Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination examines the report of Italy
Italy reviewed
02 December 2016
Share
GENEVA (2 December 2016) - The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined nineteenth and twentieth report of Italy on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Introducing the report, Fabrizio Petri, President of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy, said that the legal framework contained the principle of non-discrimination, the European Union Directives on protection against all forms of discrimination, and the enjoyment of the principle of equal treatment in the public and private sectors. The mandate of the National Anti-Discrimination Office had recently been broadened to include, in addition to race and ethnic origin, all grounds of discrimination such as religion, personal opinion, sexual orientation and gender identity, age, and disability. In April 2016, the National Roma Platform was launched to stimulate cooperation between State institutions and Roma representative organizations, with a specific focus on youth. Between January and July 2016, more than 256,000 migrants had arrived to Italy, mainly by sea; Italy was at the forefront of search and rescue activities and was making enormous efforts to assist the reception of migrants. The provisions of the common European System of Asylum had been transposed in the national law, including new rules for international protection applicants.
In the ensuing dialogue, Committee Experts commended Italy for its extraordinary efforts in search and rescue at sea of migrants arriving from north Africa, as well as for humanitarian assistance and international protection extended to migrants, in the service of humanity. Experts inquired whether anti-discrimination laws, including European Union Directives, effectively controlled the actions of local mayors and municipalities in how they treated the non-resident population in their municipalities, including Roma. Experts said concern remained about institutional racism, and the situation of ethno-religious groups, specifically Muslims, and about deep racism against Afro-Italians by the society which seemed to be unprepared to deal with this group of second or third generation immigrants or mixed-race children. Experts asked about the approach to integration in school, the use of the content of education to address concerns of racial discrimination and foster greater understanding of the past, and training of teachers in dealing with racial discrimination in school. The delegation was asked about the progress in setting up a national human rights institution in line with the Paris Principles, and in adopting a Plan against Racism, Discrimination, and Xenophobia; the legal basis for opening of hotspots, the procedure in place for unaccompanied children, and complaints mechanisms in migrant detention centres; and about measures taken to tackle human trafficking which was intimately linked with massive migratory flows.
In her concluding remarks, Gay Mcdougall, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Italy, stressed the need for absolute clarity on the situation of camps for Roma, Sinti and Caminanti communities.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Petri said that the experience of this dialogue with the Committee would be used to increase the understanding of certain issues among the Government.
Anastasia Crickley, Committee Chairperson, thanked all who had contributed to the process and in particular civil society. The Committee was aware of the complexities that Italy faced, but those did not absolve anyone from living up to the obligations arising from the Convention.
The delegation of Italy included representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice, National Office against Racial Discrimination, Observatory for Security against Acts of Discrimination of the Ministry of the Interior, and the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 9 December at 3 p.m., to close its ninety first session.
Report
The combined nineteenth and twentieth report of Italy can be read here: CERD/C/ITA/19-20.
Presentation of the Report
FABRIZIO PETRI, President of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy, started by saying that during its second Universal Periodic Review in 2015, Italy had accepted all the recommendations concerning the principle of non-discrimination and was fully committed to implementing them at the national and local levels. The principle of non-discrimination was set out in article 3 of the Italian basic law, and Italy had also transposed in the national law the contents of the directive 2000/43 which provided instruments of protection against all forms of discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin and the enjoyment of the principle of equal treatment in the public and private sectors, including presumptive proof in favour of the victim and awarding compensation for damage. The Government acknowledged that prejudices and racist attitudes persisted in some sectors of the society and that a sustained effort was required to eradicate them, including through successful interaction among cultures, principles and values of different origin.
Mr. Petri reiterated Italy’s commitment to counteract discrimination in all its forms and said that measures had been taken to strengthen the legislation: defamation and menace were considered aggravated offences if based on discriminatory grounds or on ethnic, racial or religious hate and were in all cases subject to ex officio prosecution; the repression of the denial of the Holocaust and other categories of international crimes; and the adoption of the law on civil union partnerships for same-sex couples. In 2015, Italy had adopted the National Action Plan against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to ensure the full respect of the equality principle and to counter discrimination, racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Plan was based on a progressive data collection exercise to monitor discriminatory phenomena, and it would encourage the articulation of appropriate central and local policies to counter discrimination in key areas of education, health and labour. Following the adoption of the National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Caminanti Communities in Italy 2012-2020, the National Anti-Discrimination Office had launched in April 2016 the National Roma Platform to stimulate cooperation between institutions and organizations representing Roma, with specific focus on Roma youth.
Turning to the institutional framework, Mr. Petri informed the Committee that the mandate of the National Anti-Discrimination Office had recently been broadened to include, in addition to race and ethnic origin, all grounds of discrimination such as religion, personal opinion, sexual orientation and gender identity, age, and disability. The Office had set up in January 2016 a Media and Social Network Observatory to find hate speech online, report to social networks for its removal or to law enforcement for investigation and prosecution, as well as to analyse, learn and understand. Italy was at the forefront of search and rescue activities at sea, and was making an enormous effort to assist all the migrants. Mr. Petri said that 256,319 migrants had arrived by sea between January and July 2016, and that 140,000 were in reception centres as of August 2016. Italy had transposed the main provisions of the common European System of Asylum which contained new rules for international protection applicants. A new immigration policy on unaccompanied minors had been adopted in 2014 and Italy had set up a special unit at the Ministry of Interior. Italy had adopted in February 2016 the National Action Plan against Trafficking and Serious Exploitation of Human Beings.
Questions by Rapporteur
GAY MCDOUGAL, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Italy, recognized the stress that Italy experienced as a frontline State with regard to the migrant flows from north Africa, and commended Italy for its extraordinary efforts of search and rescue, and services to extend humanitarian assistance and international protection to migrants, in service of humanity.
The Rapporteur remarked that the definition of racial discrimination under the Convention was broader than solely hate speech or hate crimes. This must be reflected in the national legislation. Furthermore, Italy had transposed the European directive on discrimination into national law, but this had not been extensively explained in the combined report, which sounded as if hate speech was the totality of the focus.
There was also the effects clause which extended the reach of jurisdiction in all sorts of circumstances that de facto created a disparate negative impact on vulnerable communities. The report of Italy did not deal with this.
Did the legislation which transposed the European Directive, effectively control the actions of local mayors and municipalities in how they treated the non-resident population in their municipalities, including Roma?
Ms. McDougal also addressed the issue of institutional racism, and asked for data on the degree to which each protected group enjoyed equality with regard to economic and social rights, and their participation in decision-making and political and public life. However, there were gaps in the legislation in terms of the inclusion of protected groups. Which special measures were in place to address and remedy inequalities suffered by protected groups?
In Italy, the term ethnic minority referred to some specific groups of people who were classified as linguistic minorities and who were protected under specific legislative regimes. The Committee however used the term to refer to all people protected under the Convention under article 1.
The Committee was concerned about the situation of ethno-religious groups, specifically Muslims. While the efforts to establish inter-religious dialogues were commendable, the Committee needed statistics and indicators that would reveal the realities of those communities with respect to security of person, equality in economic, social and cultural rights, and their participation in decision-making, politics and public life.
What was the exact mandate of the National Anti-Discrimination Office and how was its independence from the Government assured? Which institution that covered discrimination on all grounds had power to enforce the prohibition of discrimination on the ground? How many prosecutions for racial discrimination had there been, how many sentences, and which remedies had been offered to victims?
It seemed that Italy had not gone any distance in implementing the National Action Plan against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and the National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Caminanti Communities. How many lives had been changed as a result of those actions? What was being done to ensure that Roma camps, in which living conditions were shocking, were moved from the jurisdiction of mayors to national jurisdiction?
The African descent communities – settled communities of people from Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia – were invisible in the State party’s report and the discourse about the demographic and cultural make-up of Italy. What was being done to implement recommendations made by the Working Group on people of African descent which had visited in 2015?
How did Italy plan to tackle the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly goal 1 on poverty, goal 10 on inequality, and goal 16 on rule of law, and ensure that no one was left behind?
The protection of the rights of the masses of people fleeing north African and other regions into Europe was a major international concern, and as a frontline State, Italy had a unique responsibility and burden in this regard.
NICOLÁS MARUGÁN, Committee Expert and Co-rapporteur for Italy, remarked that there were more than five million migrants in Italy, and thanked Italy for its efforts in receiving migrants on behalf of the whole of the European Union and on behalf of humanity. More than 276,000 migrants had arrived in 2016 alone.
Was detention of migrants used as a measure of last resort? Was it a crime for irregular migrants to return to Italian soil?
Could Italy comment on the slow progress in addressing the situation by the European Union?
Which procedures had been triggered domestically to process migrants and how were different nationalities being dealt with?
Mr. Marugán commended the Italian Coast Guard for declaring that life-saving efforts were the absolute priority and noted resource problems to fund life-saving efforts.
What was the legal basis for the opening of hotspots, and what procedure was in place for unaccompanied children? Which complaints mechanisms were in place in migrant detention centres?
What was being done to ensure that the custody arrangements for unaccompanied migrant children were sufficient, and that they could fully access basic services, in particular education? Which measures were being taken to raise the awareness of migrants about the Dublin Process?
Was confidentiality of data of migrants fully respected by health and education authorities; were they specifically prohibited from passing the information on undocumented migrants to security services?
Could the delegation inform on collective expulsion from Italy and bilateral agreements on this issue, as well as efforts to integrate migrants in the society?
GUN KUT, Committee Expert and Rapporteur on Follow-up, recognized that Italy had duly produced its follow-up report in a timely fashion, on the follow-up issues identified by the Committee, namely the setting up of the national human rights institution and on forced evictions of Roma and Sinti. Mr. Kut remarked that the national human rights institution had not been set up yet, and urged Italy to stop forced evictions.
Questions by Experts
A Committee Expert asked about the time-line for the completion of the drafting of the
Plan against Racism, Discrimination and Xenophobia and the role of civil society organizations in the process.
Which ethnic groups were targeted in reported incidents of racial discrimination? What was the role of the media in this and which mechanisms were in place to address discriminatory statements by the media?
The Expert was concerned about racism against Afro-Italians, citing episodes of racism against the first black government minister, black football players, and black or mixed-race children in schools. The presence of Africans in Italy was not a new phenomenon, and yet, it seemed that the society was unprepared to deal with African Italians – second or third generation immigrants or mixed-race children.
How were teachers trained to deal with integration in school? How could the content of education be used to address concerns of racial discrimination and foster greater understanding of the past? Which special measures were in place to address the historic marginalization of African descent communities and institutional racism that they suffered?
Another Expert asked about measures taken to tackle human trafficking which was intimately linked with the massive migratory flows. What was the impact of the reversal of the burden of proof on a number of complaints for racial discrimination?
The delegation was asked to update the Committee on the progress it had made in setting up the national human rights institution in compliance with the Paris Principles, and the progress made on the withdrawal of reservations on article 4 of the Convention.
Noting that Italy was a highly decentralized country in which powers were distributed between regions and the State, an Expert asked how regional legislation was aligned with the Convention, and about mechanisms of monitoring and control over regions and communes in the field of racial discrimination.
In 2013, Italy had begun an experiment to combat poverty in some cities, and this year it had adopted a law on this basis, which had set up a fund to combat poverty and social exclusion. What were the results and findings of this experiment?
Which measures were in place to address racism in sports? What was the impact of the decision to hold football clubs responsible for racist incidents by their supporters?
What information was available concerning the prison population?
Which concrete measures were in place to implement anti-discrimination legislation and what was the compliance rate?
People who took the brunt of racial discrimination in Italy were migrants, including discrimination by the police – a Racial Discrimination Observatory in the hands of the police did not inspire trust and confidence. Would Italy consider changing it into a civilian institution, even if funding would continue to be provided by the Ministry of the Interior?
How was international law transposed into the domestic law? Was the Italian system monist or dualist - was there a need for the adoption of a law by the Parliament to integrate a treaty into national legislation, or was it sufficient for the Government to draw up a decree? Could the Convention be directly invoked in court? How many complaints of racial discrimination had been filed?
Referring to the refugee crisis in the country, an Expert asked whether Italy was able to focus efforts on specific ethnicities at risk of extermination, not only in their country of origin but world over, such as the Assyrians or the Yazidis, in order to protect those communities.
The rules governing the passing of citizenship discriminated against children born and raised in Italy to non-Italian parents: they spoke Italian and the local dialect and were integrated in the society but were not considered to be Italians. The naturalization law made a distinction between European Union and non-European Union citizens in the length of legal residency in Italy required for naturalization: four years versus ten years.
Freedom of expression was one of the fundamental pillars underpinning democracy, but this principle could be used and abused for incitement to hatred and violence: what was being done to combat hate speech?
GAY MCDOUGAL, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Italy, inquired about the status of the Convention in the regions and municipalities, and the status of the settled African population who had been in Italy for 40 or 50 years. There were reports about new Roma camps being opened – could the delegation comment?
ANASTASIA CRICKLEY, Committee Chairperson, remarked that the issue of Roma camps was not whether people wished to stay there; it was a question of culturally appropriate accommodation.
Could the delegation clarify the provision of social welfare on a family basis and the implications for women from minority groups?
Responses by the Delegation
Responding to Experts’ questions concerning the anti-discrimination legal framework, the delegation said that the Convention had been a part of the national law since 1975; the framework had been completed by the adoption of additional laws which were all in compliance with the Convention. The basic law 286/1998 was a cornerstone of the immigration system, and its definition of racial discrimination was a photocopy of article 1 of the Convention. Regions had certain supplementary legislative powers, but they applied all the laws of the State.
The main problem in Italy was that it still did not have an independent national human rights institution. A draft law, the so-called Mazzoni-Manconi law proposing the setting up of the national human rights institution, was currently being discussed by the Senate. Italian citizens and Italian public administrators felt the lack of this institution. The National Anti-Discrimination Office was doing important subsidiary work in this regard; although not formally independent since it was a part of the Prime Minister’s Office, the Office was functionally independent because it had regular and sustained funding to the tune of € 2 million per year, while its Director was completely free in setting the agenda.
Another challenge in Italy was the coordination and monitoring of what was happening on the local level to combat racial discrimination, because of a culture of independence in taking positive action by local authorities. The National Anti-Discrimination Office was implementing the National Action Plan against Racial Discrimination, as well as some special measures, including the decree 215/2003 for the implementation of initiatives to create equal opportunities for all, create inclusive societies, and to fight against racial discrimination, homophobia and xenophobia. Italy would also celebrate three weeks of activism against racial discrimination in March 2017.
One of the most delicate issues in Italy was that of Roma and Sinti communities, and Italy was very much aware of the complexities involved. The 2016 Roadmap for Roma and Sinti contained activities in the areas of education, employment and housing. The National Anti-Discrimination Office was developing a new proposal for a national plan of action on housing for Roma. The Government had allocated € 3 million for the closure and resettlement of the La Barbuta camp for Roma in Rome. In October 2016, the National Anti-Discrimination Office had trained young Roma activists to access European Union funding to counter anti-gypsism. Also in October, the Just Roma Project had been launched to counter discrimination against Roma women.
Turning to the situation of migrants, the delegation said that Italy had developed an excellence in emergency response and rescue, but challenges remained in the area of integration.
The legal basis for the setting up of the hotspots could be found in the September 2015 decisions by the European Union and European Parliament. Italy had proposed a Roadmap to the European Union for the improvement of the capacity, quality and efficiency of the asylum system, which had been followed up by the opening of hotspots. Italy paid special attention to the human rights of migrants in all hotspots. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and other human rights monitoring bodies regularly monitored the situation in the hotspots, which were extremely well run. Hotspots were open spaces, from which migrants could come and go, and there were no fences.
After the processing in hotspot, migrants were transferred to the Protection System for Refugees and Asylum-Seekers which represented the second level of reception. The Protection System had increased its reception capacity, from 3,000 to the current 22,971 including almost 2,000 places for minors. By the recent Ministerial Decree of 10 August 2016, the access procedure to the Protection System project funding had been reformed to stabilize ongoing projects through a financing confirmation procedure and to facilitate the funding access procedure for the new municipalities and/or local authorities that would be allowed to submit their funding applications any time of the year. Since August 2016, 20 more reception centres had been opened in municipalities.
Italy had put in place a new immigration policy on unaccompanied minors in 2014, and had set up a Special Unit at the Ministry of Interior; the system envisaged first-assistance reception in governmental highly-specialised centres, and a second-assistance within the enhanced Protection System. Parliament was discussing a bill on the protection and promotion of the rights of unaccompanied minors.
In response to the question on the number of deaths of migrants, the delegation informed that in 2014, there had been 168; in 2015 – 296; and to date in 2016 – 355. It was difficult to estimate how many migrants left Italy.
The National Anti-Discrimination Office would conduct a special event in 2017 to raise awareness among the population about people of African descent. The delegation expressed regrets about acts of racism and racist statements against Italy’s first black minister, Dr. Cécile Kyenge, and said that two local politicians were being sentenced for racist statements published on their Facebook pages.
With regard to racism in sports, football clubs were still legally responsible for the behaviour of their supporters, but because this opened room for instrumentalization, Italy was reflecting on how to address this problem.
Italy was extremely committed to ensuring that the Agenda 2030 entered the discourse and consciousness in both public and private spheres. Next week, Italy would release the very first National Action Plan Business and Human Rights, and the Third National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, both of which were based on the Agenda 2030. The Government was working on defining national indicators.
Furthermore, civil society organizations and academia had created the Alliance for the 2030 Development Agenda which brought together more than 2,000 Italian non-governmental organizations. The Alliance and the Government would work together on the implementation of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, and on raising awareness to create a real commitment of the authorities to the Agenda 2030. It was important to say that the Confederation of Italian Industries was increasingly interested in issues of business and human rights and Italy was very pleased to see the active involvement of the private sector in the implementation of the Plan.
Questions from the Experts
GAY MCDOUGALL, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Italy, remarked that Italy had a very strong approach to hate speech and hate crimes as reflected in the institutional structure, however, recent legal acts seemed to have weakened the approach – previously, the law required that hate be a factor in a crime to declare it a hate crime, whereas now it must be the only factor. How were hate crimes and hate speech punished, and by which court? Which institutions were involved?
The wording of the draft bill on the establishment of national human rights institutions was not sufficient to ensure its alignment with the Paris Principles.
The Rapporteur explained the nature and function of special measures, and stressed the responsibility of the central government for the protection of vulnerable groups by the adoption of special measures; it could not be done by municipalities.
What was the situation in the country with regard to human trafficking, especially in the context of migratory flows? What institutional structure was in place to support anti-trafficking efforts?
Ms. McDougall wished to hear more about measures in place to support the integration of Muslim groups and communities, and also about activities to reduce statelessness and ensure regularization of stateless persons.
Another Expert recognized that Italy had one of the most powerful social welfare systems in the world, and an impressive tax collection system which allowed it to fund public expenditures. Concern remained about reports of non-citizens experiencing difficulties and discrimination in accessing State and welfare services; they were also exploited in the labour market, particularly undocumented foreigners.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation reiterated the willingness of Italy to ensure that the future national human rights institution was compliant with the Paris Principles and was aware that a greater involvement of civil society organizations was needed.
With regard to human trafficking, the delegation said that Italy had transposed in 2014 the relevant European Union directives, and had adopted the first National Action Plan against Human Trafficking in February 2016. The Plan aimed to identify, prevent, and fight the phenomena, and increase awareness, prevention and social integration of victims. The annual budget allocated for the implementation of the Plan was € 8 million.
Italy had ratified the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and it had adopted a bill 2148 which focused on the situation of stateless persons and in particular unaccompanied minors.
The issue of weakening of the legislation on hate speech and hate crimes was very politically sensitive, but the State was also very sensitive to incidents of discrimination by State officials.
The situation of unaccompanied minors was a growing problem, and Italy was mobilizing civil society and volunteers to address it.
Education was one of the four axis in the Roadmap 2016 for the implementation if the National Strategy for Roma and Sinti Communities. Italy would endeavour to include in the Roadmap 2017 different approaches to the integration of Roma and Sinti who were very culturally diverse and required a varied approach to ensure that their culture and traditions were preserved.
Final Round of Discussions
A Committee Expert asked about the make-up of the prison population.
Another Expert referred to the migrant crisis, and said that Italy, like many other countries, applied short-term, fire-fighting measures to problems in countries of origin. How was Italy involved internationally, and in particular at the European Union level, to address those global problems? Until a structural approach was put in place, in partnership with countries of origin, all measures taken to address the migrant crisis would remain palliative in nature.
Responding, the delegation said that as of 30 November 2016, there were 50,000 detainees in the penitentiary system; of those 20,000 were foreigners.
Responses to migration were one of the most complex foreign policy issues at the moment. Italy was very active – globally and at the European level – in addressing the problem, and was very much aware of the need to address the drivers of migration in countries of origin.
In follow-up questions, an Expert asked about the integration of second and third generation children of migrants, and the effectiveness and impact of the initiatives to raise awareness of the situation of non-nationals and promote integration, and in particular novel ones such as the video game In My Shoes.
The delegation noted difficulties in evaluating the real impact of awareness raising initiatives; still, Italy had noticed that awareness raising initiatives were usually followed by more frequent reporting of cases of discrimination to a dedicated email address.
Taking the floor in the next round of questions, a Committee Expert asked whether the current policy to respond to migration was sustainable, particularly in the light of the growing number of deaths in the Mediterranean. The European Union approach to fingerprinting arriving migrants created additional problems. More than 80 per cent of the asylum requests were registered in Italy, while many other European countries were not doing their share. Many people arriving to the shores of Italy left for reasons enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, and it was a tremendous challenge to ensure their reception and protection.
ANASTASIA CRICKLEY, Committee Chairperson, asked about guarantees to ensure that all policies to respond to migrant crises were in line with Convention and ensured protection from racial discrimination.
Another Expert remarked that the political party Forza Italia tended to promote hate speech against people of colour – were its members and leaders ever prosecuted for hate speech? Were any supporters who had engaged in acts of racism and racial discrimination in football stadiums prosecuted?
Responding, the delegation said that recently, two local politicians from Lega Nord had been prosecuted for hate speech against the first black Italian minister, Dr. Kyenge. Parliamentarians enjoyed immunity from prosecution.
Italian society was very attentive to the situation of small ethnic communities from the Middle East at the risk of extermination. Italy was aware of its responsibility to help the arrivals from those communities and had put in place measures to prevent their separation. The sustainability of actions to respond to migration crises was a political issue.
Concluding Remarks
GAY MCDOUGALL, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Italy, thanked the delegation for their responses and stressed the need for absolute clarity on the situation of camps for Roma, Sinti and Caminanti communities.
FABRIZIO PETRI, President of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, said that Italy was aware that this was a process and was aware of the challenges. The experience of this dialogue would be used to increase the understanding of certain issues among the Government.
ANASTASIA CRICKLEY, Committee Chairperson, thanked all those – particularly civil society organizations – for their contributions to the process, and also thanked the delegation for being very open in its responses. The Committee was aware of the complexities that Italy faced, but those did not absolve anyone from living up to the obligations arising from the Convention.
Introducing the report, Fabrizio Petri, President of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy, said that the legal framework contained the principle of non-discrimination, the European Union Directives on protection against all forms of discrimination, and the enjoyment of the principle of equal treatment in the public and private sectors. The mandate of the National Anti-Discrimination Office had recently been broadened to include, in addition to race and ethnic origin, all grounds of discrimination such as religion, personal opinion, sexual orientation and gender identity, age, and disability. In April 2016, the National Roma Platform was launched to stimulate cooperation between State institutions and Roma representative organizations, with a specific focus on youth. Between January and July 2016, more than 256,000 migrants had arrived to Italy, mainly by sea; Italy was at the forefront of search and rescue activities and was making enormous efforts to assist the reception of migrants. The provisions of the common European System of Asylum had been transposed in the national law, including new rules for international protection applicants.
In the ensuing dialogue, Committee Experts commended Italy for its extraordinary efforts in search and rescue at sea of migrants arriving from north Africa, as well as for humanitarian assistance and international protection extended to migrants, in the service of humanity. Experts inquired whether anti-discrimination laws, including European Union Directives, effectively controlled the actions of local mayors and municipalities in how they treated the non-resident population in their municipalities, including Roma. Experts said concern remained about institutional racism, and the situation of ethno-religious groups, specifically Muslims, and about deep racism against Afro-Italians by the society which seemed to be unprepared to deal with this group of second or third generation immigrants or mixed-race children. Experts asked about the approach to integration in school, the use of the content of education to address concerns of racial discrimination and foster greater understanding of the past, and training of teachers in dealing with racial discrimination in school. The delegation was asked about the progress in setting up a national human rights institution in line with the Paris Principles, and in adopting a Plan against Racism, Discrimination, and Xenophobia; the legal basis for opening of hotspots, the procedure in place for unaccompanied children, and complaints mechanisms in migrant detention centres; and about measures taken to tackle human trafficking which was intimately linked with massive migratory flows.
In her concluding remarks, Gay Mcdougall, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Italy, stressed the need for absolute clarity on the situation of camps for Roma, Sinti and Caminanti communities.
In his closing remarks, Mr. Petri said that the experience of this dialogue with the Committee would be used to increase the understanding of certain issues among the Government.
Anastasia Crickley, Committee Chairperson, thanked all who had contributed to the process and in particular civil society. The Committee was aware of the complexities that Italy faced, but those did not absolve anyone from living up to the obligations arising from the Convention.
The delegation of Italy included representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice, National Office against Racial Discrimination, Observatory for Security against Acts of Discrimination of the Ministry of the Interior, and the Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 9 December at 3 p.m., to close its ninety first session.
Report
The combined nineteenth and twentieth report of Italy can be read here: CERD/C/ITA/19-20.
Presentation of the Report
FABRIZIO PETRI, President of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy, started by saying that during its second Universal Periodic Review in 2015, Italy had accepted all the recommendations concerning the principle of non-discrimination and was fully committed to implementing them at the national and local levels. The principle of non-discrimination was set out in article 3 of the Italian basic law, and Italy had also transposed in the national law the contents of the directive 2000/43 which provided instruments of protection against all forms of discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin and the enjoyment of the principle of equal treatment in the public and private sectors, including presumptive proof in favour of the victim and awarding compensation for damage. The Government acknowledged that prejudices and racist attitudes persisted in some sectors of the society and that a sustained effort was required to eradicate them, including through successful interaction among cultures, principles and values of different origin.
Mr. Petri reiterated Italy’s commitment to counteract discrimination in all its forms and said that measures had been taken to strengthen the legislation: defamation and menace were considered aggravated offences if based on discriminatory grounds or on ethnic, racial or religious hate and were in all cases subject to ex officio prosecution; the repression of the denial of the Holocaust and other categories of international crimes; and the adoption of the law on civil union partnerships for same-sex couples. In 2015, Italy had adopted the National Action Plan against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to ensure the full respect of the equality principle and to counter discrimination, racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Plan was based on a progressive data collection exercise to monitor discriminatory phenomena, and it would encourage the articulation of appropriate central and local policies to counter discrimination in key areas of education, health and labour. Following the adoption of the National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Caminanti Communities in Italy 2012-2020, the National Anti-Discrimination Office had launched in April 2016 the National Roma Platform to stimulate cooperation between institutions and organizations representing Roma, with specific focus on Roma youth.
Turning to the institutional framework, Mr. Petri informed the Committee that the mandate of the National Anti-Discrimination Office had recently been broadened to include, in addition to race and ethnic origin, all grounds of discrimination such as religion, personal opinion, sexual orientation and gender identity, age, and disability. The Office had set up in January 2016 a Media and Social Network Observatory to find hate speech online, report to social networks for its removal or to law enforcement for investigation and prosecution, as well as to analyse, learn and understand. Italy was at the forefront of search and rescue activities at sea, and was making an enormous effort to assist all the migrants. Mr. Petri said that 256,319 migrants had arrived by sea between January and July 2016, and that 140,000 were in reception centres as of August 2016. Italy had transposed the main provisions of the common European System of Asylum which contained new rules for international protection applicants. A new immigration policy on unaccompanied minors had been adopted in 2014 and Italy had set up a special unit at the Ministry of Interior. Italy had adopted in February 2016 the National Action Plan against Trafficking and Serious Exploitation of Human Beings.
Questions by Rapporteur
GAY MCDOUGAL, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Italy, recognized the stress that Italy experienced as a frontline State with regard to the migrant flows from north Africa, and commended Italy for its extraordinary efforts of search and rescue, and services to extend humanitarian assistance and international protection to migrants, in service of humanity.
The Rapporteur remarked that the definition of racial discrimination under the Convention was broader than solely hate speech or hate crimes. This must be reflected in the national legislation. Furthermore, Italy had transposed the European directive on discrimination into national law, but this had not been extensively explained in the combined report, which sounded as if hate speech was the totality of the focus.
There was also the effects clause which extended the reach of jurisdiction in all sorts of circumstances that de facto created a disparate negative impact on vulnerable communities. The report of Italy did not deal with this.
Did the legislation which transposed the European Directive, effectively control the actions of local mayors and municipalities in how they treated the non-resident population in their municipalities, including Roma?
Ms. McDougal also addressed the issue of institutional racism, and asked for data on the degree to which each protected group enjoyed equality with regard to economic and social rights, and their participation in decision-making and political and public life. However, there were gaps in the legislation in terms of the inclusion of protected groups. Which special measures were in place to address and remedy inequalities suffered by protected groups?
In Italy, the term ethnic minority referred to some specific groups of people who were classified as linguistic minorities and who were protected under specific legislative regimes. The Committee however used the term to refer to all people protected under the Convention under article 1.
The Committee was concerned about the situation of ethno-religious groups, specifically Muslims. While the efforts to establish inter-religious dialogues were commendable, the Committee needed statistics and indicators that would reveal the realities of those communities with respect to security of person, equality in economic, social and cultural rights, and their participation in decision-making, politics and public life.
What was the exact mandate of the National Anti-Discrimination Office and how was its independence from the Government assured? Which institution that covered discrimination on all grounds had power to enforce the prohibition of discrimination on the ground? How many prosecutions for racial discrimination had there been, how many sentences, and which remedies had been offered to victims?
It seemed that Italy had not gone any distance in implementing the National Action Plan against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and the National Strategy for the Inclusion of Roma, Sinti and Caminanti Communities. How many lives had been changed as a result of those actions? What was being done to ensure that Roma camps, in which living conditions were shocking, were moved from the jurisdiction of mayors to national jurisdiction?
The African descent communities – settled communities of people from Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia – were invisible in the State party’s report and the discourse about the demographic and cultural make-up of Italy. What was being done to implement recommendations made by the Working Group on people of African descent which had visited in 2015?
How did Italy plan to tackle the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly goal 1 on poverty, goal 10 on inequality, and goal 16 on rule of law, and ensure that no one was left behind?
The protection of the rights of the masses of people fleeing north African and other regions into Europe was a major international concern, and as a frontline State, Italy had a unique responsibility and burden in this regard.
NICOLÁS MARUGÁN, Committee Expert and Co-rapporteur for Italy, remarked that there were more than five million migrants in Italy, and thanked Italy for its efforts in receiving migrants on behalf of the whole of the European Union and on behalf of humanity. More than 276,000 migrants had arrived in 2016 alone.
Was detention of migrants used as a measure of last resort? Was it a crime for irregular migrants to return to Italian soil?
Could Italy comment on the slow progress in addressing the situation by the European Union?
Which procedures had been triggered domestically to process migrants and how were different nationalities being dealt with?
Mr. Marugán commended the Italian Coast Guard for declaring that life-saving efforts were the absolute priority and noted resource problems to fund life-saving efforts.
What was the legal basis for the opening of hotspots, and what procedure was in place for unaccompanied children? Which complaints mechanisms were in place in migrant detention centres?
What was being done to ensure that the custody arrangements for unaccompanied migrant children were sufficient, and that they could fully access basic services, in particular education? Which measures were being taken to raise the awareness of migrants about the Dublin Process?
Was confidentiality of data of migrants fully respected by health and education authorities; were they specifically prohibited from passing the information on undocumented migrants to security services?
Could the delegation inform on collective expulsion from Italy and bilateral agreements on this issue, as well as efforts to integrate migrants in the society?
GUN KUT, Committee Expert and Rapporteur on Follow-up, recognized that Italy had duly produced its follow-up report in a timely fashion, on the follow-up issues identified by the Committee, namely the setting up of the national human rights institution and on forced evictions of Roma and Sinti. Mr. Kut remarked that the national human rights institution had not been set up yet, and urged Italy to stop forced evictions.
Questions by Experts
A Committee Expert asked about the time-line for the completion of the drafting of the
Plan against Racism, Discrimination and Xenophobia and the role of civil society organizations in the process.
Which ethnic groups were targeted in reported incidents of racial discrimination? What was the role of the media in this and which mechanisms were in place to address discriminatory statements by the media?
The Expert was concerned about racism against Afro-Italians, citing episodes of racism against the first black government minister, black football players, and black or mixed-race children in schools. The presence of Africans in Italy was not a new phenomenon, and yet, it seemed that the society was unprepared to deal with African Italians – second or third generation immigrants or mixed-race children.
How were teachers trained to deal with integration in school? How could the content of education be used to address concerns of racial discrimination and foster greater understanding of the past? Which special measures were in place to address the historic marginalization of African descent communities and institutional racism that they suffered?
Another Expert asked about measures taken to tackle human trafficking which was intimately linked with the massive migratory flows. What was the impact of the reversal of the burden of proof on a number of complaints for racial discrimination?
The delegation was asked to update the Committee on the progress it had made in setting up the national human rights institution in compliance with the Paris Principles, and the progress made on the withdrawal of reservations on article 4 of the Convention.
Noting that Italy was a highly decentralized country in which powers were distributed between regions and the State, an Expert asked how regional legislation was aligned with the Convention, and about mechanisms of monitoring and control over regions and communes in the field of racial discrimination.
In 2013, Italy had begun an experiment to combat poverty in some cities, and this year it had adopted a law on this basis, which had set up a fund to combat poverty and social exclusion. What were the results and findings of this experiment?
Which measures were in place to address racism in sports? What was the impact of the decision to hold football clubs responsible for racist incidents by their supporters?
What information was available concerning the prison population?
Which concrete measures were in place to implement anti-discrimination legislation and what was the compliance rate?
People who took the brunt of racial discrimination in Italy were migrants, including discrimination by the police – a Racial Discrimination Observatory in the hands of the police did not inspire trust and confidence. Would Italy consider changing it into a civilian institution, even if funding would continue to be provided by the Ministry of the Interior?
How was international law transposed into the domestic law? Was the Italian system monist or dualist - was there a need for the adoption of a law by the Parliament to integrate a treaty into national legislation, or was it sufficient for the Government to draw up a decree? Could the Convention be directly invoked in court? How many complaints of racial discrimination had been filed?
Referring to the refugee crisis in the country, an Expert asked whether Italy was able to focus efforts on specific ethnicities at risk of extermination, not only in their country of origin but world over, such as the Assyrians or the Yazidis, in order to protect those communities.
The rules governing the passing of citizenship discriminated against children born and raised in Italy to non-Italian parents: they spoke Italian and the local dialect and were integrated in the society but were not considered to be Italians. The naturalization law made a distinction between European Union and non-European Union citizens in the length of legal residency in Italy required for naturalization: four years versus ten years.
Freedom of expression was one of the fundamental pillars underpinning democracy, but this principle could be used and abused for incitement to hatred and violence: what was being done to combat hate speech?
GAY MCDOUGAL, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Italy, inquired about the status of the Convention in the regions and municipalities, and the status of the settled African population who had been in Italy for 40 or 50 years. There were reports about new Roma camps being opened – could the delegation comment?
ANASTASIA CRICKLEY, Committee Chairperson, remarked that the issue of Roma camps was not whether people wished to stay there; it was a question of culturally appropriate accommodation.
Could the delegation clarify the provision of social welfare on a family basis and the implications for women from minority groups?
Responses by the Delegation
Responding to Experts’ questions concerning the anti-discrimination legal framework, the delegation said that the Convention had been a part of the national law since 1975; the framework had been completed by the adoption of additional laws which were all in compliance with the Convention. The basic law 286/1998 was a cornerstone of the immigration system, and its definition of racial discrimination was a photocopy of article 1 of the Convention. Regions had certain supplementary legislative powers, but they applied all the laws of the State.
The main problem in Italy was that it still did not have an independent national human rights institution. A draft law, the so-called Mazzoni-Manconi law proposing the setting up of the national human rights institution, was currently being discussed by the Senate. Italian citizens and Italian public administrators felt the lack of this institution. The National Anti-Discrimination Office was doing important subsidiary work in this regard; although not formally independent since it was a part of the Prime Minister’s Office, the Office was functionally independent because it had regular and sustained funding to the tune of € 2 million per year, while its Director was completely free in setting the agenda.
Another challenge in Italy was the coordination and monitoring of what was happening on the local level to combat racial discrimination, because of a culture of independence in taking positive action by local authorities. The National Anti-Discrimination Office was implementing the National Action Plan against Racial Discrimination, as well as some special measures, including the decree 215/2003 for the implementation of initiatives to create equal opportunities for all, create inclusive societies, and to fight against racial discrimination, homophobia and xenophobia. Italy would also celebrate three weeks of activism against racial discrimination in March 2017.
One of the most delicate issues in Italy was that of Roma and Sinti communities, and Italy was very much aware of the complexities involved. The 2016 Roadmap for Roma and Sinti contained activities in the areas of education, employment and housing. The National Anti-Discrimination Office was developing a new proposal for a national plan of action on housing for Roma. The Government had allocated € 3 million for the closure and resettlement of the La Barbuta camp for Roma in Rome. In October 2016, the National Anti-Discrimination Office had trained young Roma activists to access European Union funding to counter anti-gypsism. Also in October, the Just Roma Project had been launched to counter discrimination against Roma women.
Turning to the situation of migrants, the delegation said that Italy had developed an excellence in emergency response and rescue, but challenges remained in the area of integration.
The legal basis for the setting up of the hotspots could be found in the September 2015 decisions by the European Union and European Parliament. Italy had proposed a Roadmap to the European Union for the improvement of the capacity, quality and efficiency of the asylum system, which had been followed up by the opening of hotspots. Italy paid special attention to the human rights of migrants in all hotspots. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and other human rights monitoring bodies regularly monitored the situation in the hotspots, which were extremely well run. Hotspots were open spaces, from which migrants could come and go, and there were no fences.
After the processing in hotspot, migrants were transferred to the Protection System for Refugees and Asylum-Seekers which represented the second level of reception. The Protection System had increased its reception capacity, from 3,000 to the current 22,971 including almost 2,000 places for minors. By the recent Ministerial Decree of 10 August 2016, the access procedure to the Protection System project funding had been reformed to stabilize ongoing projects through a financing confirmation procedure and to facilitate the funding access procedure for the new municipalities and/or local authorities that would be allowed to submit their funding applications any time of the year. Since August 2016, 20 more reception centres had been opened in municipalities.
Italy had put in place a new immigration policy on unaccompanied minors in 2014, and had set up a Special Unit at the Ministry of Interior; the system envisaged first-assistance reception in governmental highly-specialised centres, and a second-assistance within the enhanced Protection System. Parliament was discussing a bill on the protection and promotion of the rights of unaccompanied minors.
In response to the question on the number of deaths of migrants, the delegation informed that in 2014, there had been 168; in 2015 – 296; and to date in 2016 – 355. It was difficult to estimate how many migrants left Italy.
The National Anti-Discrimination Office would conduct a special event in 2017 to raise awareness among the population about people of African descent. The delegation expressed regrets about acts of racism and racist statements against Italy’s first black minister, Dr. Cécile Kyenge, and said that two local politicians were being sentenced for racist statements published on their Facebook pages.
With regard to racism in sports, football clubs were still legally responsible for the behaviour of their supporters, but because this opened room for instrumentalization, Italy was reflecting on how to address this problem.
Italy was extremely committed to ensuring that the Agenda 2030 entered the discourse and consciousness in both public and private spheres. Next week, Italy would release the very first National Action Plan Business and Human Rights, and the Third National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, both of which were based on the Agenda 2030. The Government was working on defining national indicators.
Furthermore, civil society organizations and academia had created the Alliance for the 2030 Development Agenda which brought together more than 2,000 Italian non-governmental organizations. The Alliance and the Government would work together on the implementation of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, and on raising awareness to create a real commitment of the authorities to the Agenda 2030. It was important to say that the Confederation of Italian Industries was increasingly interested in issues of business and human rights and Italy was very pleased to see the active involvement of the private sector in the implementation of the Plan.
Questions from the Experts
GAY MCDOUGALL, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Italy, remarked that Italy had a very strong approach to hate speech and hate crimes as reflected in the institutional structure, however, recent legal acts seemed to have weakened the approach – previously, the law required that hate be a factor in a crime to declare it a hate crime, whereas now it must be the only factor. How were hate crimes and hate speech punished, and by which court? Which institutions were involved?
The wording of the draft bill on the establishment of national human rights institutions was not sufficient to ensure its alignment with the Paris Principles.
The Rapporteur explained the nature and function of special measures, and stressed the responsibility of the central government for the protection of vulnerable groups by the adoption of special measures; it could not be done by municipalities.
What was the situation in the country with regard to human trafficking, especially in the context of migratory flows? What institutional structure was in place to support anti-trafficking efforts?
Ms. McDougall wished to hear more about measures in place to support the integration of Muslim groups and communities, and also about activities to reduce statelessness and ensure regularization of stateless persons.
Another Expert recognized that Italy had one of the most powerful social welfare systems in the world, and an impressive tax collection system which allowed it to fund public expenditures. Concern remained about reports of non-citizens experiencing difficulties and discrimination in accessing State and welfare services; they were also exploited in the labour market, particularly undocumented foreigners.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation reiterated the willingness of Italy to ensure that the future national human rights institution was compliant with the Paris Principles and was aware that a greater involvement of civil society organizations was needed.
With regard to human trafficking, the delegation said that Italy had transposed in 2014 the relevant European Union directives, and had adopted the first National Action Plan against Human Trafficking in February 2016. The Plan aimed to identify, prevent, and fight the phenomena, and increase awareness, prevention and social integration of victims. The annual budget allocated for the implementation of the Plan was € 8 million.
Italy had ratified the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and it had adopted a bill 2148 which focused on the situation of stateless persons and in particular unaccompanied minors.
The issue of weakening of the legislation on hate speech and hate crimes was very politically sensitive, but the State was also very sensitive to incidents of discrimination by State officials.
The situation of unaccompanied minors was a growing problem, and Italy was mobilizing civil society and volunteers to address it.
Education was one of the four axis in the Roadmap 2016 for the implementation if the National Strategy for Roma and Sinti Communities. Italy would endeavour to include in the Roadmap 2017 different approaches to the integration of Roma and Sinti who were very culturally diverse and required a varied approach to ensure that their culture and traditions were preserved.
Final Round of Discussions
A Committee Expert asked about the make-up of the prison population.
Another Expert referred to the migrant crisis, and said that Italy, like many other countries, applied short-term, fire-fighting measures to problems in countries of origin. How was Italy involved internationally, and in particular at the European Union level, to address those global problems? Until a structural approach was put in place, in partnership with countries of origin, all measures taken to address the migrant crisis would remain palliative in nature.
Responding, the delegation said that as of 30 November 2016, there were 50,000 detainees in the penitentiary system; of those 20,000 were foreigners.
Responses to migration were one of the most complex foreign policy issues at the moment. Italy was very active – globally and at the European level – in addressing the problem, and was very much aware of the need to address the drivers of migration in countries of origin.
In follow-up questions, an Expert asked about the integration of second and third generation children of migrants, and the effectiveness and impact of the initiatives to raise awareness of the situation of non-nationals and promote integration, and in particular novel ones such as the video game In My Shoes.
The delegation noted difficulties in evaluating the real impact of awareness raising initiatives; still, Italy had noticed that awareness raising initiatives were usually followed by more frequent reporting of cases of discrimination to a dedicated email address.
Taking the floor in the next round of questions, a Committee Expert asked whether the current policy to respond to migration was sustainable, particularly in the light of the growing number of deaths in the Mediterranean. The European Union approach to fingerprinting arriving migrants created additional problems. More than 80 per cent of the asylum requests were registered in Italy, while many other European countries were not doing their share. Many people arriving to the shores of Italy left for reasons enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, and it was a tremendous challenge to ensure their reception and protection.
ANASTASIA CRICKLEY, Committee Chairperson, asked about guarantees to ensure that all policies to respond to migrant crises were in line with Convention and ensured protection from racial discrimination.
Another Expert remarked that the political party Forza Italia tended to promote hate speech against people of colour – were its members and leaders ever prosecuted for hate speech? Were any supporters who had engaged in acts of racism and racial discrimination in football stadiums prosecuted?
Responding, the delegation said that recently, two local politicians from Lega Nord had been prosecuted for hate speech against the first black Italian minister, Dr. Kyenge. Parliamentarians enjoyed immunity from prosecution.
Italian society was very attentive to the situation of small ethnic communities from the Middle East at the risk of extermination. Italy was aware of its responsibility to help the arrivals from those communities and had put in place measures to prevent their separation. The sustainability of actions to respond to migration crises was a political issue.
Concluding Remarks
GAY MCDOUGALL, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Italy, thanked the delegation for their responses and stressed the need for absolute clarity on the situation of camps for Roma, Sinti and Caminanti communities.
FABRIZIO PETRI, President of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, said that Italy was aware that this was a process and was aware of the challenges. The experience of this dialogue would be used to increase the understanding of certain issues among the Government.
ANASTASIA CRICKLEY, Committee Chairperson, thanked all those – particularly civil society organizations – for their contributions to the process, and also thanked the delegation for being very open in its responses. The Committee was aware of the complexities that Italy faced, but those did not absolve anyone from living up to the obligations arising from the Convention.
__________________
For use of the information media; not an official record
Tags
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: