentences are sought in many cases by
prosecutors, in some cases up to 20 years’ imprisonment, and adopting of Law No. 15/2023, which contains vague and
overbroad language posing issues for legal foreseeability, and which imposes substantial
financial penalties for non-compliance, potentially creating a chilling environment for the
work of human rights defenders and hindering the provision of life-saving assistance by nongovernmental organizations in the Central Mediterranean.” Finally, concern is raised over
the passing of Decree-Law No. 48/2025, converted into Law No. 80/2025, “which was noted
by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe as undermining ‘the
fundamental tenets of criminal justice and the rule of law,’ and which significantly expands
police powers over public assemblies, provides for severe sentences for individuals
participating in unauthorized demonstrations, and criminalizes passive resistance to orders
or rules in prisons and migration detention centres.

Next steps

Italy must provide, by 1 May 2027, information on the action it will take in response to the Committee’s recommendations, which, as set out in the text, appear to represent a complete reversal of the current situation. So, a solution does exist. It remains to be seen whether there is the will to implement it.