Introduction

After the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, six Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations Human Rights Council have also written to the Italian State to request a review of the text of Bill No. 1660, approved by the Chamber of Deputies in September 2024 - now Bill 1236, under discussion in the Senate - which introduces various criminal measures potentially suitable for restricting freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

The Special Rapporteurs who have written to the Italian Government are those on the freedom of peaceful assembly and association, on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, on the human rights defenders, on the human rights of migrants, on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

Some human rights at risk from the possible adoption of the Security Bill

The United Nations experts point out that some of the provisions under discussion may violate a series of norms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified by Italy in 1977), particularly Articles 9 (personal liberty and security), 12 (freedom of movement), 14 (fair trial), 17 (privacy), 19 (freedom of opinion and expression), 21 (freedom of peaceful assembly), and 22 (freedom of association). There is also a risk that the norms under discussion in the Senate may give rise to discrimination on ethnic or racial grounds or against migrants, in contrast with Article 2 of the Covenant and in breach of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In particular, since some of the activities targeted by the repressive action would be linked to environmental protests, the independent United Nations experts point out a possible violation of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which Italy ratified in 2001. Extensive reference is made to the recent adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the Model Protocol for Law Enforcement Officials on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Context of Peaceful Protests.

Counter-terrorism measures and possible revocation of Italian citizenship

The provisions of the bill that the experts consider not in line with human rights norms are numerous. The norms aimed at modifying Articles 270 and 435 of the Criminal Code (terrorism offenses), punishing as a crime the act of procuring or disseminating manuals and instructions on the use of explosives or how to sabotage essential public services "with the purpose of terrorism," risk being politically exploited, since the purposes of terrorism are not precisely defined, in addition to potentially affecting those who detain or share these documents for research purposes or journalism.

Another debatable norm is the one that provides for the revocation of Italian citizenship for individuals convicted of serious terrorism offenses, not only for those who already possess another nationality, but also for those who "may acquire another citizenship." It is therefore admitted that the consequence of the conviction may be the reduction of the person to a stateless status. The Special Rapporteurs invite the utmost caution in considering this measure, which should be applied only in extreme cases.

Risk of restricting the civic space

The provision that punishes "Anyone who, through violence or threat, occupies or holds without title a property intended for the dwelling of others" (occupation of houses by homeless people) is also potentially contrary to fundamental rights. As are the provisions that prohibit access to infrastructures, railway lines, roads, or similar (typically, the places where environmental protest actions take place). The bill aims to increase penalties for damage to property or violence committed during public demonstrations, but without, according to the experts, precisely defining what is meant by damage or violence; it also reintroduces the offense of obstructing road or rail traffic with one's body, provided for by a 1948 law and which had been decriminalized in 1999. All these measures, according to the Special Rapporteurs, contrast with the broad freedom to express one's opinions in the most varied forms (marches, pickets, flash mobs, acts of civil disobedience, etc.) guaranteed by Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. According to General Comment 37 (2020) of the Human Rights Committee dedicated precisely to the freedom of assembly, state authorities must presume the peaceful character of these demonstrations and they should be able to take place in any public space, except in exceptional circumstances. Also criticised are some norms that would aggravate the penalty for violence or threats or resistance to a public official, including "If the violence or threat is committed in order to prevent the realization of a public work or strategic infrastructure" and which provide that the forces in service for the maintenance of public order may carry video recording devices. All these measures are considered potentially contrary to the freedom to demonstrate and the right to privacy, and lend themselves to discriminatory and disproportionate use. The Aarhus Convention, in particular, attaches particular value to the right of citizens to know about and participate in the community's choices that have an impact on the environment, including by organising manifestations and public gatherings.

Demonstrations in places of detention

Finally, the experts dwell on some provisions of the bill that severely punish acts of revolt within a penitentiary institution. Among the acts of revolt are also included passive resistance conducts that affect the performance of official acts or services of the institution. Similar rules also apply to revolts in migrant detention and reception facilities. In this case too, the envisaged measures lend themselves to a use that contrasts with the right of detainees and migrants to demonstrate and protest peacefully, including through forms of civil disobedience, the exercise of which must also be considered functional to maintaining conditions of dialogue and democracy in places of detention.

Next steps

The letter from the six Special Rapporteurs requesting clarification from the Italian Government on the points indicated is dated December 19, 2024 and was made public on January 16, 2025. The Italian Government's response will be made public on the dedicated website for communications from Special Rapporteurs and responses received from States: https://spcommreports.ohchr.org.