No detention centre mapping data


Italy Immigration Detention

As the main European destination for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants crossing the Central Mediterranean by boat, Italy confronts considerable migration challenges. It has responded by ramping up its domestic detention system, implementing the controversial “hotspot” approach to process maritime arrivals, boosting interdiction efforts, and adopting new legal measures that restrict avenues for asylum. The country has also been instrumental in supporting European Union programmes equipping and training the Libyan coastguard to intercept trafficking boats.

Quick Facts


Immigration detainees (2015): 5,242
Detained asylum seekers (2013): 150
Persons expelled (2016): 5,715
International migrants (2015): 5,788,900
New asylum applications (2016): 122,905

Profile Updated: January 2018

Italy Immigration Detention Profile

 

 

INTRODUCTION[1]

Italy confronts considerable migration challenges as the main European destination for asylum seekers and migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean by boat. In 2016, approximately 180,000 people reached Italian shores. Of these, 25,000 were unaccompanied children—more than double the number recorded the previous year.[2] 2016 was also the deadliest year on record for boat migrants, as more than 5,022 people died or went missing, compared to 3,771 in 2015.[3]

Italy has responded to this “emergency” situation by ramping up its domestic detention system as well as interdiction efforts aimed at preventing asylum seeker boat arrivals from North Africa. The country has been instrumental in supporting European Union (EU) programmes equipping and training the Libyan coastguard to intercept trafficking boats.[4] The country has also intervened in Libya, supporting International Organisation for Migration (IOM) efforts to “voluntarily return” migrants from detention centres in Libya to their home countries and relocating some vulnerable individuals to Italy. At the end of 2017, the Italian government claimed that “up to 10,000 refugees will be able to come to Europe without risk” from Libya, while 30,000 would be “repatriated to their countries on a voluntary basis.”[5]

The country’s securitised migration agenda has been reflected in recent legal changes. In April 2017, Italy adopted Law 46/2017 (the Minniti-Orlando Decree, D.L 12/2017), which established several new immigration and asylum control measures. Specifically, it introduced a new article to the Consolidated Immigration Act that expanded the criteria for assessing the risk of absconding to include repeated refusal to give fingerprints. Additionally, it eliminated the possibility of appealing a first instance court decision rejecting an asylum application, making appeal possible only through the Supreme Court. Asylum procedures were also simplified by removing the courts’ obligation to hear an asylum seeker—instead, the applicants’ testimony is now to be videotaped and the court has the option of deciding on whether it is necessary to conduct a full hearing. Lastly, the law allocated 13 million euros for the establishment of new detention centres.

Immigration detention in Italy has long operated in a grey area, leading to intense national and international scrutiny.[6] For instance, in its December 2016 ruling in Khlaifia vs. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that Italy violated article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to liberty and security, in relation to its detention of four Tunisian migrants at a “first aid and reception centre” in Lampedusa (the centre was later converted into a “hotspot”).[7]

The Khlaifia case also underscores how the language denoting detention in Italy can be misleading, which can have serious implications on the rights afforded to detainees and lead to confusion about practices in the country. A case in point was the review of Italy before the UN Committee against Torture in November 2017. During the session, an Italian official responded to a question concerning immigration detention by arguing that such detention did not exist in the country. He said, “Now, detention or people being held in centres for repatriation, this is once again not a form of detention, this is administrative holding of a person, it is temporary and has to do with preparing a case for repatriation. This only affects dangerous individuals, all of these stages of the process are provided for in our law.”[8] When the Global Detention Project (GDP) raised this quote with an expert in Italy, she said: “In Italian legislation, administrative detention is defined as ‘administrative holding’ (trattenimento amministrativo). The word detention is not used. However, people are held in a place and they cannot go out. Ironically, the fact that it is not defined as detention makes the condition and the accessibility to rights worse than in prison.” Regarding the Italian official’s assertion that this “administrative holding” only applies to “dangerous” people, the expert said: “There is no assessment of the dangerousness of the people held in the administrative detention centers. They are there due to their immigration status and not because they are necessarily dangerous individuals.”[9]

Since early 2016, concerns over arbitrary detention in Italy have intensified following Italy’s implementation of the controversial “hotspot” approach to addressing migration and refugee pressures, an EU-promoted registration and identification procedure that involves holding people at key points of arrival (for more on hotspots, see the related section below). Under pressure from the European Commission, Italy’s Interior Ministry stated in mid-2017 that six new hotspots would be opened (in addition to four pre-existing ones) with the aim of accelerating repatriation procedures for undocumented migrants.[10]

Based on available statistics from official sources, it appears that the number of detainees in Italy dropped considerably between 2012 and 2015: from nearly 8,000[11] to 5,200.[12] 2016, however, saw a substantial surge in arrival numbers. Statistics covering this period mainly included daily population rates at long-term detention facilities, called Return Detention Centres (Centri di Permanenza per i Rimpatri, or CPRs; formerly known as Centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione, or CIEs). Between 1 January and 15 September 2016, 1,968 were reportedly detained at CPRs.[13] A Chamber of Deputies statistical dossier indicates that on 24 January 2017, 285 people were detained in CPRs.[14] On the same date, 355 adults and 20 unaccompanied minors were accommodated at hotspots. However, the statistics concerning hotspots do not distinguish between those who are detained and those who are able to leave such facilities (see “Hotspots” below).

Formal requests to gain a deeper clarity of Italy’s detention operations are sometimes stymied by lack of transparency. For instance, during 2013-2015, Access Info Europe and the GDP undertook a joint initiative aimed at assessing the degree of openness with respect to information about immigration detention in 33 countries, including Italy.[15] The two groups repeatedly sent brief questionnaires asking for data on where people were detained and how many had been detained in recent years, and requesting details about asylum seekers and children in detention. The questions were translated and sent using designated channels and in line with access to information laws. Italy was one of six countries that ignored all requests (the others included Cyprus, Iceland, Malta, Norway, and Portugal). Discussing these cases, the report noted, “Administrative silence in the face of access to information requests is unacceptable as access to information is a fundamental human right.”[16]

 

LAWS, POLICIES, PRACTICES

Italian legislation explicitly affirms the fundamental rights of undocumented migrants. As stipulated in article 2(1) of the Immigration Act, a non-citizen “regardless of how he is present at the territory of the State,” shall have his fundamental rights recognised. Also, article 10 of the Italian Constitution provides that the legal status of foreigners is regulated by law in conformity with international norms and treaties and affirms the right to asylum. Article 13 of the Constitution provides that personal liberty is inviolable and that detention shall only be allowed for judicial reasons and in a lawful manner.

Despite this, numerous reports by civil society groups, international organisations, and other observers have repeatedly denounced violations of the fundamental rights of non-citizens in detention. In its 2012 profile on Italy, the GDP cited numerous reports demonstrating that authorities routinely detained non-citizens outside the framework of the law.[17] Since then, and particularly since the establishment of the “hotspot approach,” many of the hardships that non-citizens face in custody appear to have been exacerbated.

Grounds for immigration detention. Detention of non-citizens is established in the Turco-Napolitano Law (Law n. 40/1998).[18] Article 11 provides the grounds for issuing an administrative expulsion order, including for overstaying a visa by more than two months and entering Italy by evading border controls. Article 12 states that when it is not possible to immediately return someone at the border or complete an expulsion order, the police commissioner may order detention at a temporary holding facility. The police must communicate this decision to a magistrate, who is to undertake a “validation hearing” and issue a detention order within 48 hours.

Based on the Turco-Napolitano Law, the Consolidated Immigration Act (Testo unico delle disposizioni concernenti la disciplina dell’immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello straniero, the "Immigration Act") was issued in July 1998 (Legislative Decree n. 286). Articles 11 and 12 of the Turco-Napolitano Law are found in the Immigration Act as articles 13 and 14 respectively. The Consolidated Immigration Act, which has been amended several times, remains the main legislation relevant to immigration detention, asylum procedures, and reception conditions.

Substantive changes in immigration detention policy were provided in the 2002 Bossi-Fini Law (Law n. 189/2002).[19]

Asylum seekers. According to article 6(2) of Law Decree 142/2015, which incorporated the EU Reception Conditions Directive and Asylum Procedures Directive into Italian legislation, asylum seekers may be detained if: a) they fall under the exclusion clause under article 1F of the Geneva Refugee Convention; b) are issued with an expulsion order as a danger to public order or state security, are suspected of being affiliated with a mafia-related organisation, have conducted or financed terrorist activities, have cooperated in selling or smuggling weapons or habitually conducted any form of criminal activity, including with the intention of committing acts of terrorism; c) may represent a threat to public order or security; or d) pose a risk of absconding.[20]

As clarified in article 6(2)(d), the assessment of the risk of absconding is to be carried out on a case-by-case basis and take such factors into account as previous systematic false statements or failure to comply with alternatives to detention. Article 17(3) of Law Decree 13/2017 provides a new factor for finding a risk of absconding, namely the repeated refusal to undergo fingerprinting. Under article 6(3) of Law Decree 142/2015, if a person in pre-removal detention applies for asylum, he should remain in detention if there are reasonable grounds to consider that the asylum application was submitted solely to delay or obstruct return.

Children and other vulnerable groups. According to Italian law, children, pregnant women, or women that have given birth in the previous six months cannot be expelled from the country. Further, unaccompanied minors cannot be detained in dedicated detention centres (Legislative Decree 142/2015, Article 19(4)). However unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors may still be housed in secure accommodation centres for identification and age determination purposes for a maximum period of 60 days (Legislative Decree 142/2015, Article 19(1)). It is not forbidden for minors to be detained with their families if they request it and a judge authorises it.[21]

In April 2017, Law 47/2017 concerning the protection of unaccompanied minors was approved. This law reinforces the prohibition against expelling or refusing entry to unaccompanied children (Art. 3).[22] The law amends article 19 of the Immigration Act to specify that unaccompanied minors are to be accommodated at dedicated “first aid” facilities (centri di prima accoglienza a loro destinati) where they are to be housed for a maximum of 30 days (previously it was 60) (Law 47/2017, Art 17).

There are no legal guarantees in Italian legislation for the protection of other vulnerable persons, such as victims of violence and torture. Such individuals may therefore be at risk of being placed in detention.[23]

Despite the fact that there is no legal basis for detaining unaccompanied minors in hotspots for identification purposes, reports indicate that de facto detention of children at these facilities is common despite the devastating impact it has them (for more information, see “Hotspots” below). In 2016, Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that unaccompanied minors as young as 12 were placed in de-facto detention, sometimes for over a month, alongside unrelated adults at the Pozzallo hotspot. When HRW visited the centre in June of that year, they found that of the 365 people held at the centre, 185 where unaccompanied children. The children were vulnerable to violence and sexual harassment. A 17-year-old Eritrean girl told the rights watchdog that men “come when we sleep, they tell us they need to have sex. They follow us when we go to take a shower. All night they wait for us. … They [the police, the staff] know about this, everybody knows the problem, but they do nothing.”[24]

Children face severe hardships in other hotspots as well. During a visit to the Lampedusa hotspot organised as part of a LasciateCIEentrare campaign, experts found that although the compound had separate areas for unaccompanied minors, it frequently confined more children than the 60-bed capacity. At the time, the average stay of children at the Lampedusa hotspot was reported to be 25 days.[25]

Another critical issue concerning children are inaccurate age assessments. In Italy the main tool used to determine whether one is a minor involves wrist-bone x-rays.[26] This procedure can have a high margin of error as it indicates the level of biological development rather than chronological age since birth.[27] NGOs have reported numerous cases in which age assessments were inaccurate.[28]

Length of detention. The maximum length of pre-removal detention is 90 days (Consolidated Immigration Act, Art 14(5)); the maximum length of detention for asylum seekers is 12 months (Decree 142/2015, Article 6.8). The police commissioner may prolong the detention of an applicant for international protection for periods that do not exceed 60 days.

The maximum length of detention in Italy has changed several times in recent years. The Turco-Napolitano Law initially established a maximum detention period of 30 days (Art 12). The Bossi-Fini Law subsequently amended article 14(5) of the Consolidated Immigration Act, providing that if the procedures to verify the identity of a non-citizen face serious difficulties then a judge can extend the detention period for an additional 30 days. In May 2008, the then-newly elected Berlusconi government adopted a package of provisions, known as the “security package” (pacchetto sicurezza), with the objective of combatting irregular migration. The “security package” included Law 94/2009,[29] which amended the Consolidated Immigration Act by increasing the maximum period of detention at an Identification and Expulsion Center (CIE) to 18 months. In 2013, this was shortened to the current period of 90 days (Consolidated Immigration Act, Art 1(5)).

According to the Senate Extraordinary Commission for the Promotion of Human Rights, the average detention period in Italy’s long-term detention centres during 2015 was 25.5 days.[30]

If the maximum detention period has expired before an order of expulsion can be executed and a non-citizen can no longer be detained at a CIE, the police can issue a provision ordering the non-citizen to leave the country within seven days. If this is violated, either because the non-citizen does not leave or because he re-enters the state’s territory, he can be prosecuted and sentenced up to a year of imprisonment. If the non-citizen violates the expulsion order a second time, he can be imprisoned for between one and four years.

Procedural guarantees. Upon arrest of a non-citizen who appears to have violated immigration law, the police are to notify the appropriate judicial authority (giudice di pace, “justice of the peace”) within 48 hours. Following a “validation hearing” in the presence of a lawyer, the judge is to issue a detention order within 48 hours. Non-citizens then have the right to appeal a detention and/or extension decision to the Court of Cassation (Consolidated Immigration Act, Art 14(6)).

Both validation and extension hearings have been the subject of criticism, in part because the judges often have little knowledge of immigration law. The Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants has stated that the judges “deciding whether expulsion and detention orders should be extended are justices of the peace without any particular expertise in immigration issues. The ability of these lay judges to review the detention orders on the merits seems to be limited; rather, the confirmation of the detention orders is perceived to be, in many cases, based on mere formalities, thus resulting in a lack of real judicial control over the order.”[31]

There has also been criticism over the poor quality of public defenders. Government lawyers are often appointed just hours before the hearing and only briefly meet their clients, often without an interpreter. According to a study produced by the Monitoring Center on Juridical Control of Migrants’ Removal, even when adequate defence is provided, decisions can rely on superficial judicial reasoning. The study concluded that detention appears to be a mere formality in which summary decisions are frequently arrived at in less than five minutes of deliberation.[32]

There are also challenges in the process of appealing decisions to the Court of Cassation. The appeals process is a lengthy and complex process and many lawyers do not fulfil the requirements needed to be able to act in front of the court (one needs to have practiced law for at least 12 years).[33]

Alternatives to detention. Alternatives to detention were introduced in the 2011 amendment to the Consolidated Immigration Act, transposing the EU Returns Directive. In line with Article 14(1bis), officials may order one of three kinds of non-custodial measures in cases where detention can be ordered: a) relinquishing passport or an equivalent document; b) obligation to reside at a previously identified location; c) reporting obligations. However, these measures may be applied only with respect to migrants who have their passport or another equivalent document.[34]

Based on an examination of 2015 data from detention centre hosting cities Bari and Torino, the Monitoring Centre on Juridical Control of Migrants’ Removal found that no decision to authorise alternatives to detention was recorded. Assessing case law from judges of the peace in the cities of Bologna and Prato (which currently do not have detention centres) for the same time period, the group found that alternatives to detention where adopted more frequently—in 92 percent and 16 percent of cases respectively. The most frequent alternative to detention adopted was the submission of the passport and obligation to report to police headquarters.[35]

Hotspots. In May 2015 the European Commission, as part of its agenda on migration, outlined its new “hotspot” approach.[36] Hotspots are to be located at arrival points in frontline member states (Italy and Greece) and are “designed to inject greater order into migration management by ensuring that all those arriving are identified, registered and properly processed.”[37] Ultimately, this approach is supposed to enhance the effectiveness of the EU’s relocation programmes and speed up returns of those classified as “economic migrants.”

Crucially, hotspots in Italy—unlike those in Greece—are not regulated by specific laws. Instead, they are only regulated at a policy level through a “Roadmap”[38] developed by the Interior Ministry and standard operating procedures (SOPs)[39] drafted with the assistance of the European Commission, Frontex, Europol, the European Asylum Support Office, UNHCR, and the IOM. According to these guidelines, non-citizens are to be identified, registered, and fingerprinted at hotspots and subsequently either channelled to the reception system (if an application for international protection has been made) or transferred to pre-removal detention centres if the person is categorised as undocumented. Law 46/2017 (Minniti-Orlando) introduced the concept of hotspots (referred to as “punti di crisi”) in Italian legislation (article 17). However, according to the Italian Refugee Council (CIR), this act does not clarify or standardise the functioning of hotspots at a legislative level, which would include provisions establishing whether hotspots should operate in an open or closed door policy.[40]

A core objective of the hotspot approach is to ensure the swift identification and subsequent categorisation of non-citizens arriving in Europe.[41] Since the end of 2015, there has been a notable increase in the rate of fingerprinting. Amnesty International has argued that this is a result of the increased use of aggressive and coercive measures on the part of the Italian police. Such measures have allegedly included the use of torture such as electrocution, alternative use of force, and prolonged detention.[42] Although no law that allows for the use of force has yet been adopted, in 2014 a Ministerial circular explained that fingerprints could be taken “even with the use of force if necessary.”[43]

In practice, non-citizens are not allowed to leave hotspot premises until they have been identified and fingerprinted. This practice appears to extend beyond 48 hours—a period allowed under the Consolidated Immigration Act. For instance, in one January 2016 case, 200 migrants from Eritrea and Sudan who arrived in Lampedusa were detained for many weeks after refusing to have their fingerprints taken.

Law 46/2017 (Minniti-Orlando) amends the Consolidated Immigration Act to characterise the repeated refusal to provide fingerprints as a “risk of absconding” and therefore as a ground for pre-removal detention (Law 46/2017 Art.17). Detention in such circumstances is to be carried out in pre-removal detention centres rather than hotspots.

Reports indicate that the role of hotspots has expanded to include detention not just of maritime arrivals but also those detained in northern Italy’s border regions. According to observers, since mid-2016 officials at border points with France (Ventimiglia) and Switzerland (Como) have been transferring apprehended migrants to hotspots like Taranto.[44] Most of the transferees have already been identified and fingerprinted, in some cases after having been hosted in a reception centre. Observers speculate that these transfers are intended to serve as a coercive measure aimed at discouraging border-crossings.[45]

There has also been broad criticism of procedures at the hotspots. In a report on the hotspot of Contrada Imbriacola, Lampedusa, a Senate human rights commission stated that the pre-identification procedure consists of a short and superficial interview with police officers, together with Frontex officials—the aim of which is to fill in a form called the “foglio notizie.”[46] People are required to answer the question “venuto in Italia per” (came to Italy for) by selecting one of five options:1) occupation; 2) to join relatives; 3) escaping from poverty; 4) asylum; 5) other reasons. Only if the correct answer (asylum) is chosen is the possibility to apply for international protection given, otherwise the person is categorised as an economic migrant and is transferred to a CPR/CIE or refused entry.

The Interior Ministry provides data regarding the average number of days spent in hotspots (8.2 for adults and 12.6 for unaccompanied minors[47]). However, this cannot be equated to the average length of de-facto detention in hotspots as in some hotspots—Pozzallo and Taranto—once non-citizens have been fingerprinted they receive a pass that allows them to exit the facility during the day and thus are no longer strictly detained.[48]

Criminalisation. In 2008, as part of the Berlusconi government’s “security package,” the penal code was amended to introduce migration as an aggravating circumstance in criminal law (Law 125/2008, Art 1(g)). In 2010, migration as an aggravating circumstance was declared unconstitutional by the constitutional court (judgment n. 249, 8 July 2010) and abolished. However, Italy still criminalises irregular entry and stay. In 2009, Article 6(3) of the Consolidated Immigration Act was amended so that the crime of irregular entry and stay would be punishable with a fine of between 5,000 and 10,000 euros.

In 2014, with legislation concerning non-carceral penal detention (la legge in materia di pene detentive non carcerarie e di sospensione del procedimento con messa alla prova nei confronti degli irreperibili) (Law 67/2014), Parliament mandated that the government de-penalise certain crimes, including irregular entry and stay. Re-entry after expulsion would remain sanctionable. The government was supposed to complete the process of de-penalisation within 18 months, but no action had been taken concerning irregular entry and stay as of late 2017. According to a source in Italy, “when the deadline expires, the crimes that were not de-penalised remain crimes and a new delegation law has to be enacted by the Parliament. The point is that there was a lack of political will from the Italian government. They depenalised other crimes but not the one concerning irregular entry or stay.”[49]

Targeted nationalities. Italy has been criticised for discriminatory deportation and detention practices. A recent case concerned a January 2017 circular issued by the Interior Ministry to the police headquarters (questuras) in Rome, Turin, Brindisi and Caltanisetta requesting that 95 places in CPRs/CIEs be reserved for Nigerian nationals (50 for women and 45 for men) until 18 February 2017, when a deportation flight was scheduled to depart in cooperation with the Nigerian embassy.[50] The police were encouraged to carry out targeted actions to trace Nigerian citizens present but undocumented on national territory. Rights groups including the Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI) argued that this violated international human rights norms in multiple ways. In particular, the involvement of the Nigerian embassy in “tracking down” Nigerian nationals, some of whom could be potential asylum seekers, violated the principle of non-refoulement and non-discrimination. Also, the “reservation” of such a large number of places in detention centres for Nigerian women raised the spectre that a group of migrants vulnerable to trafficking would be targeted for detention and deportation.

Torture and ill treatment in detention. There have been reports of migrants and asylum seekers suffering torture and mistreatment in detention centres in Italy. Amnesty International documented the testimonies of 24 people who recounted having been victims of torture or other ill-treatment at the hands of Italian police as part of fingerprinting procedures. Most of the testimonies where given by Sudanese individuals who accused the police of having beaten them up, shocked them with electric batons, sexually humiliated them and inflicted genital pain. They also recount having been arbitrarily detained with no food or water for multiple days in a coercive attempt to obtain fingerprints.[51] In one case, Djoka and Ali, two teenage boys fleeing Darfur, recount being detained in separate police stations for multiple days (Djoka in Sicily and Ali in Puglia) and then being brought to “electricity rooms” located in each station where they were given electric shocks until they either accepted to have their fingerprints taken or where too weak to pose any resistance. The Amnesty report also recounts allegations of ill treatment at the hotspots of Taranto, Lampedusa, Pozzallo, as well as at police stations in Bari, Cagliari, Catania, Foggia and Savona as well as in a reception centre in Ancona.[52]

Bilateral and multilateral agreements and cooperation. Within Europe, Italy has been a leading proponent for increasing cooperation with African countries—particularly Libya—in order to stem migration flows. The country also has readmission agreements with several countries including Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, and Morocco.[53]

The vast majority of arriving asylum seekers and migrants depart from Libya (according to UNHCR, in 2016 departures from Libya amounted to 89.7 percent of maritime arrivals in Italy),[54] thus it has been an important country with which bilateral agreements have been signed (most notably in 2009 and 2012) and cooperation increased, including direct collaboration with the Libyan Coast Guard and the establishment of border protection agreements with local tribes in the interior of Libya.[55] The current political situation in Libya prevents the formalisation of readmission agreements, yet the Interior Ministry has repeatedly claimed that cooperation with Libya is essential to halt irregular arrivals and increase expulsions.[56] (See, for example, the response from the Interior Minister to the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights’ September 2017 letter expressing concern about Italy’s collaboration with Libyan authorities.) By mid-2017, the Italian government was claiming that its engagement strategy was a clear success, pointing to dramatic decreases in arrivals in July and August while ignoring the horrific treatment faced by migrants and asylum seekers in custody in Libya.[57] Human Rights Watch commented, “After years of saving lives at sea, Italy is preparing to help Libyan forces who are known to detain people in conditions that expose them to a real risk of torture, sexual violence and forced labour.”[58]

The Department of Public Security has initiated joint operations with several important countries of origin, including Gambia, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Senegal Bangladesh, and Pakistan.[59] Agreements aimed at enhancing police cooperation do not need to be approved by the parliament. One such agreement, a 2016 “memorandum of understanding” between the Italian and Sudanese police forces, is aimed at strengthening police cooperation between the two countries to combat organised crime, trafficking of migrants and irregular immigration, the trade in human beings, drug trafficking and terrorism.[60] The existence of this agreement was brought to light when a group of 48 Sudanese refugees were coercively taken from the border of Ventimiglia, transported to the hotspot in Taranto, and then on to the airport in Turin from which they were deported back to Sudan.[61] According to Amnesty International, all of the deportations had not been officially authorised by the giudice di pace.[62]

After his 2014 visit to Italy, the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants highlighted readmission agreements as a key concern with respect to the country’s efforts to adhere to critical human rights norms: “Of particular concern to the Special Rapporteur is the information he received about continued violations of the principle of non-refoulement and of the prohibition of collective expulsions with regard to the return of some migrants, possibly including minors, immediately after their arrival. He learned that, on the basis of bilateral readmission agreements, nationals of Egypt and Tunisia are often returned without having had access to asylum procedures; this has occurred in, among other places, Pozzallo.”[63]

Operating regulations. The Interior Ministry adopted regulations concerning the criteria for the management of CPRs/CIEs in 2014. The aim was to standardise detention operations, which were previously largely determined by prefect police chiefs.[64] Amongst other issues, the regulations establish basic rights of detainees (including the right to information and the right to medical assistance), the services to be provided, and security procedures.[65] Included in the document is the charter of rights and obligations of non-citizens in detention centres (Carta dei diritti e dei doveri dello straniero nei centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione), which is to be given to every detainee upon arrival.

Previous regulations concerning operations at CIEs established that the police commissioner and security forces are responsible for security and order at the centres. Their specific responsibilities are to monitor the entrances and perimeters of centres, to verify who accesses them, and to allow entry only to authorised vehicles.[66] While security forces are supposed to be allowed only exceptional entry into facilities during emergency situations, observers say their presence is much more noticeable. According to one report, police forces are often present in the lodging and communal areas, as well as during meetings with visitors and medical appointments.[67] However, it is unclear whether or to what extent these earlier regulations have been superseded by the more recent ones. A source in Italy told the GDP that this procedure does not appear to be standard at all CIEs.[68]

As discussed in more detail in the following section of this profile, the Interior Ministry outsources internal management of and operations at centres to both public and private institutions. Currently, detention centres in Italy are managed by a broad range of associations, companies, and cooperatives, including both for-profit and not-for-profit entities. In some cases for-profits and not-for-profits jointly operate centres.[69]

Outsourcing, privatisation, and corruption. The prefectures where immigration centres are located outsource management and services at the centres on behalf of the Interior Ministry. The main criteria for deciding contracts is supposed to be “value for money.” Services mentioned in contract tenders fall under five main categories[70]: administrative management; general assistance; medical assistance; cleaning services and hygiene; and distribution of goods.[71]

At hotspots there can be up to five EU agencies operating (in addition to other local and international actors): Frontex, European Asylum Suport Office (EASO), EUROPOL, the Fundamental Rights Agency, and euLisa.[72] Currently, only Frontex and EASO experts and cultural mediators are present in Italian hotspots.[73] In addition, service agreements are signed between associations and cooperatives and the prefectures in which the hotspots are located.[74]

Several institutions that provide management or services at immigration facilities have been investigated for corruption.[75] For instance, as part of the “Mafia Capitale” investigation, four managers of the Cooperative La Cascina were arrested for corruption related to their management of the Mineo Centri di Accoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo (Centre for the Reception of Asylum Seekers)[76] and an additional 13 employees of the Cooperative Connecting People, which managed both a reception centre and a detention centre in Garadisca d’Isonzo, were accused of fraud.[77]

In a separate case, several people—including a priest and manager of a Catholic charity—associated with a clan, which is part of the powerful ‘Ndrangheta crime syndicate, were arrested in May 2017 following accusations that they took millions of euros that were intended for operations at the Sant’Anna migrant facility in Capo Rizzuto. The facility was nominally operated by the Catholic Misericordia charity. According to the BBC, “the arrests come two years after L'Espresso magazine published an investigation, alleging funds were being stolen and managers were making money by starving the migrants who lived there. A year earlier, it was alleged the number of migrants said to be living at the centre had been greatly over exaggerated, while in 2013 a health inspection found asylum seekers were being fed small portions of out-of-date food. Police believe the clan … was awarding contracts, including for food supplies, to other members of the 'Ndrangheta syndicate, as well as setting up its own associations.”[78]

 

DETENTION INFRASTRUCTURE

Italy has operated a large range of facilities over the years for the purposes of detaining and/or accommodating non-citizens for immigration- or asylum-related reasons. These have included:

  • Return Detention Centres (Centri di Permanenza per i Rimpatri, or CPRs), formerly Identification and Expulsion Centres (Centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione, or CIEs);
  • Temporary Stay and Assistance Centres (Centri di Permanenza Temporanea e Assistenza, or CPTAs);
  • Centres for First aid and Reception (Centri di Primo Soccorso ed Accoglienza, or CPSAs);
  • Reception Centres (Centri di Accoglienza, or CDAs);
  • Centres for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (Centri di Accoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo or CARAs);
  • Police stations;
  • Hotspots.

The Interior Ministry only explicitly uses the term “to hold” (or to detain) to describe operations at CPRs. Nevertheless, as this report discusses in more detail below, based on official operating procedures as well as reports by numerous observers, the GDP concludes that several other types of facilities operate as secure detention centres and should be recognised as immigration detention centres. These include hotspots, CPSAs, and, CDAs.

The website of the Interior Ministry, as per its most recent update (in 2015) at the time of this publication in early 2018, differentiated between only three overarching types of migration-related detention and/or accommodation facilities: CPSAs, CDAs/CARAs, and CPRs.[79]

1. CPSAs- Centri di Primo Soccorso ed Accoglienza (Centers for First Aid and Reception). These facilities are intended to serve as an initial accommodation for new arrivals. People receive medical care, they are identified and photographed, and can apply for international protection. People are subsequently transferred to other centres, depending on an initial determination of their status.

2. CDAs - Centri di Accoglienza (Reception or Welcome Centres) and CARAs - Centri di Accoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo (Centres for the Reception of Asylum Seekers). CDAs are used for the initial confinement of people who have been apprehended on national territory. They are to remain at the centres for as long as necessary to establish their identities and verify their status. Undocumented non-citizens who apply for international protection are sent to a CARA for identification and for the initiation of the procedures required to apply for asylum. The Interior Ministry does not appear to differentiate between CDAs and CARAs.

3. CPRs - Centri di Permanenza per i Rimpatri (Return Detention Centres). Non-citizens who arrive irregularly in Italy and who do not apply for asylum or do not qualify for it are held in CPRs, which are Italy’s principal long-term immigration detention facilities. Previously called Centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione (Identification and Expulsion centres), the Minniti-Orlando Decree changed the name to Centri di Permanenza per i Rimpatri (Return Detention Centres). They were established to ensure that deportation orders are effectively carried out.

There are numerous complications related to this classification. First, as Italian legislation lacks specific norms relating to the functioning of reception centres, in particular for CDAs and CPSAs, the typology and specificity of each centre is not easily defined. Because of this legislative vacuum and the pervasive “emergency” logic guiding migration control practices, the issue of the reception of migrants has acquired an informal character.

Secondly, since the Interior Ministry’s online list was last updated in 2015 there have been numerous developments, including the launching of the “hotspot” approach. Two CPSAs have been transformed into hotspots (Lampedusa and Pozzallo). The list also fails to take into account numerous other custodial facilities, including the Centres of Extraordinary Reception (Centri di Accoglienza Straordinaria - CAS),[80] which were officially created by legislative decree 142/2015.[81] Although there are currently over 3,000 CAS in Italy, no official list of these structures exists. Along with CAS there appear to be other more “informal” typologies of reception centres whose existence surfaces only occasionally through media and whose operations remain murky. Case in point is the centre at Cona, in the province of Venice. Following the death of Sandrine Bakayoko, an Ivorian national staying at the centre, media reports referred to the centre as a Centro di Prima Accoglienza (CPA),[82] a typology that has no reference in Italian legislation or policy.

Despite the lack of clarity surrounding operations at immigration facilities and the confusing nomenclature, the GDP considers some of these types of facilities to be detention centres because reports about their operations indicate that people can be deprived of liberty within them, as detailed in the sections below.

Detention Centres. Italy officially designates only one type of immigration facility as a detention centre, the Return Detention Centres (CPRs) (previously Identification and Expulsion Centres, or CIEs). These facilities were introduced in the “Turco-Napolitano” law in 1998 (initially called Centri di Permanenza Temporanea - Centres for Temporary Stay). The function of these centres is to administratively detain those non-citizens slated for deportation.

The number of operating detention centres has decreased over the last few years. In February 2013 there were 13 CIEs in operation. By July 2014, the list had been winnowed to 11 after the Modena and Lamezia Terme facilities were closed.[83] According to the “Italian Roadmap” produced by the Interior Ministry in September 2015, only seven CIEs where in operation: Caltanissetta Contrada Pian del Lago (96 places) Roma Ponte Galeria (250 places), Torino Corso Brunelleschi (180 places), Brindisi Loc. Restinco (83 places), Bari Palese area Aereoportuale (112 places), Crotone Sant’Anna (30 places) and Trapani Milo (204).

As of early 2017, only four Return Detention Centres (CPRs) where in operation: Caltanisetta (96 places), Roma (125 places), Torino (90 places) and Brindisi (48 places), with combined capacity of 359.

According to the campaign LasciateCIEntrare, the reduction in the number of CIEs is the result of a combination of different factors, which include the increased visibility of abuses occurring in these centres brought to light by civil society. Another reason for the reduction, they argue, is the overall failure of the CIE system and the continuous rebellions of the detainees against the detention system.[84] Although they received little media coverage, the CIEs in Bari and Crotone were closed following revolts that saw detainees set fire to matrasses and blankets.

The multi-year trend in closures, however, is poised for a major reversal. The recently approved Minniti-Orlando law allocates 13 million euros for the development of new detention centres and authorises the expenditure of some 4 million euros in 2017, 12.5 million euros in 2018, and 18 million euros starting in 2019 for management (Art 19 comma 3). These new centres are to be distributed across the entire national territory (Art 19 comma 2). The broad expanse of locations is intended to ensure that they are located away from urban areas that are easily reachable. Article 19.2 of the law states that the facilities, under public ownership, will have a limited capacity to guarantee conditions of detention that respect the dignity of persons. In May 2016 the Interior Ministry provided the regions with a list of 11 facilities that will soon be converted into CPRs; many of these facilities are ex- and currently inoperative CIEs. Together these new facilities would add 1,100 places to the capacity of the country’s long-term detention centres.[85]

Conditions at detention centres. There have been various campaigns aimed at highlighting the deplorable detention conditions in many of these facilities, including the LasciateCIEntrare campaign.[86] One of the facilities the campaign visited was the CIE/CPR of Brindisi Restinico.[87] The centre is located 10km away from the city centre, it is surrounded by farmland and has no nearby public transport. The detention facility is located within a CARA and is separated from it by a tall concrete wall. Cooperativa Auxilium obtained the contract to manage the centre. Detainees are not allowed to bring mobile phones inside the centre and it is forbidden to take photographs or videos.

In its report, LasciateCIEntrare described the centre as being divided into three blocs, each bloc surrounded by a steel barrier with a steel net placed at a height of 10 meters. Each bloc has a communal room comprised of a concrete table with concrete chairs and a television. The delegation observed that at the time of the visit almost 15 out of the 46 detainees were given psychiatric drugs. The detainees interviewed complained of terrible hygienic conditions, poor food quality, and insect infestations.

Hotspots. As of July 2017, there were four hotspots in operation: Lampedusa, Pozzallo, Taranto, and Trapani[88] (for more general information on the EU hotspot approach, see “Hotspots” in the policy section). All of these facilities operated previously as either CIEs or reception centres. Together, they have a total capacity of 1,600 places. According to the original plans (as outlined in the September 2015 roadmap) another two hotspots had to be set up, in the ports of Augusta and Porto Empedocle. In July 2017, encouraged by the European Commission, the Interior Ministry announced that six new hotspots would be opened to accelerate repatriation procedures for irregular migrants. They were to be located in Palermo (Sicily), Siracusa (Sicily), Cagliari (Sardinia), Crotone (Calabria), Reggio Calabria (Calabria) e Corigliano Calabro (Calabria).[89]

As noted previously, asylum seekers and migrants are not allowed to leave the premises until they are identified (see “Hotspots” in the policy section). This procedure may take up to a few weeks, depending on the number of arrivals. (A similar practice is carried out in Greece’s hotspots.) This measure amounts to de-facto detention, in line with the ECtHR’s ruling in Amuur v. France (the court ruled that holding asylum seekers in an airport international zone for 20 days under police surveillance amounted to detention). Thus, in the GDP’s terminology, hotspots should be classified as secure reception centres. At the same time, these centres also function as non-secure reception centres, accommodating the people who passed though the identification phase. They are generally allowed to exit the facilities during the day. The GDP thus classifies the hotspots as both “secure” (with respect to the population prevented leaving the premises) and “non-secure” (for the population who can exit the premises during the day) reception centres.

Conditions at the hotspot of Lampedusa Contrada Imbriacola. The first hotspot to become fully operational was Contrada Imbriacola, on the Island of Lampedusa, which was “converted” from a CPSA to hotspot in September 2015. Until July 2016, services were supplied by the Confraternita Nazionale delle Misericordie, which were then taken over by the Cooperative Vivere.[90]

According to the Senate Extraordinary Commission for the Promotion of Human Rights, the Contrada Imbriacola hotspot building is divided into compounds, with a dedicated part for minors and women, and has no communal spaces or recreational activities. Toilets were not heated or cleaned properly, and space in the dormitories was insufficient. Theoretically, people should not be kept in hotspots for more than 48 hours, however officials in Lampedusa and Linosa say that people are often detained beyond 30 days and could effectively be detained for indefinite amounts of time.

A delegation of the campaign LasciateCIEntrare visited the hotspot in July 2016. In their report[91] they noted that some of the detainees had been detained for almost a month and in some cases detention had exceeded three months. The prefabricated buildings were run down. There was no canteen, no launderette and no ventilation system; the rooms were therefore extremely hot in the summer and freezing in the winter. During the month prior to the visit, tap water was interrupted for several hours a day and was salty. Further, the established pocket money (2.50 euros per day) was often not supplied or “replaced” with a pack of biscuits (worth 44 cents). Critically, the delegation observed that at the time of their visit, there were 10 unaccompanied minors in the centre confined alongside adults for an average period of 25 days and in some cases up to 50 days.[92] Although the hotspot is a “closed” centre, a study conducted by ECRE, the Danish Refugee Council and other groups reported that people could exit from a hole in the fence and that this was largely tolerated.[93]

Reception Centres. Reception centres in Italy can be divided into three categories: CDAs (Centri di Accoglienza - Welcome Centres), CPSAs (Centri di Primo Soccorso e Accoglienza - First aid and welcome centers), and CARAs (Centri di Accoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo - Welcome Centers for Asylum Seekers). To these, one can add the recent “informal” system of CAS (Centri di Accoglienza Straordinaria - Centres for Extraordinary Reception). Only the CDAs and the CPSAs appear to operate at least in part as sites of deprivation of liberty.

CDAs and CPSAs. CDAs (Centri di Accoglienza - Welcome Centres) were established by Law n. 563/1995, the so-called Apulia Law of 1995 (Law n. 563/1995 Art 2). The Apulia Law authorised the opening of three immigration centres on the Apulia coast in order to manage arrivals of “boat people” crossing the Adriatic Sea and coming mainly from Albania. The centres were to provide first aid as people awaited identification and/or expulsion. It is the first time that the word “centri” (centres) appears in Italian Law, yet the juridical status of these centres remains unclear. The declared aims of the facilities include both humanitarian assistance and “controlling illegal immigration.”

An inter-ministerial decree issued in February 2006 changed the name of some of these centres to CPSAs (Centri di Primo Soccorso e Accoglienza - First Aid and Welcome Centres).[94] These facilities are intended to provide first aid and other processing for irregular arrivals while they await the determination of their juridical status. According to the research center Osservatorio Migranti, despite their apparent humanitarian character, CDAs and CPSAs usually operate in ways much akin to the operation of CIEs, providing a secure, closed-door regime.[95]

CDAs and CPSAs are not regulated by specific norms. ASGI reports that although the Apulia Law is often invoked when referring to CDAs and CARAs, this law was geographically and temporarily limited to the regulation of first aid activities carried out in the Apulia region between July and October 1995.[96] According to ASGI, when referring to the juridical nature of CDAs and CPSAs, one should characterise it as a vacation legis. In effect, no norm regulates the modalities of reception or the maximum period of detention in a CDA or CPSA. The Apulia Law merely states that people should be held only for the amount of time strictly necessary for the operations of rescue and first aid (art. 12 comma 1 Law n. 563/1995).[97] The “hybrid status” of CDAs and CPSAs lead to practices that are ultimately coercive in nature.[98] Importantly, as one scholar observes, current legislation does not define the obligation of having detention measures authorised by a justice of the peace.[99]

In these spaces—which fall in grey areas of the law—men, woman and children are systematically detained for identification purposes, for periods of time that well exceed the 48 hours. MSF has reported this concerning the CPSA in Pozzallo[100] (converted into a hotspot in 2016) and by Amnesty International concerning the CPSAs in Lampedusa[101] (converted into a hotspot in 2015). According to an expert from the Italian Refugee Council, “the discussion on whether the maximum length of detention should be of 24 or 48 hours, according to the current legislation, is purely theoretical as in practice people are usually detained for more than 48 hours.”[102] According to ASGI, at the CPSA of Cagliari, non-citizens have been detained for as long as 60 days.[103]

As of 2015, there were five reception/welcome centres in operation, according to the Interior Ministry. These include the facilities at Cagliari, Elmas (220 places), Caltanissetta, Contrada Pian del Lago (360 places), and Lecce, Otranto. Facilities at Lampedusa and Pozzallo have been serving as hotspots since 2015. In addition to these, the centres of Bari Palese, Area Aeroportuale (744 places), Brindisi Restinico (128 places), Crotone localita’ Sant’Anna (875), and Foggia, Borgo Mezzanone (856 places) operate as a mixture of secure CDAs and non-secure CARAs.[104]

CARAs, which were introduced in 2002, were initially called Identification Centres and regulated by presidential decree n. 303/2004 and legislative decree n. 25/2008. The stated function of CARAs is to house asylum seekers present on national territory for the time necessary to assess their applications.[105] The 2008 regulations relevant to the management and operation of CARAs highlight their humanitarian nature. They establish that an asylum seeker will not be housed in a CARA for a period exceeding 35 days, after which the person will be issued a three month residency permit. Further, the 2008 decree establishes that the act of leaving a CARA does not imply the withdrawal of one’s asylum application but only the revocation of the provision of accommodation in reception centres (D.lgs 25/2008 Art. 22). Thus, CARAs do not involve the use of coercive measures, as such the GDP does not classify them as detention centres.

CAS, regulated by legislative decree 142/2015, are structures to be used during “emergencies” when spaces are no longer available in other reception centres. Although strong criticisms have been raised concerning the lack of transparency of how these centres are managed and the overall appalling standards of reception, there are no reports of deprivation of liberty at these facilities.[106] Commenting on the lack of oversight and transparency at these and other reception facilities, one source in Italy said: “The tender for CAS is issued by the Prefect (the local representative of the Ministry of Interior). In Italy, there is one Prefect in each Province. It is the Ministry of Interior that defines the requirements for the CAS and because the Prefect signs a contract with the organisation that manages CAS, they also have the duty and the power to control. Since several months the Ministry of Interior carries out a project named Mireco (Monitoring and Improvement of Reception Conditions) but the current results are not publicly available and the project is still on-going.”[107]

 

[1] The Global Detention Project would like to thank Costanza Ragazzi for her assistance completing this profile and Valeria Ferrari and Adele del Guercio for their helpful comments and suggestions. Any errors in this profile are those of the GDP. 

[2] UNICEF, “Number of unaccompanied or separated children arriving by sea to Italy doubles in 2016,” 13 January 2017, https://www.unicef.org/media/media_94399.html.

[3] UNHCR, “Refugees/Migrants Response - Mediterranean,” https://data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/country.php?id=105.

[4] European Commission, "Malta Declaration by the members of the European Council on the external aspects of migration: addressing the Central Mediterranean route,” 3 February 2017, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/01/03-malta-declaration/.

[5]  AFP, “Italy Says Up To 10,000 Refugees Could Be Relocated to EU from Libya,” TRTWORLD, 24 December 2017, https://www.trtworld.com/mea/italy-says-up-to-10-000-refugees-could-be-relocated-to-eu-from-libya-13583.

[6] Luca Masera (University of Brescia), Telephone interview with Michael Flynn (Global Detention Project), 23 November 2012; Claudia Pretto (Associazione studi giuridici sull'immigrazione), Email correspondence with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project), 4 November 2012.

[7] Denise Venturi, “The Grand Chamber’s ruling in Khlaifia and Others v Italy: one step forward, one step back?” Strasbourg Observers, 10 January 2017, https://strasbourgobservers.com/2017/01/10/the-grand-chambers-ruling-in-khlaifia-and-others-v-italy-one-step-forward-one-step-back/

[8] Vittorio Pisani, “Consideration of Italy - Replies of Italy,” 62nd session of the Committee Against Torture, 15 November 2017, minute 44:15, http://bit.ly/2DlJ6VG.

[9] Valeria Ferraris (ASGI), Email Correspondence with Michael Flynn (GDP), 19 November 2017.

[10] A. Zinti, “Migranti, istituiti sei nuovi hotspot: due verranno aperti in Sicilia, tre in Calabria e uno a Cagliari,” La Repubblica, 5 July 2017, http://palermo.repubblica.it/cronaca/2017/07/05/news/migranti_due_nuovi_hotspot_in_sicilia_verranno_aperti_a_palermo_e_a_siracusa-169998642/; F. Sarzanini, “Migranti, La sfida di Minniti sui porti e sulle Ong. ‘Pronti sei nuovi hotspot ora rivediamo Triton’,” Corrire della Sera, 04 July 2017, http://www.corriere.it/politica/17_luglio_04/migranti-sfida-minniti-porti-ong-pronti-sei-nuovi-hotspot-ora-rivediamo-triton-cff03110-60fa-11e7-b845-9e35989ae7e4.shtml.

[11] Police Authority data reported by Doctors for Human Rights (Medici per i Diritti Umani), cited in Italian Council for Refugees (CIR), “Country report: Italy,” Asylum Information Database (AIDA), January 2015, http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/italy/general.

[12] Chamber of Deputies, “Dossier a cura degli Ispettori della Guardia di Finanza addetti all’Archivio della Commissione - Dati Statistici,” 23 January 2017, https://immigrazione.it/docs/2017/dati-statistici-23-gennaio-2017.pdf.

[13] Senate Human Rights Commission, “Report on identification and expulsion centres,” January 2017, http://bit.ly/2mFIDEg.


[14] Chamber of Deputies, “Dossier a cura degli Ispettori della Guardia di Finanza addetti all’Archivio della Commissione - Dati Statistici,” 23 January 2017, https://immigrazione.it/docs/2017/dati-statistici-23-gennaio-2017.pdf.

[15] Global Detention Project and Access Info Europe, “THE UNCOUNTED: The Detention of Migrants and Asylum Seekers in Europe,” December 2015, https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/the-uncounted-the-detention-of-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-in-europe.

[16] Global Detention Project and Access Info Europe, “THE UNCOUNTED: The Detention of Migrants and Asylum Seekers in Europe,” December 2015, https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/the-uncounted-the-detention-of-migrants-and-asylum-seekers-in-europe.

[17] Senate Human Rights Commission, “Rapporto Sui Centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione in Italia,” January 2017, https://www.senato.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg17/file/Cie%20rapporto%20aggiornato%20(2%20gennaio%202017).pdf; Luca Masera (University of Brescia), Telephone interview with Michael Flynn (Global Detention Project), 23 November 2012; Claudia Pretto (Associazione studi giuridici sull'immigrazione), Email correspondence with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project), 4 November 2012.

[18] Parlamento, “Leege 6 marzo 1998, n.40, ‘Disciplina dell’immigrazione e norme sulla condizione dello straniero’,” 1998, http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/98040l.htm.

[19]Parlamento, “Legge 30 luglio 2002, n.189, ‘Modifica alla normative in material di immigrazione e di asilo’,” 2002, http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/02189l.htm.

[20] Italian Council of Refugees (CIR) and Association for Legal Studies on Immigration (ASGI), “Country Report : Italy,” AIDA and ECRE, December 2016, http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/italy.

[21] M. Di Donato, and D. Di Rado, (CIR), “AIDA Country Report: Italy,” ECRE, December 2015, http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/italy.

[22] Gazzetta Ufficiale, “Legge 7 aprile 2017, n.47,” April 2017, http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2017/04/21/17G00062/sg.

[23] M. Di Donato, and D. Di Rado, (CIR), “AIDA Country Report: Italy,” ECRE, December 2015, http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/italy.

[24] Human Rights Watch, “Italy: Children Stuck in Unsafe Migrant Hotspot,” 23 June 2016, https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/23/italy-children-stuck-unsafe-migrant-hotspot.

[25] A. Ballerini, “A Lampedusa l’Hotspot non ci può essere,” Melting Pot, 2 February 2016, http://www.meltingpot.org/A-Lampedusa-l-Hot-spot-non-ci-puo-essere.html.

[26] A. Ballerini, “A Lampedusa l’Hotspot non ci può essere,” Melting Pot, 2 February 2016, http://www.meltingpot.org/A-Lampedusa-l-Hot-spot-non-ci-puo-essere.html.

[27] A. Manzoor Mughal, N. Hassan and A. Ahmed, “Bone Age Assessment Methods: A Critical Review,” Pak J Med Sci, 30(1): 211-215, January-February 2014.

[28] M. Di Donato, and D. Di Rado, (CIR), “AIDA Country Report: Italy,” ECRE, December 2015, http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/italy.

[29] Parlamento, “Disposizioni in material di sicurezza pubblica,” 15 July 2009, http://www.parlamento.it/parlam/leggi/09094l.htm.

[30] Commissione Straordinaria per la Tutela e la Promozione dei Diritti Umani, Senato della Repubblica, “Rapporto sui Centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione in Italia,” February 2016, http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/resources/senato_cie_report_2016.pdf.

[31] F. Crépeau, “Report by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, on his mission to Italy (29 September - 8 October),” Human Rights Council Twenty-third session, 2012, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Migration/SRMigrants/Pages/CountryVisits.aspx.

[32] Monitoring Center on Juridical Control of Migrants’ Removal, “Executive Summary 2016,” 01 March 2017, http://www.lexilium.it/pubblicazioni/.

[33] A. Di Pascale, “REDIAL PROJECT National Synthesis Report - Italy,” Odysseus Network, http://euredial.eu/publications/national-synthesis-reports/.

[34] PICUM, “Building Strategies to Improve the Protection of Children in an Irregular Migration Situation in Europe: Country Brief Italy,” July 2012, http://picum.org/it/pubblicazioni/rapporti-di-conferenze-e-seminari/.

[35] Monitoring Center on Juridical Control of Migrants’ Removal, “Executive Summary 2016,” 01 March 2017, http://www.lexilium.it/pubblicazioni/.

[36] European Commission, “European Agenda on Migration,” 13 May 2015, http://bit.ly/2ktwjtE.

[37] European Parliament - Policy Department for Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs, “On the Frontline: the Hotspot Approach to Managing Migration,” p.8, May 2016, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/556942/IPOL_STU(2016)556942_EN.pdf.  

[38] Ministero dell’Interno, “Roadmap Italiana,” 25 September 2015, http://www.meltingpot.org/IMG/pdf/roadmap-2015.pdf.

[39] Ministero dell’Interno - Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l’immigrazione, “Standard Operating Procedures,” http://www.libertaciviliimmigrazione.dlci.interno.gov.it/sites/default/files/allegati/hotspots_sops_-_english_version.pdf.

[40] Elisa Maimone (CIR Italian Refugee Council), Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project), June 2017; Francesco Ferri, Dario Belluccio, Guido Savio and Annapaola Ammirati (Associazione per gli studi giuridici sull'Immigrazione, ASGI), email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project), June 2017.

[41] Amnesty International, “Hotspot Italia: Come le Politiche dell’Unione Europea Portano a Violazioni dei Diritti di Rifugiati e Migranti,” 3 November 2016, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/5004/2016/it/.

[42] Amnesty International, “Hotspot Italia: Come le Politiche dell’Unione Europea Portano a Violazioni dei Diritti di Rifugiati e Migranti,” p.17, 3 November 2016, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/5004/2016/it/.

[43] Ministero dell’Interno, “circolare n. 27978,” 23 September 2014, http://www.meltingpot.org/IMG/pdf/circolare_impronte.pdf.

[44] A. Quadroni and M. Luppi, “Il ‘giro dell’oca’ dei trasferimenti coatti dal Nord Italia a Taranto,” OpenMigration. 10 November 2016, http://openmigration.org/analisi/il-giro-delloca-dei-trasferimenti-coatti-dal-nord-italia-a-taranto/.

[45] A. Quadroni and M. Luppi, “Il ‘giro dell’oca’ dei trasferimenti coatti dal Nord Italia a Taranto,” OpenMigration. 10 November 2016, http://openmigration.org/analisi/il-giro-delloca-dei-trasferimenti-coatti-dal-nord-italia-a-taranto/.

[47] Open Migration, “Infografiche,” 2017, http://openmigration.org/infografiche#all.

[48] Elisa Maimone (CIR Italian Refugee Council), Email exchange with Izabella Majcher (Global Detention Project), June 2017.

[49] Valeria Ferraris (ASGI), Email Correspondence with Michael Flynn (GDP), 19 November 2017.

[50] ASGI, “Salto di qualità nelle politiche repressive: rintraccio e rimpatrio su base etnica,” 02 Feburary 2017, http://www.asgi.it/notizia/telegramma-nigeria-ministero-interno-rintraccio-rimpatrio-base-etnica/.

[51] Amnesty International, “Hotspot Italia: Come le Politiche dell’Unione Europea Portano a Violazioni dei Diritti di Rifugiati e Migranti,” p.17, 3 November 2016, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/5004/2016/it/.

[52] Amnesty International, “Hotspot Italia: Come le Politiche dell’Unione Europea Portano a Violazioni dei Diritti di Rifugiati e Migranti,” 3 November 2016, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/5004/2016/it/.

[53] Commissione Straordinaria per la Tutela e la Promozione dei Diritti Umani, Senato della Repubblica, “Rapporto sui Centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione in Italia,” p.16, February 2016, http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/resources/senato_cie_report_2016.pdf.

[54] UNHCR, “Italy Sea Arrivals Dashboard,” 2016, https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/52680.

[55] J. Barigazzi, “Italy sees unexpected reduction in Mediterranean migration flows,” Politico, 3 August 2017, http://www.politico.eu/article/europe-sees-unexpected-reduction-in-mediterranean-migration-flows/.

[56] G. Rosini “Migranti, Minniti vuole ‘raddoppiare le espulsioni’. Ma mancano gli accordi: ‘E l’intesa con la Libia sarebbe inapplicabile,’” Il Fatto Quotidiano, 07 January 2017.

[57] "Data from the Italian interior ministry shows that about 11,100 migrants made the dangerous crossing in July compared to more than double that amount in the same month in 2016 (just over 23,500).” Quoted in J. Barigazzi, “Italy sees unexpected reduction in Mediterranean migration flows,” Politico, 3 August 2017, http://www.politico.eu/article/europe-sees-unexpected-reduction-in-mediterranean-migration-flows/. See also, Giulia Paravicini, “Italy’s Libyan ‘vision’ pays off as migrant flows drop,” Politico, 10 August 2017, https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-libya-vision-migrant-flows-drop-mediterranean-sea/

[58] Jacopo Barigazzi, “Italy sees unexpected reduction in Mediterranean migration flows,” Politico, 3 August 2017, http://www.politico.eu/article/europe-sees-unexpected-reduction-in-mediterranean-migration-flows/

[59] Commissione Straordinaria per la Tutela e la Promozione dei Diritti Umani, Senato della Repubblica, “Rapporto sui Centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione in Italia,” p.16,February 2016, http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/resources/senato_cie_report_2016.pdf.

[60] ASGI, “Memorandum of understanding between the Italian public security department and

the Sudanese national police. A reading guide,” 2016, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2016/nov/asgi-italy-sudan-mou.pdf.

[61] ASGI, “Memorandum of understanding between the Italian public security department and

the Sudanese national police. A reading guide,” 2016, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2016/nov/asgi-italy-sudan-mou.pdf.

[62] Amnesty International, “Hotspot Italia: Come le Politiche dell’Unione Europea Portano a Violazioni dei Diritti di Rifugiati e Migranti,” p. 51, 3 November 2016, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/5004/2016/it/.

[63]  F. Crépeau, “Report by the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, on his follow-up mission to Italy (2–6 December 2014),” Human Rights Council Twenty-ninth session, 2014, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Migration/SRMigrants/Pages/CountryVisits.aspx.

[64] Ministro dell’Interno, “Regolamento recante criteri per l’organizzazione e la gestione dei CIE,” meltingpot, 20 October 2014, http://www.meltingpot.org/Regolamento-recante-criteri-per-l-organizzazione-e-la.html#.WRrAh1WLSUk.

[65]  Ministero dell’Interno, “Criteri per l’organizzazione e la gestione dei centri di identificazione ed espulsione previsti dall’articolo 14 del decreto legislativo 25 luglio 1998, 286 e successive modificazioni,” 2014, http://www.prefettura.it/FILES/docs/1233/Regolamento%20Unico%20CIE.pdf.

[66] Ministero dell'Interno - Direzione generale dei servizi civil, “Circolare del 30 agosto 2000,” Bianco Directive, 30 August 2000, http://bit.ly/2mrnfVB.

[67] G. Campesi, “La detenzione amministrativa degli stranieri in Italia: storia, diritto, política,” Democrazia e Diritto, 3-4, pp. 27, 2011.

[68] Valeria Ferraris (ASGI), Email Correspondence with Michael Flynn (GDP), 19 November 2017.

[69] See Global Detention Project, Italy Country Profile, “Institutions” section for details, https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/italy.

[70] Interior Ministry, “Schema di capitolato di appalto per la gestione dei centri di accoglienza per immigrati,” 09 May 2013.

[71] Services mentioned in tenders:

1. Administrative management:

  • Includes storage and collection of data on all detainees/guests and visitors

2. Supplying general assistance to the person, consisting of:

  • Linguistic and cultural mediation

  • Provision of legal information

  • Centre orientation

  • Distribution, conservation and regulation of meals

  • Barber services

  • Laundry services

  • When necessary, assistance to children and infants

  • Other general assistance services specific to each centre typology

3. Medical services consisting of:

  • Medical screening at arrival and identification of vulnerabilities

  • Equipped first aid centre within the centre

  • Potential transfer to hospital

4. Cleaning services and environmental hygiene:

  • Cleaning of daytime and nigh-time spaces, communal areas and offices

  • Disinfection, sanitization, rat and cockroach extermination on surfaces.

  • Collection and disposal of special waste

  • Collection of liquid from internal sewage, if not connected to the communal sewage

  • Care of green areas

5. Distribution of goods:

  • Meals

  • Bedding

  • Products for personal hygiene

  • Clothes

  • Comfort items

[72] European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs, “On the Frontline: the Hotspot Approach to Managing Migration,” p.8, May 2016, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/556942/IPOL_STU(2016)556942_EN.pdf.

[73] European Commission, “Hotspots state of Play,” 2 October 2017, http://bit.ly/2APgNvW.

[74] E. Palazzotto, “Il Sistema Hotspot e la Negazione dello Stato di Diritto in Europa: Relazione di Minoranza sull-approccio Hotspot nell’ambito del Sistema di identificazione ed Accoglienza,” Commissione Parlamentare di Inchiesta sul sistema di accoglienza, di identificazione ed espulsione, nonche sulle condizioni di trattamento dei migranti e sulle risorse pubbliche impregnate, 2016, http://www.meltingpot.org/IMG/pdf/relazione_minoranza_hotspot_palazzotto_2_.pdf

[75] V. Martone, “Marketisation of Social Services and Mafia Infiltration: The Case of Migrant Reception Centres in Rome,” European Review of Organised Crime, 2017, http://sgocnet.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Martone_9-29.pdf

[76] V. Martone, “Marketisation of Social Services and Mafia Infiltration: The Case of Migrant Reception Centres in Rome,” European Review of Organised Crime, 2017, http://sgocnet.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Martone_9-29.pdf; S. Balducci “Dentro il labirinto delle cooperative di Mafia Capitale: dalla 29 Giugno a La Cascina,“ RaiNews, 07 October 2015, http://www.rainews.it/dl/rainews/articoli/labirinto-cooperative-Mafia-Capitale-a75ef368-a6bc-4ba1-a98a-14e65bb8446b.html.

[77] M. Bovi, “Immigrazione e affari. Nuova inchiesta per Scozzari sull'accoglienza a Trapani,” Tp24, 12 February 2016, http://www.tp24.it/2016/02/12/cronaca/immigrazione-e-affari-nuova-inchiesta-per-scozzari-sull-accoglienza-a-trapani/97924.

[78] BBC, “Mafia controlled Italy migrant centre, say police,” 15 May 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39922085.

[80] OSAR, “Conditions d’Accueil en Italie. A propos de la situation actuelle des requérant-e-s d’asile et des bénéficiaires d’une protection, en particulier de celles et ceux de retour en Italie dans le cadre de Dublin,” Aout 2016, https://www.osar.ch/assets/news/2016/160908-sfh-bericht-italien-f.pdf.

[81] Gazetta Ufficiale, “Decreto Legislativo 18 agosto 2015, n.142,” 18 August 2015, http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2015/09/15/15G00158/sg.

[82] La Repubblica, “Migranti, rivolta nel cpa di Cona: 25 operatori bloccati per ore, poi liberati,” 03 January 2017, http://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2017/01/03/news/migranti_rivolta_in_cpa_a_cona_25_operatori_tenuti_bloccati_nella_struttura-155310307/.

[83] Senato della Repubblica, “Rapporto sui Centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione in Italia,“ p. 14, July 2014, https://www.senato.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg17/file/RapportoCIE.pdf.

[84] LasciateCIEntrare, “#20GiugnoLasciateCIEntrare”, October 2016, http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/resources/20giugnolasciarecientrare.pdf.

[86] LasciateCIEntrare, “#20GiugnoLasciateCIEntrare,” October 2016, http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/resources/20giugnolasciarecientrare.pdf.

[87] LasciateCIEntrare, “#20GiugnoLasciateCIEntrare”, October 2016, http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/resources/20giugnolasciarecientrare.pdf.

[88] European Commission, “Hotspots state of Play,” 2 October 2017, http://bit.ly/2APgNvW.

[89] A. Zinti, “Migranti, istituiti sei nuovi hotspot: due verranno aperti in Sicilia, tre in Calabria e uno a Cagliari,” La Repubblica, 5 July 2017, http://palermo.repubblica.it/cronaca/2017/07/05/news/migranti_due_nuovi_hotspot_in_sicilia_verranno_aperti_a_palermo_e_a_siracusa-169998642/.

[90] E. Palazzotto, “Il Sistema Hotspot e la Negazione dello Stato di Diritto in Europa: Relazione di Minoranza sull-approccio Hotspot nell’ambito del Sistema di identificazione ed Accoglienza,” Commissione Parlamentare di Inchiesta sul sistema di accoglienza, di identificazione ed espulsione, nonche sulle condizioni di trattamento dei migranti e sulle risorse pubbliche impregnate, 2016, http://www.meltingpot.org/IMG/pdf/relazione_minoranza_hotspot_palazzotto_2_.pdf.

[91] LasciateCIEntrare, “#20GiugnoLasciateCIEntrare”, October 2016, http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/resources/20giugnolasciarecientrare.pdf.

[92] E. Palazzotto, “Il Sistema Hotspot e la Negazione dello Stato di Diritto in Europa: Relazione di Minoranza sull-approccio Hotspot nell’ambito del Sistema di identificazione ed Accoglienza,” Commissione Parlamentare di Inchiesta sul sistema di accoglienza, di identificazione ed espulsione, nonche sulle condizioni di trattamento dei migranti e sulle risorse pubbliche impregnate, 2016, http://www.meltingpot.org/IMG/pdf/relazione_minoranza_hotspot_palazzotto_2_.pdf

[93] ECRE, the Danish Refugee Council, et al., “The implementation of the hotspots in Italy and Greece: A study,” 05 December 2016, http://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/HOTSPOTS-Report-5.12.2016..pdf.

[94] G. Campesi, “La detenzione amministrativa degli stranieri in Italia: storia, diritto, política,” Democrazia e Diritto, 3-4, pp. 177-226, 2011.

[95] Osservatorio Migranti, “Centri Accoglienza in Italia,” http://www.osservatoriomigranti.org/?cda.

[96] ASGI, “Capitolo 3: Il Sistema dei Centri: I C.P.S.A, I C.A.R.A e I C.I.E,” Il Diritto alla Protezione, La Protezione Internazionale in Italia, Quale Futuro?, pp. 119 - 144, 2012.

[97] ASGI, “Capitolo 3: Il Sistema dei Centri: I C.P.S.A, I C.A.R.A e I C.I.E,” Il Diritto alla Protezione, La Protezione Internazionale in Italia, Quale Futuro?, pp. 119 - 144, 2012.

[98] Osservatorio Migranti “Centi Accoglienza,” http://www.osservatoriomigranti.org/?cda.

[99] G. Campesi, “La detenzione amministrativa degli stranieri in Italia: storia, diritto, política,” Democrazia e Diritto, 3-4, pp. 177-226,2011.

[100] Medici Senza Frontiere, “Rapporto di Medici Senza Frontiere Sulle condizioni di accoglienza nel CPSA Pozzallo,” 17 November 2015, http://archivio.medicisenzafrontiere.it/pdf/Rapporto_CPI_CPSA_Pozzallo_final.pdf.

[101] Amnesty International, “Hotspot Italia: Come le Politiche dell’Unione Europea Portano a Violazioni dei Diritti di Rifugiati e Migranti,” 3 November 2016, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/5004/2016/it/.

[102] Amnesty International, “Hotspot Italia: Come le Politiche dell’Unione Europea Portano a Violazioni dei Diritti di Rifugiati e Migranti,” p.28, 3 November 2016, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/5004/2016/it/.

[103] ASGI, “Capitolo 3: Il Sistema dei Centri: I C.P.S.A, I C.A.R.A e I C.I.E,” Il Diritto alla Protezione, La Protezione Internazionale in Italia, Quale Futuro?, pp. 119 - 144, 2012.

[105] G. Campesi, “La detenzione amministrativa degli stranieri in Italia: storia, diritto, política,” Democrazia e Diritto, 3-4, pp. 177-226, 2011.

[106] LasciateCIEentrare et al., “InCAStrati,” February 2016, http://www.cittadinanzattiva.it/files/primo_piano/giustizia/inCAStrati-report.pdf.

[107] Valeria Ferraris (ASGI), Email Correspondence with Michael Flynn (GDP), 19 November 2017.

 

Centres List

No detention centres data available

Statistics Expand all



5,242

Total number of immigration detainees by year

2015

  • Total number of immigration detainees by year
NumberObservation Date
5,2422015
6,0162013
7,9442012
7,0002010


150

Number of detained asylum seekers

2013

  • Number of detained asylum seekers
NumberObservation Date
1502013
1202013


32,365

Number of apprehensions of non-citizens

2016

  • Number of apprehensions of non-citizens
NumberObservation Date
32,3652016
25,3002014
23,9452013
29,3452012


0.09

Immigration detainees as a percentage of total international migrant population

2015

  • Immigration detainees as a percentage of total international migrant population
PercentageObservation Date
0.092015
0.112013
0.12013
0.122010


4

Number of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres

2017

  • Number of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres
NumberObservation Date
42017
52015


359

Estimated capacity of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres

2017

  • Estimated capacity of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres
NumberObservation Date
3592017
1,0662015


4

Number of ad hoc facilities

2017

  • Number of ad hoc facilities
NumberObservation Date
42017


5,715

Number of persons removed/returned (voluntary returns and deportations)

2016

  • Number of persons removed/returned (voluntary returns and deportations)
NumberObservation Date
5,7152016
5,3102014
5,8602013
7,3652012


17.66

Percentage of persons removed in relation to total number of people placed in removal procedures

2016

  • Percentage of persons removed in relation to total number of people placed in removal procedures
PercentageObservation Date
17.662016
212014


56,289

Criminal prison population

2017

  • Criminal prison population
NumberObservation Date
56,2892017
59,6832014
64,8352013


34

Percentage of foreign prisoners

2017

  • Percentage of foreign prisoners
PercentageObservation Date
342017
34.42014
35.32013


93

Prison population rate (per 100,000 of national population)

2017

  • Prison population rate (per 100,000 of national population)
NumberObservation Date
932017
992014
1062013



59,798,000

Population

2015

  • Population
NumberObservation Date
59,798,0002015
61,000,0002012


5,788,900

International migrants

2015

  • International migrants
NumberObservation Date
5,788,9002015
5,721,5002013
5,788,0002010


9.7

International migrants as a percentage of the population

2015

  • International migrants as a percentage of the population
PercentageObservation Date
9.72015
9.42013


10,000

Estimated number of undocumented migrants

2014

  • Estimated number of undocumented migrants
NumberObservation Date
10,0002014


147,302

Refugees

2016

  • Refugees
NumberObservation Date
147,3022016
118,0472015
78,0612014
93,7152014
64,7792012


1.07

Ratio of refugees per 1000 inhabitants

2014

  • Ratio of refugees per 1000 inhabitants
NumberObservation Date
1.072014
1.572014
12011


122,905

Total number of new asylum applications

2016

  • Total number of new asylum applications
NumberObservation Date
122,9052016
123,6002016
63,6602014
63,6572014
25,7202013
17,3522012


5

Refugee recognition rate

2016

  • Refugee recognition rate
NumberObservation Date
52016
10.32014


701

Stateless persons

2016

  • Stateless persons
NumberObservation Date
7012016
7472015
6062015
3502014
4702012

Domestic Law Expand all

Legal tradition Show sources
NameObservation Date
Civil law

Constitutional guarantees? Show sources
NameConstitution and ArticlesYear AdoptedLast Year Amended
YesConstitution of the Republic of Italy, article 1320072007
Core pieces of national legislation Show sources
NameYear AdoptedLast Year Amended
Law 46/2017 "Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 17 febbraio 2017, n. 13, recante disposizioni urgenti per l'accelerazione dei procedimenti in materia di protezione internazionale, nonche' per il contrasto dell'immigrazione illegale."20172017
Law 47/2017 "Provisions on Protective Measures for Unaccompanied Foreign Minors"20172017
Legislative Decree 142/2015 “Implementation of Directive 2013/33/EU on standards for the reception of asylum applicants and the Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for the recognition and revocation of the status of international protection.”20152015
The Consolidated Immigration Act 19982017
Legislative Decree no. 25/2008 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status20082011
Legislative Decree no. 129/2011 Urgent provisions for the full application of the Directive 2004/38/EC on the free movement of EU citizens and for the transposition of the Directive 2008/115/EC on returning illegally staying third-country nationals2011
Regulations, standards, guidelines Show sources
NameYear Published
Roadmap Italiana (Italian Roadmap)2015
Regolamento Recante "Criteri per l'Organizzazione e la Gestione dei Centri di Identificazione ed Espulsione Previsti dall'Articolo 14 del Decreto Legislativo 25 Luglio 1998 n. 286 e successive modificazioni" ( Regulations on the "criteria for the organization and management of the centers for identification and expulsion" )2014
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) applicable to Italian Hotspots2015

Immigration-status-related grounds Show sources
NameObservation Date
Detention to establish/verify identity and nationality2017
Detention to prevent absconding2017
Detention for failing to respect non-custodial measures2017
Detention for failing to respect a voluntary removal order2017
Detention during the asylum process2017
Detention to effect removal2017
Detention to prevent unauthorised entry at the border2015

Does the country provide specific criminal penalties for immigration-related violations? Show sources
FinesIncarcerationObservation Date
YesYes2017
Grounds for criminal immigration-related detention/incarceration and maximum potential duration of incarceration Show sources
Grounds for IncarcerationMaximum Number of Days of IncarcerationObservation Date
Unauthorised stay3652017
Unauthorized re-entry14602017

Maximum length for administrative immigration detention in law. Show sources
Number of DaysObservation Date
902017
5402013
Maximum length of time in custody prior to issuance of a detention order Show sources
Number of DaysObservation Date
22017
Average length of detention Show sources
Number of DaysObservation Date
25.52015
1502012
Maximum length of detention for asylum-seekers Show sources
Number of DaysObservation Date
3652017
302012

Provision of basic procedural standards Show sources
NameIn LawIn PracticeObservation Date
Right to appeal the lawfulness of detentionYes2017
Right to legal counselYes2017
Information to detaineesYes2017
Independent review of detentionYes2017
Access to asylum proceduresYes2017

Types of non-custodial measures Show sources
NameIn LawIn PracticeObservation Date
Supervised release and/or reportingYesinfrequently2017
Registration (deposit of documents)Yesinfrequently2017
Designated non-secure housingYesinfrequently2017
Electronic monitoringNoNo2017
Release on bailYesinfrequently2014

Is the detention of vulnerable persons provided in law? Are they detained in practice? Show sources
NameIn LawIn PracticeObservation Date
Unaccompanied minorsProhibitedinfrequently2017
Asylum seekersProvidedNo2017
Pregnant womenProhibitedinfrequently2017
Accompanied minorsNot mentionedinfrequently2017

Re-entry ban Show sources
NameObservation Date
Yes2017

International Law Expand all

International treaties Show sources
NameRatification Year
OP ICESCR, Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights2015
OP CRC Communications Procedure2012
ICPED, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance2015
OPCAT, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment2013
CRPD, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2009
CTOCTP, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children2006
CTOCSP, Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime2006
CRC, Convention on the Rights of the Child1991
CAT, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment1989
CEDAW, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women1985
ICCPR, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights1978
ICESCR, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights1978
ICERD, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination1976
PCRSR, Protocol to the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees1972
VCCR, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations1969
CRSSP, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons1962
CRSR, Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees1954
Ratio of relevant international treaties ratified
  17/19
International treaty reservations Show sources
NameReservation YearObservation Date
VC Article 3619691969
Individual complaints procedure Show sources
NameAcceptance Year
CRPD, Optional Protocol to o the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities2009
CAT, declaration under article 22 of the Convention1989
CEDAW, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 19991985
ICCPR, First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19661978
ICERD, declaration under article 14 of the Convention1976
Ratio of complaints procedures accepted Show sources
NumberObservation Date
5 / 6
5 / 6
Relevant recommendations issued by treaty bodies Show sources
NameRecommendation ExcerptRecommendation Year
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women§16. The Committee recommends, in line with its general recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, that the State party: [...] (c) Provide adequate services to refugees and asylum seekers placed in administrative detention, in particular women with specific needs and vulnerabilities; (d) Ensure that immigration detention is applied only as a measure of last resort, after it has been determined, on a case-by-case basis, to be strictly necessary, proportionate, lawful and non-arbitrary, and is imposed for the shortest possible period; [...]2017
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women16. The Committee recommends, in line with its general recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, that the State party: [...] (d) Ensure that immigration detention is applied only as a measure of last resort, after it has been determined, on a case-by-case basis, to be strictly necessary, proportionate, lawful and non-arbitrary, and is imposed for the shortest possible period; [...]2017
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination§ 22: The Committee is concerned that, despite its previous recommendations, the precarious conditions in assistance, reception and identification centres have worsened with the arrival of migrants from North Africa, particularly in recent years. The Committee is concerned by the information according to which migrants are more likely to be arrested and often receive harsher sentences than Italians. This situation may also have been aggravated by Law No. 94/2009 which criminalized undocumented entry and stay in Italy, and Law No. 129/2011 which allows the detention of undocumented migrants for up to 18 months. […] The Committee recommends that the State party: a) take the necessary measures to ensure that conditions in centres for refugees and asylum-seekers meet international standards. 2012
Committee against Torture§ 9: The Committee is concerned at the detention policy applied to asylum-seekers and other non-citizens, including reports that they often face lengthy periods of detention in the Temporary Detention Centres (CPTs) and the “temporary stay and assistance centres” (CPTAs). In this respect, the Committee regrets the change in the legislative framework resulting from Law No. 189/2002 (the “Bossi-Fini law”) which permits the detention of undocumented migrants and doubles the detention period (from 30 to 60 days). (arts. 2, 11 and 16) The State party should take effective measures to ensure that detention of asylum seekers and other non-citizens is used only in exceptional circumstances or as a measure of last resort, and then only for the shortest possible time. The State party should also ensure that courts carry out a more effective judicial review of the detention of these groups. 2007
16. The Committee recommends, in line with its general recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women, that the State party: [...] (b)Increase the number of available places in reception centres and ensure adequate reception standards for refugees and asylum seekers, with particular attention to the needs of women and girls; (c) Provide adequate services to refugees and asylum seekers placed in administrative detention, in particular women with specific needs and vulnerabilities; (d) Ensure that immigration detention is applied only as a measure of last resort, after it has been determined, on a case-by-case bais, to be strictly necessary proportionate, lawful and non-arbitrary, and is imposed for the shortest possible period; [...]2017
Human Rights Committee25. The State party should: [...] (c) Ensure that immigration detention is only applied for the shortest period possible and as a measure of last resort, after it has been determined, on a case-by-case basis, to be strictly necessary, proportionate, lawful and non-arbitrary; [...]2017

Regional legal instruments Show sources
NameYear of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
CPCSE, Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse2013
ECHR, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights1955
ECHRP7, Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11)1991
ECHRP1, Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11)1955
ECPT, European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment1988
CATHB, Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings2010
Reception Directive2005
Procedures Directive2008
Return Directive2011
Regional treaty reservations Show sources
NameReservation Year
ECHRP7 Article 21991
ECHRP7 Article 31991
Recommendations issued by regional human rights mechanisms Show sources
NameRecommendation ExcerptRecommendation YearObservation Date
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)§ 30: immediate steps to be taken at the Bologna CIE to ensure that foreign nationals are provided with board games and a television set and have more frequent access to the existing sports facilities; the Italian authorities to redouble their efforts to provide foreign nationals held at the Bologna CIE with a range of purposeful activities. The longer the period for which foreign nationals are detained, the more developed should be the activities which are offered to them; § 34: steps to be taken at the Bologna CIE and all other CIEs in Italy to ensure that, whenever injuries are recorded by a doctor which are consistent with allegations of ill-treatment made by a foreign national (or which, even in the absence of allegations, are indicative of illtreatment), the record is systematically brought to the attention of the relevant prosecutor, regardless of the wishes of the person concerned; § 37: steps to be taken to ensure that the confidentiality of medical data is fully respected at the Bologna CIE; § 39: as regards the isolation of immigration detainees for reasons of good order and security, a proper legal basis and clear procedures (including appropriate safeguards such as the keeping of a dedicated register) to be established at the Bologna CIE and, where appropriate, in other CIEs in Italy.20132013
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)§ 129: ECRI again recommends that the Italian authorities detain asylum seekers only when absolutely necessary, for short periods of time, and following an examination of the circumstances of the individual case; § 130: ECRI recommends that the Italian authorities review reception conditions in CDAs and CARAs to ensure that they meet all the needs of their occupants, both medically and socially and in terms of legal assistance; § 145: ECRI recommends that the Italian authorities consider alterations to Identification and Expulsion Centres (CIEs) and the living conditions there and take all the necessary steps to ensure that they are suitable for periods of detention lasting up to 180 days; § 146: ECRI urges the Italian authorities to ensure that all persons held in CIEs have access to the medical care that they need; § 147: ECRI urges the Italian authorities to investigate all allegations of ill-treatment in these centres and punish those responsible. It again invites the authorities to increase transparency by facilitating access to these centres, including for organisations protecting the human rights of migrants and asylum seekers and for lawyers. 20122012

Bilateral/multilateral agreements linked to readmission Show sources
NameYear in ForceObservation Date
Moldova20042017
Netherlands20002017
Nigeria20112017
India20002017
Mexico20022017
Philippines20042017
Romania19982017
Russian Federation20112017
Poland20012017
Slovakia20022017
Slovenia19972017
Switzerland20002017
Serbia19982017
Cyprus20032017
Sri Lanka20012017
Greece20002017
Hungary19982017
Spain20012017
Egypt20002017
Turkey20012017
Tunisia19992017
Uzbekistan20012017
Austria19982017
Albania20082017
Algeria20062017
Bulgaria19982017
Bosnia and Herzegovina20042017
Cyprus20062017
Czech Republic19992017
Croatia19982017
Egypt20072017
Estonia19992017
France19992017
Greece20012017
Hungary19992017
Latvia19972017
Lithuania19992017
Malta20022017
Macedonia19972017
Cape Verde (EU agreement)20132013
Georgia (EU agreement)20112011
Pakistan (EU agreement)20102010
Moldova (EU agreement)20082008
Serbia (EU agreement)20082008
Ukraine (EU agreement)20082008
Bosnia-Herzegovina (EU agreement)20082008
Macedonia (EU agreement)20082008
Montenegro (EU agreement)20082008
Russia (EU agreement)20072007
Albania (EU agreement)20062006
Sri Lanka (EU agreement)20052005
Hong Kong (EU agreement)20042004
Macao (EU agreement)20042004

Visits by special procedures of the Human Rights Council Show sources
NameYear of VisitObservation Date
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants20142015
Working Group on arbitrary detention20142015
Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially in women and children2013
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants2012
Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences2012
Working Group on arbitrary detention2008
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance2006
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants2004
Relevant recommendations by UN Special Procedures Show sources
NameRecommendation ExcerptRecommendation YearObservation Date
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants

§ 108:  (a) Ensure that migrants are detained only when they present a danger to themselves or others or a demonstrated risk of absconding from future proceedings, and always ensure that detention is used for the shortest time possible and as a measure of last resort. Non-custodial alternatives to detention should be used in all other cases; (b) Improve and standardize the management of reception centres for irregular migrants, drawing from the best practices observed in the existing network of reception centres and in other facilities in Europe and around the world, and in accordance with relevant standards set out in international human rights law; (c) Ensure that all detained migrants have access to proper medical care, interpreters, adequate food and clothing, hygienic conditions, adequate space to move around and outdoor exercise; (d) Systematically inform detained migrants in writing, in a language they understand, of the reason for their detention, its duration and their rights to access to a lawyer, to promptly challenge their detention and to seek asylum; (e) Implement legislation concerning the early identification of migrant prisoners to avoid further detention; (f) Ensure that all migrants deprived of their liberty are able to promptly and easily contact their family, consular services and a lawyer, which should be free of charge; (g) Guarantee full access by international organizations, including UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration, as well as civil society organizations, doctors, journalists and lawyers, to all areas where migrants are held or detained, at all stages of the procedure, including in reception centres; (h) Develop comprehensive human rights training programmes for all staff who work in reception centres; (i) Coordinate and simplify all the different reception centres to avoid confusion and duplication of efforts, especially where family members are processed under different procedures; (j) Ensure the monitoring of reception centres so that they are all brought to the same standards.

20152015
Working Group on arbitrary detention

§ 73. Deprivation of liberty of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in an irregular situation should only be used as a measure of last resort. The Government should take sustained measures to ensure that these groups of individuals are detained only because they present a danger for themselves or others, or would abscond from future proceedings, always for the shortest time possible, and that non-custodial measures are always considered first as alternatives to detention. §74. Where the expulsion of a migrant is ordered by a criminal court, preparations for the deportation should be carried out while the migrant is in prison, to avoid detention in an identification and expulsion centre. §75. All detained migrants should have access to proper medical care, interpreters, adequate food and clothes, hygienic conditions, adequate space to move around and access to outdoor exercise. §76. Detained migrants should be systematically informed in writing, in a language they understand, of the reason for their detention, its duration, their right to have access to a lawyer, the right to promptly challenge their detention and to seek asylum. §77. All migrants deprived of their liberty should be able to promptly contact their family, consular services and a lawyer, which should be free of charge. §78. Comprehensive human rights training programmes should be developed for all staff who work in such centres. §79. A fairer and simpler system should be established for migrant detainees to be able to challenge expulsion and detention orders. §80. All detained persons who claim protection concerns should, without delay, be adequately informed of their right to seek asylum, have access to registration of asylum claims and should be able to communicate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, lawyers and civil society organizations. §81. In compliance with the European Union “Dublin III” Regulation, asylum seekers can be transferred only to European Union member States, according to the territorial competence of those member States in receiving and processing the asylum claim, as provided by the Regulation. The Government should prohibit the transfer of asylum seekers to detention centres in third countries that do not meet international human rights standards or that have no procedures to assess promptly claims for asylum.

20152015
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants

§ 105: Ensure that migrants are detained only because they present a danger for themselves or others, or would abscond from future proceedings, always for the shortest time possible, and that non-custodial measures are always considered first as alternatives to detention. 106. Improve enforcement of the regulation with regard to the management of Government centres for irregular migrants, drawing from the best practices observed in the present network of CIEs and in other facilities in Europe and around the world, and in accordance with relevant standards espoused by international human rights law. 107. Ensure that all detained migrants have access to proper medical care, interpreters, adequate food and clothes, hygienic conditions, adequate space to move around and access to outdoor exercise. 108. Systematically inform detained migrants in writing, in a language they understand, of the reason for their detention, its duration, their right to have access to a lawyer, the right to promptly challenge their detention and to seek asylum. 109. Seek to ensure the early identification of migrant prisoners to avoid further detention in CIEs. 110. Ensure that all migrants deprived of their liberty are able to promptly contact their family, consular services and a lawyer, which should be free of charge. 111. Guarantee the full access by international organizations, including UNHCR and IOM, civil society organizations, doctors, journalists and lawyers to all areas where migrants are held or detained, at all stages of the procedure, including in temporary reception centres. 112. Develop comprehensive human rights training programmes for all staff who work in such centres. 113. Ensure full and proper access to justice for all detainees, including a more accountable system for lodging complaints within detention centres. 114. Establish a fairer and simpler system for migrant detainees to be able to challenge expulsion and detention orders. 115. Provide explicit training for the Justices of the Peace on international human rights law and international refugee law. 116. Reduce the maximum period of immigration detention for the purposes of identification to 6 months.

20132013
Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences

§ 94 (k): Amend the “Security Package” laws generally, and the crime of irregular migration in particular, to ensure access of migrant women in irregular situations to the judiciary and law enforcement agencies, without fear of detention and deportation

20122012
Working Group on arbitrary detention

§ 117: Legislation making non-compliance with immigration laws punishable by imprisonment (or as an aggravating circumstance) should be reconsidered. 119. The Government should implement the proposals made in the De Mistura report with regard to centres holding asylum-seekers and migrants. 120. With regard to first reception centres for asylum-seekers (CDAs), the deprivation of liberty in them, at present de facto, needs to be provided with a legal basis. If the detention of asylum-seekers in CDAs until the issuance of the document certifying their status as asylum-seekers is maintained, it must be limited by strict and tight timelines. 121. Detention in Identification and Expulsion Centres should be based on more careful examination of the individual case on the basis of criteria enshrined in law. Where a person files an asylum claim while detained in a CIE, continued detention in the CIE should not be automatic. Measures to promote the voluntary repatriation of expellees should be given more consideration. Where the expulsion of a migrant is ordered by a criminal court, preparations for the deportation should be carried out while the migrant is in prison, to avoid detention in a CIE. Legal aid to persons detained in CIEs should be strengthened.

20092009
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

§ 75: The Government should further improve the conditions of the CPTAs and the reception and identification centres to ensure that health care as well as appropriate housing and living conditions are provided. It is particularly important to improve the provision of legal information and counselling. The Government should allow the free and permanent presence of relevant international organizations, in particular UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration, and the access of specialized humanitarian NGOs, particularly in the fields of health and legal aid, to improve the quality of the services currently provided.

20072007
Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants

§ 105: Urgent steps should be taken to ensure health assistance for mass arrivals in Lampedusa. The priority of the Lampedusa CPTA should be the correct identification of everyone arriving on the island, not the immediate deportation of newly-arrived immigrants. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the new agreement between the Ministry of the Interior and MSF and hopes that MSF will be able to resume its activities in the CPTAs and the identification centres in the near future. 107. Better coordination is required between the Ministry of the Interior and the prison authorities over the deportation of foreign prisoners. Holding ex-convicts in the CPTAs implies an unjustified extension of their sentences and creates problems of personal safety for everyone else held there, particularly women. 114. The possibility should be studied of extending the article 18 programmes to male and female victims of trafficking in persons who have been subjected to forced labour, slavery or similar practices, bondage or organ removal. Foreigners in prison or in CPTAs should be ensured access to these programmes.

20042004
Relevant recommendations of the UN Universal Periodic Review Show sources
Recomendation IssuedYear IssuedObservation Date
Yes20142017
Yes2010

Institutions Expand all

Federal or centralized governing system Show sources
Federal or centralized governing systemObservation Date
Centralized system2015
Centralized or decentralized immigration authority Show sources
Centralized or decentralized immigration authorityObservation Date
Centralized immigration authority2011

Custodial authority Show sources
AgencyMinistryMinistry TypologyObservation Date
Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l'immigrazione / Direzione Centrale dei Servizi Civili per L'immigrazione e L'asiloMinistero dell'InternoInterior or Home Affairs2012
Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l'immigrazione / Direzione Centrale dei Servizi Civili per L'immigrazione e L'asiloMinistero dell'InternoInterior or Home Affairs2011
Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l'immigrazione / Direzione Centrale dei Servizi Civili per L'immigrazione e L'asiloMinistero dell'InternoInterior or Home Affairs2009
Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l'immigrazione / Direzione Centrale dei Servizi Civili per L'immigrazione e L'asiloMinistero dell'InternoInterior or Home Affairs2008
Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l'immigrazione / Direzione Centrale dei Servizi Civili per L'immigrazione e L'asiloMinistero dell'InternoInterior or Home Affairs2007
Detention Facility Management Show sources
Entity NameEntity TypeObservation Date
Italian Red CrossPrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Prefettura di MilanoGovernmental2012
Le Misericordie d'ItaliaPrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Prefettura di BolognaGovernmental2012
AuxiliumPrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Consorzio Connecting PeoplePrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Cooperativa AlbatrosPrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Cooperativa InsiemePrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Cooperativa Lampedusa AccoglienzaPrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Direzione Centrale dei Servizi Civili per L'immigrazione e L'asiloGovernmental2012
Auxilium and Consorzio OPUSPrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Italian Red Cross with ASLPrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Prefettura di CrotoneGovernmental2012
Consorzio di Cooperative Sociali SISIFOPrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Prefettura di BariGovernmental2012
Prefettura di CaltanissettaGovernmental2012
Cooperativa Malgrado TuttoPrivate Not-For-Profit2012
Prefettura di GoriziaGovernmental2012
Prefettura di BrindisiGovernmental2012
Prefettura di TrapaniGovernmental2012
Prefettura di CosenzaGovernmental2012
Prefettura di Reggio EmiliaGovernmental2012
Prefettura di RomaGovernmental2012
Prefettura di TorinoGovernmental2012
Direzione Centrale dei Servizi Civili per L'immigrazione e L'asiloGovernmental2011
Direzione Centrale dei Servizi Civili per L'immigrazione e L'asiloGovernmental2009
Fondazione Regina PacisPrivate Not-For-Profit2008
Coop Malgrado TuttoPrivate Not-For-Profit2008
Confraternite della Misericordia di Realmonte e S. Biagio PlataniPrivate Not-For-Profit2007

Does national preventive mechanism (NPM) carry out visits? Show sources
Does NPM carry out visits in practice?Observation Date
Yes2017
Does NPM publicly release reports on immigration detention? Show sources
Does NPM publicly release reports on immigration detention?Observation Date
Yes2017

Estimated cost per detainees day (in USD) Show sources
Estimated cost per detainees day (in USD)Observation Date
552011

Socio Economic Data Expand all

Gross Domestic Product per capita (in USD) Show sources
Gross Domestic Product per capita (in USD)Observation Date
34,9082014
34,6192013
33,0492012
Remittances to the country Show sources
Remittances to the country (in millions USD)Observation Date
7,7142014
7,3822011
Remittances from the country Show sources
Remittances from the country (in millions USD)Observation Date
12,2012010
Unemployment Rate Show sources
Unemployment RateObservation Date
12.52014
7.82009
Net official development assistance (ODA) (in millions USD) Show sources
Net official development assistance (ODA) (in USD)Observation Date
2,7372012
4,3262011
Human Development Index Ranking (UNDP) Show sources
Human Development Index Ranking (UNDP)UNDP four-tiered rankingObservation Date
27Very high2015
26Very high2014
25Very high2012

Pew Global Attitudes Poll on Immigration Show sources
% who agree with the statement “We should restrict and control entry of people into our country more than we do now.”Observation Date
872007
Immigration Index Score Show sources
Immigration Integration RankingObservation Date
102011
World Bank Rule of Law Index Show sources
Percentile rank among all countries (ranges from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest) rank)Estimate of governance (ranges from approximately -2.5 (weak) to 2.5 (strong) )Observation Date
62-0.82012
63-0.72011
63-0.92010

Country Links

Last updated: November 2012

 

Government Agencies

Ministero dell’Interno (Interior Ministry) - Italian http://www.interno.gov.it/it/temi/immigrazione-e-asilo/argomenti#block-menu-menu-menu-tab-tema

International Organisations

International Labor Organisation (ILO) – Rome http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/rome/

International Organisation for Migration (IOM) – Italy https://www.iom.int/countries/italy

IOM Mission in Italy http://www.italy.iom.int/index.php?language=eng

UNHCR – Italy https://www.unhcr.it/

NGOs and Research Institutions

Amnesty International Italia http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/italy

Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull'Immigrazione (The Association for Legal Studies on Immigration) http://www.asgi.it/home_asgi.php?


Associazione Ricreativa Culturale Italiana (Italian Cultural and Recreational Association) www.arci.it   


Centro Astalli – JRS in Italy www.centroastalli.it

Consiglio Italiano per i Rifugiati (Italian Council for Refugees) http://www.cir-onlus.org/  


Croce Rossa Italiana (Italian Red Cross) http://www.cri.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/1

Federazione delle Chiese Evangeliche in Italia (The Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy) www.fcei.it

Medecins Sans Frontieres (Medici Senza Frontiere) – Italy http://www.medicisenzafrontiere.it/

Medici per i Diritti Umani (Doctors for Human Rights – Italy) www.mediciperidirittiumani.org

Progetto Melitng Pot Europa http://www.meltingpot.org

Naga (Milano) https://www.naga.it

Media

Corriere della Sera - English http://www.corriere.it/english/ Corriere della Sera - Italian http://www.corriere.it/

La Repubblica - Italian http://www.repubblica.it/

La Stampa - Italian http://www.lastampa.it/redazione/default.asp


Additional Resources


The EU Hotspot Approach: Hotspots and Plethora of Freedom-Restricting Measures

This themed blog series organized by GDP Researcher Izabella Majcher for the Oxford University-based Border Criminologies examines the EU hotspot approach from the perspective of the right to liberty and freedom of movement, highlighting the unclear division of roles and responsibilities between EU agencies and host member states, the blurred line between detention and reception, substandard material conditions, a lack of transparency, and differential treatment based on nationality, among a host of other concerns.

January 2018 Newsletter

  Welcome to the Global Detention Project’s monthly roundup of recent publications and activities. For any questions about our content, please contact us at admin@globaldetentionproject.org   OUR LATEST PUBLICATIONS   Italy’s Confusing and Arbitrary Detention System. As the main European destination for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants crossing the Central Mediterranean by boat, Italy confronts significant […]

Immigration detention in Italy

As the main European destination for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants crossing the Central Mediterranean by boat, Italy confronts considerable migration challenges. It has responded by ramping up its domestic detention system, implementing the controversial “hotspot” approach to process maritime arrivals, boosting interdiction efforts, and adopting new legal measures that restrict avenues for asylum. The […]

Statement to the Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries Panel on “PMSCs in places of deprivation of liberty and their impact on human rights”

Statement to the Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries Panel on “PMSCs in places of deprivation of liberty and their impact on human rights” Michael Flynn, Global Detention Project 27 April 2017   I am the Director of the Global Detention Project, a research center based in Geneva that documents the use of detention […]

Capitalism and Immigration Control: What Political Economy Reveals about the Growth of Detention Systems: GDP Working Paper #16

Assessments of the political economy of detention point to a key challenge that is common to countries across the globe: how economic insecurities of host population’s translate into xenophobia and ethno-nationalist demands for more deportations, detentions, and walls.

Submission to the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture in advance of its visit to Italy

The Detention of Asylum Seekers in the Mediterranean Region

With the recent tragic surge in the number of deaths at sea of asylum seekers and other migrants attempting to reach Europe, enormous public attention is being focused on the treatment of these people across the Mediterranean. An important migration policy employed throughout the region is detention, including widespread deprivation of liberty of asylum seekers […]

Irregular Migration in the EU and Italy: Are New Criteria Needed to Manage and Control?

Immigration Detention in Italy

Europe: On Its Borders New Problems

Back To Top