COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE HEARS RESPONSE OF ITALY

The Committee against Torture this afternoon heard the response of Italy to questions raised by Committee Experts on the fourth periodic report of that country on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

In an introductory statement, Stefano Mogini, Chef de Cabinet in the Ministry of Justice of Italy, said that, among relevant measures recently adopted or contemplated by the Italian Government, Italy would soon sign the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. In March 2007, the law on the crime of torture was amended to introduce a domestic fund for victims of torture. Also in March 2007, the establishment of a national institution for the protection of human rights had been approved by the Chamber of Deputies, which would provide for the establishment of the Defender of the Rights of Detainees. That amendment would thus pave the way for Italy's ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which explicitly required the presence of a relevant domestic monitoring mechanism. Last, but not least, the Council of Ministers was due to approve a bill in June 2007 to harmonize Italian legislation with the Statute of the International Criminal Court, in particular concerning cooperation-related aspects of the Rome Statute.

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Friday, 4 May, the delegation of Italy said that, regarding torture complaints brought against Italian peacekeeping forces in Somalia in 1993, the Italian armed forces were fully professional. They had received basic training, advanced training, and training specifically geared to the mission for which they had been sent. It should also be recalled that the prohibition against torture was absolute in the military: it could not be justified by the excuse of superior orders. After the facts of the Somalia case came to light, a special ad hoc military commission had been instituted. The commission had ordered some convictions, including some administrative punishments, and some cases had been referred to a criminal trial. Also, following that incident, from 1993 onwards, amendments had been made to procedures for such Italian forces carrying out missions all over the world. That included special workshops to prevent such incidents in the future.

The Committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations on the report of Italy towards the end of the session on Friday, 18 May 2007.

As one of the 144 States parties to the Convention against Torture, Italy is obliged to provide the Committee with periodic reports on the measures it has undertaken to fight torture.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 8 May, it is scheduled to begin consideration of the fifth periodic report of Ukraine (CAT/C/81/Add.1).

Introductory Statement

In an introductory statement, STEFANO MOGINI, Chef de Cabinet in the Ministry of Justice of Italy, said that, as a preliminary step and to facilitate the discussion of questions raised by Experts at their last meeting, it would be worthwhile to recall the many relevant initiatives which had recently been adopted, were under examination by the legislature, or were about to be launched by the Government. Italy would soon sign the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. In March 2007, the law on the crime of torture was amended to introduce a domestic fund for victims of torture. Also in March 2007, the establishment of a national institution for the protection of human rights had been approved by the Chamber of Deputies, which would provide for the establishment of the Defender of the Rights of Detainees. That amendment would thus pave the way for Italy's ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which explicitly required the presence of a relevant domestic monitoring mechanism. Last, but not least, the Council of Ministers was due to approve a bill in June 2007 to harmonize Italian legislation with the Statute of the International Criminal Court, in particular concerning cooperation-related aspects of the Rome Statute.

Mr. Mogini also noted that the Italian Constitution protected in a rigorous and strict way the same rights guaranteed by international instruments. The judiciary had to apply legislation while fully respecting constitutional principles, and legislation that was not in line with the European Convention on Human Rights was not applicable.

Concerning procedural safeguards, other than the trial, there were two levels of appeal. While that system bore the risk of inconvenience and delay, it fulfilled Italy's aim of forbidding maximum safeguards. In that connection, Mr. Mogini recalled that the principles of a fair trial had been explicitly incorporated in Article 111 of the Italian Constitution in 1999.

Moreover, while fully respecting the independence of the judiciary, the Italian authorities would keep the Committee informed on all developments concerning relevant cases, such as those that had occurred in Naples and Genoa in 2001, and the more recent "Abu Omar" case. With regard to the latter, judicial proceedings had been initiated at the Milan Tribunal concerning the kidnapping of Mr. Nasr Osama Mustafa Hassan, known as Abu Omar. Following preliminary investigations, which had been concluded in February 2007, a number of individuals had been committed for trial, including officers of the Italian military security service and Italian foreign service agents. The first hearing for the trial had been scheduled for 8 June 2007.

The case was complicated, however, and Mr. Mogini recalled that, on 14 March 2007, the Italian Government had lodged a complaint to the Constitutional Court, concerning a possible conflict of powers with the Prosecution Office of the Milan Court seized with the case, on the grounds that the acquisition and use of evidence in the case was in conflict with provisions regarding a "secret of State". The Minister of Justice had declared that prior to any decision on an extradition request for the agents of the foreign service involved in the "Abu Omar" case, it was necessary that the Constitutional Court rule on that conflict of powers complaint. That could happen as soon as the second half of 2007.

Finally, regarding the fight against terrorism, Mr. Mogini said that, in line with the European Union common declaration of 13 July 2005, following the terrorist attacks in London, the Government of Italy had adopted a set of provisions to fight terrorism, without resorting to exceptional measures. While fully complying with their Constitutional values, the anti-terrorism measures that had been adopted by the Italian judicial authorities had been made in the absolute respect for human rights

Response by Delegation

Responding to a series of questions raised by Committee Experts on Friday, 4 May, the delegation of Italy, speaking on the issue of torture complaints brought against Italian peacekeeping forces in Somalia in 1993, recalled that training of military forces included human rights training and awareness-raising on the right to life was also carried out to ensure protection against any violation of human rights in connection with such activities. The Italian armed forces were fully professional. They had received basic training, advanced training, and training specifically geared to the mission for which they had been sent. It should also be recalled that the prohibition against torture was absolute in the military: it could not be justified by the excuse of superior orders.

After the facts of the Somalia case came to light, the delegation said that a special ad hoc military commission had been instituted. The commission had ordered some convictions, including some administrative punishments, and some cases had been referred to a criminal trial. Also, following that incident, from 1993 onwards, amendments had been made to procedures for such Italian forces carrying out missions all over the world. That included special workshops to prevent such incidents in the future.

Turning to the issue of sexual violence, the delegation noted that the purpose of the law on sexual violence adopted in 1996 had been to address the issue comprehensively. The new law introduced a more modern definition of sexual violence, which focused on violence against sexual determination, regardless of the details of the offence. The law also provided for the prohibition of female genital mutilation, and for the establishment of centres for women fleeing such mutilation.

In terms of prisoners’ rights, the delegation stressed that prisoners were entitled to receive visits, and that foreign and Italian prisoners enjoyed the same rights. Moreover, the Government had the right to undertake unannounced inspection visits of all prison and detention facilities.

Regarding safeguards for those deprived of liberty, detainees had the right to be heard before a judge no later than five days following their arrest. If the detainee had not been presented before a judge within that period, the detention order was nullified, the delegation underscored.

There was only one exception in Italian law that would allow for the interview by a defence counsel of a detainee to be postponed, when the detainee was suspected of involvement in international drug trafficking and it was thought that contact with his or her defence counsel might give rise to tampering with the evidence in the case.

Regarding problems of overcrowding in Italian prisons and places of detention, the delegation said that nine new facilities were under construction, and renovation of six facilities, including a psychiatric hospital, was under way, which would provide for 337 extra places.

As to the fight against degrading conditions that might be suffered by prisoners, from 1999, activities had been undertaken to improve healthcare treatment for prisoners, and to expand and provide specialized care for prisoners. Prisoners had the right to a medical visit by a doctor at the beginning of their detention and thereafter at their request, the delegation said.

Turning to juvenile justice, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Family had jointly set up a commission to draft a text instituting a new judicial body for juvenile and family matters, so as to avoid division and overlapping of jurisdiction among judicial bodies dealing with family and juvenile law. In addition, in coming weeks, another commission would draft the text of a penitentiary code for minors, which contemplated guidelines for minors serving sentences that took into account family links, emotional relations, training and vocational paths.

The number of foreign minors entering Italian prisons was constantly increasing, the delegation noted, and Italy was trying to address that phenomenon. In 2006 alone, 1,362 minors had entered Italian prisons, of whom 781 were foreigners, mostly Romanians and Moroccans. There were 80 cultural mediators, who spoke a number of different languages and were responsible for assisting the foreign prisoners in Italy. Over the past year, Italy had pursued rehabilitation programmes, providing work and training, and probation possibilities for foreigners. Moreover, a memorandum of understanding was about to be signed between Italy and Romania whereby Romanian youth would have the possibility of carrying out their sentence of probation in their own country.

Further Questions by Experts

NORA SVEAASS, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the report of Italy, appreciated the information received from the delegation regarding the imminent establishment of the Italian National Commission on Human Rights, which was an important step forward. Also appreciated was the information received on the incorporation of the definition of torture as set out in the Convention in Italian law.

However, Ms. Sveaass wondered, in the context of legal loopholes and the follow up to the riots in Genoa and Naples in 2001, as well as during recent football riots, whether there was a statute of limitations on bringing such complaints. Information received from Amnesty International had signalled that such statutes might apply in these cases. It was of particular concern, therefore, that the complaints were heard as soon as possible.

Ms. Sveaass wanted to know how the new legislation and amendments concerning torture in Italy had impacted the area of redress and compensation for those who had been exposed to torture. Any concrete examples or statistics on such cases would be welcome.

Turning to psychiatric problems, Ms. Sveaass said she had received information that some of the suicides of those in detention in Italy had occurred following ill treatment by staff, and she would appreciate any clarifications the delegation could make.

FERNANDO MARIÑO MENENDEZ, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the report of Italy, was concerned about the status of mental torture in Italian criminal law, as torture appeared to be linked to its visible effects, such as physical harm or death.

In addition, on the issue of the immediate deportation of an individual, in keeping with its new legislation, as far as Mr. Mariño could see, judges would be in charge of deciding whether remedies were exhausted before ordering an alien's deportation. However, as the Convention set out in its Article 3, the underlying principle that had to be taken into account was non-refoulement. Could the delegation confirm that that was incorporated fully into Italian law?

An Expert asked about the case of three minors of Somali origin expelled to Ghana without being even asked to verify their age.

Response by Delegation

The delegation said that the new legislation in Italy contemplated both acts of physical torture or "moral" acts of torture. Also, the offence of torture was now aimed at any violation of the moral liberty of an individual who was subject to acts of torture.

In Italy, they talked about "provisional" detention, rather than pre-trial detention. Provisional detention was ordered by a decision handed down by a judge, on the recommendation of the public prosecutor. Regarding time limits for detention, the delegation recalled that there were different time limits for each separate phase of the proceeding: before the trial, during the trial, during the first appeal, and during the appeal to the Court of Cassation. A total maximum of 6 years' detention could be served, in a case where the penalty contemplated for the crime charged was 20 years.

As far as the practice of immediate deportation was concerned, the delegation stressed that such a proceeding occurred only when a person presented himself at the border without proper documentation. It could also be authorized if necessary, if there were grounds to do so and the individual remained on the territory of the State.

In terms of suicides in the prisons, out that of 30,000 detainees in 2005 there had been 40 suicides, and this year so far there had only been seven. However, the delegation remarked that Italy's position was that one suicide was one too many. For that reason, Italy was trying to reduce the factors leading to such suicides, including through increasing opportunities for social contact among prisoners, reducing the terms of imprisonment and finding alternatives, and training penitentiary personnel on the subject.

For use of the information media; not an official record

CAT07010E