COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF ITALY

Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination

21 February 2008


The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of Italy on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Presenting the report, Valentino Simonetti, Minister with the Inter-ministerial Committee for Human Rights within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy, said that, in line with the European Union Directive on non-discrimination, the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination had been established (in 2003) within the Ministry for Rights and Equal Opportunities to prevent discriminatory acts; promote equal treatment; end discriminatory conduct; evaluate the application of the principle of non-discrimination; and report to the Parliament. In Italy, manifestations of racist behaviour were carefully monitored. In January 2004, the Committee against Discrimination and Anti-Semitism was established within the Ministry of the Interior with the twofold aim of monitoring risk indicators that could escalate into forms of racism, and proposing educational and repressive measures in order to effectively fight any behaviour grounded on religious or racial hatred. Along those same lines, specific attention was being paid to discrimination and violence on racial grounds during sports events, particularly football matches, by the recent adoption, inter alia, of ad hoc measures, such as Act No. 41 of 4 April 2007 which strengthened the national legislation for the prevention and repression of acts of violence during football events. It also improved sports infrastructures and awareness-raising campaigns, and, at the same time, stiffened sanctions for crimes perpetrated during sports events.

In preliminary concluding observations, Anwar Kemal, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Italy, said that there was a need to fine-tune the Italian legal system, and it should also be more responsive in providing redress for individuals complaining of discrimination. There was also clearly a need for an independent national human rights institution, as well as to strengthen the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination so that it was not merely an adjunct of a Ministry but had independent powers. A big concern of a number of independent observers had been the racist discourse by journalists and politicians, which had to be curbed while preserving freedom of speech. To do that would require education and awareness-raising programmes. Italy should also consider elaborating a code of conduct for journalists. Finally, the Italian Government needed to ensure that the Roma and Sinti communities in Italy were respected and treated with dignity and that they could enjoy the full protection Italian society had to offer.

Committee Experts also raised a number of questions and asked for further information on the situation of the Roma and Sinti communities in Italy, including whether there were Roma representatives on the police force; and whether there were programmes to train Roma teachers. An Expert was particularly concerned by the "Security Pacts" drawn up by various municipal governments which sought to deal with these communities. Committee Experts were also worried by the "serious and spreading" phenomenon of racist and xenophobic comments by politicians, and a lack of prosecutions of such cases; and asked questions on the situation of illegal immigrants and their rights, in particular to social services.

The delegation of Italy also included the President of the Council of Ministers in the Office of Research and Institutional Relations and representatives from the Ministry of Justice, from the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Social Solidarity.

The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the reports of Italy at the end of its session, which concludes on 7 March.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the fourth to sixth periodic reports of the United States (CERD/C/USA/6).

Report of Italy

The combined fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of Italy (CERD/C/ITA/15), presented in one document, notes that European Council Directive 2000/43 enshrines the principle of equality of treatment of all people, regardless of their race or ethnic origin, and the Italian Government promptly transposed that Directive by a national Legislative Decree of 9 July 2003. The Legislative Decree has an added value that strengthens its action at the national legislative level. This added value concerns different aspects: the affirmation of the principle of equal treatment of all persons in the public and private sectors, with respect to access to employment, occupation, guidance and vocational training, membership of workers’ or employers’ organisations, social protection, healthcare, social advantages, education and access to goods and services; the judicial protection consisting in the procedure which represents a particular form of streamlined, effective civil action against discrimination both for the evaluation of evidentiary arrangements, including the system of presumptive proof, the modalities of awarding compensation for damage and the aspect of active legitimation depending on individual and collective discrimination; and the institutional importance attributed in this area to the Department for Equal Opportunities in the Prime Minister’s Office, where an ad hoc office has been set up as a sort of frontline post in the fight against discrimination.

As regards basic legislation for the protection of minorities, the Parliament approved an Act on “Provisions for the protection of traditional linguistic minorities” in December 1999. During the Parliamentary debate, the situation of Roma populations was excluded from that legislation because of the opportunity of proposing and approving an ad hoc Act, in line with the specific aspects of this minority. In fact the basic criteria for the label of “linguistic minority” depend on the stability and the duration of the settlement in a delimited area of the country, which is not the case for Roma populations. The formulation of an appropriate legislative measure would enable to equalize the status of half of the approximately 150,000 Roma persons resident in Italy to that of the Italian citizens. As regards the remaining Roma populations - characterized by nomadism – the Minister of the Interior has, on several occasions, issued circulars drawing the attention of Prefects and Mayors to the situation of travellers and the need to foster their inclusion in society. Those Roma populations who do not have Italian citizenship face some difficulties when applying for the release of stay permit or for their naturalisation. They may also entail some difficulties as to the access to health-care services and to education. In practical terms, in order to obtain a stay permit, it is necessary to get a job. Thus, when Roma populations face difficulties when applying for the release of a stay permit, this is not a matter of discrimination but of lack of a basic condition, as envisaged by Act No. 189/2002.

Presentation of Report

VALENTINO SIMONETTI, Minister with the Inter-ministerial Committee for Human Rights within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy, said that, in the two years since Italy had submitted its report, in March 2006, it had a new political and institutional framework. In April 2006, general elections to renew the Parliament had taken place, and a new Government had been formed under the chairmanship of Romano Prodi. The so-called Prodi Government had remained in charge until 25 January 2008, when it lost the vote and resigned. As no consensus on a Government was found within the Parliament to form a new Government, new elections would be held on 13 April and the new Parliament would convene at the end of April 2008.

Mr. Simonetti wished to underscore that, during this transitional period, the Italian Government was qualified to adopt acts of ordinary administration and that only the new Government would adopt technical and political decisions concerning bills, drafts and legislative proposals actually under examination and discussion. However, Italy remained engaged in complying with its international commitments within the United Nations system, as well as at the European level as a Member State of both the Council of Europe and the European Union.

The protection of human rights was the guiding criterion for both the European Union and Italy's internal policy, Mr. Simonetti observed. The principle of non-discrimination was an inspiring principle of Italian legislation. That principle was one of the pillars of Italy's constitutional code, by which the domestic legislative, executive and judicial powers had always been inspired, assuring, in particular, full access to justice with no discrimination. The enforcement of the principle of non-discrimination had also been guaranteed by a Legislative Decree of 9 July 2003, following European Council Directive 2000/43, which represented an essential instrument in Italy for the definition of basic criteria to combat all forms of discrimination.

Mr. Simonetti said that it was well known that in recent years the serious dimension of the phenomenon of the flow of foreigners irregularly entering Italy had become an ever-growing concern in public debate within the country. The Italian Government was therefore engaged in improving the relevant legislation, in particular by a Bill, the so-called Amato-Ferrero Text, adopted by the Council of Ministers on 24 April 2007 and presently under discussion in the Parliament. The Bill aimed at providing for legislative instruments to manage immigration in all its complexity – thus considering it as structural and not as an emergency, to promote legal immigration through measures in order to facilitate supply and demand for jobs, and to develop the integration and inclusion of legal migrants in Italy. Moreover, the Bill aimed to balance public order requirements with measures to guarantee the rights of foreign citizens on the national territory and to implement the repatriation mechanisms for illegal foreigners whose rights and dignity had to be fully protected.

Mr. Simonetti stressed that, when facing problematic questions, be that of illegal immigration, unaccompanied children, trafficking or rights of asylum seekers, respect for the fundamental rights of people was the primary criterion guiding relevant activities. The unavoidable contrast with regard to policies related to illegal migration was not in fact marked by merely repressive actions. Instead, current policies aimed to avoid further suffering of the people concerned. Along those lines, legislation entered into force in April 2005, which envisaged the institution of seven territorial commissions for the recognition of refugee status, simplification of the relevant procedures, and the creation of a Centre for the Identification of Asylum-Seekers. Such initiatives had been adopted in order to reinforce and improve practical measures, ensuring adequate health care, legal aid, interpreters and cultural mediators for immigrants. In that connection, a Directive by the Minister of the Interior on facilitation of the taking into care of non-accompanied minors had entered into force on 8 March 2008.

Mr. Simonetti then drew attention to increased efforts by the Government to raise awareness of the situation of the Roma people. On 22 and 23 January, the Ministries of Interior and for Social Solidarity had convened an International Conference on the Situation of the Roma People at the European level. For the first time in an event dedicated to the Roma people, the Conference had been attended by large number of civil society representatives, also including many representatives of Roma communities living in Italy. It was also important to underline that, in 2007, the Italian Government intensified bilateral cooperation with Romania in the security and justice sectors and promoted many initiatives to support the social inclusion of Roma people in Italy, as well as the economic and social development in countries of origin of Roma-Romanian people.

In line with the European Union Directive on non-discrimination, the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination had been established within the Ministry for Rights and Equal Opportunities. The activities of the Office consisted of preventing discriminatory acts; promoting equal treatment; ending discriminatory conduct; evaluating the application of the principle of non-discrimination; and reporting to the Parliament.

In Italy, manifestations of racist behaviour were carefully monitored, Mr. Simonetti continued. In January 2004, the Committee against Discrimination and Anti-Semitism was established within the Ministry of the Interior with the twofold aim of monitoring risk indicators that could escalate into forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and proposing educational and repressive measures in order to effectively fight any behaviour grounded on religious or racial hatred.

Along those lines, Mr. Simonetti said that specific attention was paid to discrimination and violence on racial grounds during sports events, particularly football matches, by the recent adoption, inter alia, of ad hoc measures, such as Act No. 41 of 4 April 2007 which strengthened the national legislation for the prevention and repression of acts of violence during football events. It also improved sports infrastructures and awareness-raising campaigns, and, at the same time, stiffened sanctions for crimes perpetrated during sports events.

Another member of the delegation, continuing with the presentation, provided some additional details on the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination. He underscored, in particular, the importance of the assistance and support the Office provided to victims via its Contact Centre. The Contact Centre could be reached via a toll free 3-digit number or via the web, and could offer immediate assistance to victims of discrimination. The Contact Centre received approximately 8,000 phone calls in 2007. Of the complaints made for that time period, 265 cases were found to contain objective facts of racial discrimination. Those victims who made claims were generally those who had been living in Italy for at least 10 years, and came from the northern regions of Italy. The highest number of calls received by the Centre – almost a third – came from Africans, and then from individuals of Eastern European origin. Work and housing accounted for some quarter of all complaints. The complaints fell into three main areas: provision of public utilities, provision of services by public services, and actions of the police forces. Following a study, a preliminary scheme had been drawn up to establish a territorial network of discrimination centres.

As a rule, settlements of incidents involving racial discrimination were resolved by dispute settlement mechanisms, and did not require court actions, the delegation noted. Indeed, in 2007, most cases of sending a letter to the perpetrator of the conduct had proved sufficient as a remedy. That perhaps explained the low number of prosecutions for racial discrimination complaints.

The delegation said that the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination considered the labour market a major target for its actions. It planned a series of training programmes for workers and employers. In that field, under a new initiative, the Office had presented the first award for best practices to promote inclusion in the work place in April 2007.

On measures carried out by the Ministry for Social Solidarity, the delegation said among the most important was the creation in 2007 of the "Fund for the Social Inclusion of Migrants and Their Families". The total financial provision for 2007 was 50 million euros, and that was budgeted to increase to 100 million euros for 2008. It was important to note that 7 per cent of the total resources allocated in 2007 were dedicated to the implementation of measures and actions for the social integration of Roma and Sinti communities living in Italy. Those resources were mainly dedicated to two priorities: activities to prevent and counteract housing marginalization and discrimination that precluded or hampered access to housing to members of Roma and Sinti communities (about 3 million euros allocated); and actions to facilitate the process of inclusion and guidance to the educational system addressed to pupils belonging to the Roma and Sinti communities and facilitating the relation between their families and schools (approximately 1 million euros). Planned activities would be directed by local authorities and by non-governmental organizations already working with migrants. In the housing area, the new policy's final objective was to overcome the camps "strategy" and facilitate social inclusion. Projects financed with the resources of that fund would be carried out in the areas around the municipalities of Rome, Turin, Milan and Padova.

Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts

ANWAR KEMAL, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Italy, began by raising a number of issues of principle that had been raised in the Committee's concluding observations on Italy's previous reports, including whether Italy had taken active measures to promote racial tolerance among all individuals, and especially among law enforcement authorities; whether Roma persons were still being encouraged to apply for Stateless status, and with what consequences; whether local authorities had taken more resolute action to prevent and punish racially motivated acts of violence against Roma and persons of foreign origin; and whether legislation had been enacted to cover article 4 of the Convention (prohibition of racist organizations).

Mr. Kemal then referred to Doudou Diene's "landmark" report on his mission to Italy, in his role as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. In it, Mr. Diene had remarked that, while Italian society was not marked by a serious phenomenon of racism, it was facing a "disturbing trend of xenophobia and the manifestations of racism", primarily affecting the Sinti and Roma community, immigrants and asylum-seekers primarily of African origin, but also from Eastern Europe and the Muslim community. In that context, the Committee still needed statistical data on the various national or ethnic minorities in the Italy, in particular the Roma and the Sinti. Issues of concern in this area were the fact that the Roma were not included in the Act on the rights of historical linguistic minorities, and concerns that the draft citizenship law impeded Roma and Sinti eligibility to apply for citizenship.

In that connection, the Committee had received a non-governmental organization report that asserted that Italy had rejected the possibility of recognizing the Roma and Sinti as a national linguistic and cultural minority, and that the Government had adopted a number of regulatory actions aimed at facilitating racially targeted acts against certain segments of the Roma community, including forced evictions and expulsions from the country. Mr. Kemal asked for the delegation to comment on those assertions, noting that Italy had yet to provide a full response to the Committee's earlier questions relating to expulsions of Roma and forced evictions.

Mr. Kemal also noted that a number of non-governmental organizations had strongly protested against a now-superseded 2007 law that had given local authorities more discretionary powers to remove European Union citizens and other immigrants from Italy. On the positive side, a new law of 2008 afforded immigrants with a higher degree of protection against removal measures, and he asked for more details on that law. Also positive had been the implementation of the European Directive 2000/43 in Italy, which had introduced more effective legal remedies to prevent and repress racial or ethnic discrimination. However, it appeared that the use of those instruments by Italian courts was still limited and restricted.

On violence perpetrated by fans at football matches, Mr. Kemal welcomed indications that Italy was taking the matter seriously and had adopted a number of measures. He urged Italy to apply a "zero tolerance" policy on racist actions in the context of sport.

Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, the Roma. In that regard, Experts asked what activities had been taken to improve conditions in Roma and Sinti camps that were declared unsanitary; whether there were Roma representatives on the police force, in particular among the police dealing with the Roma community; whether there was a central body to deal with the Roma and Sinti communities, headed by a high-level administrator; whether there were programmes to train Roma teachers; and what measures specifically addressed the situation of the Roma and Sinti who were Italian citizens. An Expert also asked for statistics on Roma in judicial detention or prisons.

An Expert noted that Italy had pledged to establish a national human rights institution when it was elected to membership in the Human Rights Council, and he wondered what had been done in that direction. An Expert was concerned that Italy might consider the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination to be in place of a national human rights commission, and urged them to formulate a fully fledged national human rights institution.

Another concern was the "serious and spreading" phenomenon of racist and xenophobic comments by politicians, including references to the League of the North, or even references by former President Silvio Berlusconi to a "zero tolerance" policy in regard to Roma and illegal immigrants. An Expert was particularly concerned that not a single case of hate speech had come before the courts.

Other concerns by Experts included the need to ensure that foreign children did not spend long periods in custodial detention; what kind of intercultural dimension was available in Italian schools that did not have a large minority or foreign population; and more information on the municipal "pacts", such as the "pact for a secure Rome" and the "pact for a secure Milan" and what those included.

Response by Delegation to Oral Questions

Responding to questions, the delegation noted that all Italian citizens, including Roma and other groups, had the same rights and access to social services. In addition, health care and education were available to all on Italian soil. In Italy, citizenship was via ius sanguinis – that is, if either one's mother or father was Italian they could claim citizenship. A bill was currently under discussion in the Parliament to allow for application for citizenship by those born in Italy.

Addressing specific concerns regarding the Roma and Sinti communities, the delegation said that community was divided in three groups: a historical group had been in Italy for centuries, the members of which had Italian citizenship, included some 60,000 to 70,000 persons (an estimate, as census figures were not allowed to be taken on ethnicity by law); then, those who had arrived in the 1990s from the Balkans, above all, from the former Yugoslav Republic; and then a third wave of immigration, the most recent one, which was made up to a large extent of Romanian citizens. That latter group of some 50,000 persons had come in masses recently, over a relatively short period of time. It was estimated that there were a total of 150,000 members of those groups in total in Italy. As for the issue of not including the Roma or Sinti in the historic linguistic minorities, it should be stressed that that had been the subject of a debate in Parliament. It was also a very special and complex law, in particular it required the communities themselves, if they complied with certain criteria, to ask for public funds to institute measures targeted to those linguistic minority communities, including in health and education sectors. After the recent International Conference on the Situation of the Roma People in January, representatives of the Roma community and civil society had strongly called for recognition of the existence of that community. The Ministers for the Interior and Social Security took note of that request and were studying ways to accord recognition to that community.

On social services, the delegation noted that inclusion and integration were fundamental principles of the Italian school system. Providing education for all children in Italy, including those without a "permission of stay", was a big challenge for the Italian Government. Every student at an Italian school was allowed to continue their studies, even if they did not have a "permission of stay", and even if they exceeded the regular age limits for enrolment. Schools that did not accept the children of immigrants or foreigners were subject to strict punitive measures by the Ministry of Education, and that had been done for example in Milan. There were currently 600,000 foreign students in Italy, with a considerable concentration in the North.

There was a real involvement of the Government at the federal and local level to ensure competent and effective schooling for foreigners and the Roma and Sinti, and to combat the risk of failure and dropping out. The Government had given great priority to the integration of Roma and Sinti children, among others, by providing teacher-training seminars on the issue, and by developing shorter-term programmes targeted to the needs of the nomadic community, who did not always stay in one area for long. A Protocol signed by the Ministry of Education in 2005 aimed at ensuring success of that scheme, and established cultural facilitators and mediators that were spread throughout the country. It was important to note that the population of foreign students and Roma and Sinti children attending schools was growing, and there was also a higher percentage of those groups in the highs schools.

The Turco-Napolitano law was the major basis for immigration law in Italy, bringing it into line with the Schengen guidelines and regulating levels of immigration. That law provided ample guarantees of rights and social services to foreigners. Access to services was often compromised, however, owing to bureaucracy and other administrative deficits. It also regulated the area of illegal immigration and set up the "Temporary Stay Centres" for those without permission to stay in the country. The showpiece of Italy's stay centres was the new centre at Lampedusa, constructed in 2006, which had capacity for 186 persons, which could be doubled in case of necessity.

The civil and criminal courts bore the primary responsibility for settling discrimination complaints. A number of bodies had been established in the past year to ensure the effectiveness of measures to combat discrimination, while always respecting the competence of the judiciary to rule in such case, the delegation said. The Italian Office against Racial Discrimination could not bring an action before the courts, but could intervene in a trial.

Regarding the independence of the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination, the delegation noted that that had been a sensitive issue since its foundation. They had studied other European bodies and noted that very few were truly independent. Only Ireland had a quasi-judicial body that could be brought before the courts. The Italian Office against Racial Discrimination was also looking to Denmark and the United Kingdom human rights bodies, as cases of best practices. It should be remembered that in the latter case, for the United Kingdom, it had taken 30 years to achieve independence. The start up of the office was only the first step in the promotion of equality, and Italy was doing its best within existing legislation. Today, the Office was working impartially and independently. The 2003 legislation enabling the body also contained a number of elements to ensure its independence: the mandate was fixed by statutory law, so the activities of the Office could not be changed by the next Government; the Office had a fixed budget; and, finally, the personnel of the Office were recruited by public selection.

As to the request by the Committee that Italy establish a national human rights institution in line with the Paris Principles, the delegation announced Italy's intention to do so. There was currently a Bill before the Parliament, already approved by the Chamber of Deputies, that provided for a Commission with a mandate to promote the culture of human rights; to monitor the respect for human rights throughout Italy; to propose recommendations on human rights to the Government; and to draft legislation. The Commission would also be responsible for vetting new legislation to ensure that it was in accordance with human rights standards and regulations, as well as reviewing existing legislation with a view to harmonizing it with those standards.

Further Oral Questions Posed by Experts

An Expert asked about Italian projects for a "Mediterranean Union", and wondered if that included freedom of movement within countries of the Mediterranean region. An Expert wondered if the proposed laws on nomads mentioned in the report (on “Protection of the right to nomadism and the recognition of gypsy populations as linguistic minorities”, on “Recognition of the Romani, Sinti and Traveller communities”, and a Bill presented in the Senate entitled “Framework Law to foster the education, occupational training, access to employment and housing of members of nomad communities and regulate their presence on Italian territory”) had been adopted yet. An Expert was particularly concerned that Italy should pay due attention to xenophobia, and, in particular that it needed to formulate laws and policies to protect its migrant workers from expressions of xenophobia. Along those lines, another Expert wondered if, given the growing phenomenon, Italy was contemplating the creation of a special unit within its law enforcement arm to prosecute cases of discrimination, and to develop a national or uniform approach from an enforcement perspective. In that connection, another Expert wondered if there were a bar to the Public Prosecutor's Office taking up a discrimination case on its own initiative.

Regarding the proposed national human rights commission that the delegation had just mentioned, an Expert was concerned that it might not have powers to provide redress for grievances directly to the public, or quasi-judicial powers. He also wanted to know what the relationship of the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination would be to the proposed body.

On illegal immigration, an Expert wanted to know if that phenomenon could not be addressed before it became a problem, through bilateral relations with African countries, for example. Simply refusing visas to those from Africa was not a way to address the issue, but might even exacerbate the situation. There was a need for awareness-raising.

An Expert was concerned by information he had received on "Security Pacts" drawn up by various municipal governments. The Pact for A Secure Milan, for example, spoke of a growing insecurity and social malaise in connection with the presence of Roma encampments. He was worried that that could be equated with the "zero tolerance" policy for foreigners that Silvio Berlusconi had mentioned.

Replies by the Delegation

Responding to those questions and others, the delegation affirmed that there was no law on DNA-testing in the context of immigration procedures for family unification purposes.

Concerning the status of existing draft legislation currently being discussed in the Parliament on the Roma and Sinti communities, that would be totally nullified when Parliament was dissolved and new elections were held. Indeed, all bills that had not been adopted would have to be reintroduced to the new Parliament.

As for the distinction between the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination and a proposed Human Rights Commission, the delegation said that those were two totally different bodies. Whereas it would be desirable for the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination to gain more independence, the bill on the Human Rights Commission envisaged a fully independent, quasi-judicial body competent to receive complaints.

With respect to the cases of Egyptians and Libyans that had been deported back to their countries, the delegation said those had been carried out with due process. Subsequently, no complaints of ill treatment been reported, either in Italy or by the Italian Government offices in Tripoli.

As for expulsion of European Union citizens who did not have valid stay permits following the death of an Italian woman, the delegation explained that the decree allowing for the expulsion of such individuals was a legislative tool that gave effect to an European Union decree; nothing more, nothing less. Its intention was not to deport thousands of European Union citizens, but only to get rid of certain criminal elements that were dangerous.

Regarding the Milan Pact, the municipal government of Milan was funding the pact with 29 million euros, and the regional administrations had decided to fund the pact as well. A Roma and Travellers board would be set up, chaired by the Prefect, to look into the issues set out in the Pact. No extraordinary powers were granted by that instrument, the delegation underscored, and all activities carried out under it had to be in accordance with the law.

The delegation confirmed that the Office of the Attorney General could open a complaint of racial discrimination on its own initiative. Moreover, anyone could report a human rights complaint – an individual, a group or an non-governmental organization – and thus open an investigation into the matter.

On the situation of unaccompanied minors, the delegation noted that, as a Party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Italy was obligated to adopt all appropriate measures to ensure their protection against discrimination and their safety and well-being. It was also worth mentioning that Italy had a separate juvenile justice system.

Indirect discrimination was one of the primary concerns of the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination. In that connection, the Office was working in concert with the association of town halls of Italy, the delegation said.

Preliminary Concluding Observations

In preliminary concluding observations, ANWAR KEMAL, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Italy, thanked the Italian delegation for a fruitful and thorough exchange. While progress had taken place in combating racial discrimination in Italy, there were still problems that had to be addressed. There was a need to fine-tune the legal system, and it should also be more responsive in providing redress for individuals complaining of discrimination. There was also clearly a need for an independent national human rights institution, as well as to strengthen the Italian Office against Racial Discrimination so that it was not merely an adjunct of a Ministry but had independent powers.

A big concern of a number of independent observers, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on racism, was the racist discourse by journalists and politicians, which had to be considered and curbed while preserving freedom of speech. To do that would require education and awareness-raising programmes. Italy should also consider elaborating a code of conduct for journalists, Mr. Kemal said.

Citizenship laws and procedures needed to be simplified to facilitate the gaining of citizenship by foreigners. Another area of concern was the situation of the Roma and Sinti communities in Italy. The Italian Government needed to ensure that they were respected and treated with dignity and that they could enjoy the full protection Italian society had to offer. While there had been some positive developments in that area, there had also been negative ones as well, Mr. Kemal concluded.


____________

For use of the information media; not an official record