The suspended legality of migrant repatriation centers: "A system outside of law and justice."
Personal freedom is inviolable . No form of detention, inspection, or personal search, nor any other restriction of personal freedom, is permitted except by reasoned order of the judicial authority and only in the cases and ways provided by law. In exceptional cases of necessity and urgency, specifically indicated by law, the public security authority may adopt provisional measures, which must be communicated to the judicial authority within forty-eight hours and, if the judicial authority does not validate them within the following forty-eight hours, are deemed revoked and remain void. Any physical or moral violence against persons subjected to any restriction of freedom is punishable. The law establishes the maximum limits of pre-trial detention.
This is what Article 13 of the Italian Constitution states, which provides for a "legal reserve," meaning that the modalities of detention must be defined by a law approved by Parliament, rather than by ordinances and regulations. This is precisely the aspect that the Constitutional Court based its ruling 96/2025 of July 3, which struck down the current legislation on detention in repatriation detention centers (CPRs) , as it violates the legal reserve regarding personal freedom. In its ruling, the Court asked the legislature, and therefore Parliament , to intervene and amend it. The direct consequence is the failure to validate the administrative detention of foreigners without residence permits in repatriation detention centers (nine in Italy). The matter is complex; we discuss it with Cesare Mariani , board member of the Naga association (which has long fought for migrants' rights) and legal aid worker since 2016.
What are repatriation detention centers and when were they created?
These are facilities where 'irregular' migrants are held within the country. They have not committed any crime but can be subjected to 'administrative detention' for up to 18 months (renewed every three months). They were created in 1998 by a presidential decree implementing the consolidated immigration law, which became law with the 'Turco Napolitano' law in 1998.
Subsequently, the matter has never been regulated by primary law, but only by administrative acts of the prefectures or ministerial directives. This is the reasoning of the Constitutional Court, which cannot remedy the gap but calls on Parliament to fill it. The Court itself, in its ruling, declared that the current administrative regulations are not adequate to protect personal freedoms, as detention in CPRs implies subjection to the power of others, which is not regulated by law.
What was the ruling based on?
"Regarding the appeal of a Justice of the Peace, which raised the issue of administrative detention procedures and related protections for the rights of detainees in four cases, the Court deemed the appeal inadmissible as it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the issue, but it essentially found it well-founded, noting the flaw and calling on Parliament to address it as soon as possible."
Any positive news in your fight against CPRs?
"Only in part, for two reasons. The first is that the constitutional guarantee body has not (so far) questioned the legitimacy of administrative detention, as we are loudly demanding, but rather the definition of its modalities, which must be regulated by law.
Furthermore, we fear that the government will bypass the issue with a decree law justified by nonexistent necessity and urgency and have it passed by its parliamentary majority. This would then leave a series of observations on how this law should be drafted, which cannot be equivalent to the law regulating prison detention, because the two institutions are not the same. It would also need to provide legal, health, and other protections that are currently nonexistent or severely lacking. However, we don't have high hopes for this, given this government's behavior thus far.
What is the basis of the challenge to the legitimacy of the Detention and Repatriation Centers supported by Naga and the “Never Again Camps – No to CPRs” network?
"Regarding the restriction of the personal freedom of men and women who have not committed any crime, since failure to comply with an expulsion order has been decriminalized. This is an administrative offense for which detention is not permitted under our legal system. It should also be noted that the conditions of those detained are much worse than those of prisoners, who enjoy greater protection and regulation.
A migrant, freshly disembarked or stopped on the street for a routine check, if his or her documents are not in order, can be detained in a CPR, even far from their place of arrival or residence. After 48 hours, a so-called "validation hearing" is held before a Justice of the Peace, or the Court of Appeal in the case of asylum seekers. The migrant is assigned, on the spot, and for that single hearing, a "court-appointed lawyer" who knows nothing about his or her client, connected online from the CPR, and in some cases not even identified with certainty.
The average hearing lasts five minutes, and often there isn't even an interpreter. The Justice of the Peace almost always confirms the detention for three months (renewable in the same manner up to six times), during which the migrant can be put on a plane and repatriated to their (presumed) country of origin without even being able to make a phone call.
How does the asylum application process work?
It can be presented upon arrival or even later. The likelihood of being accepted has been significantly reduced by recent regulatory changes, including the adoption of a list of countries (carefully selected from those with the largest populations) deemed 'safe' by the government.
The person has neither the opportunity nor the time to gather evidence to demonstrate the threats they would be exposed to in their country of origin and the resulting "incompatibility" with repatriation, for example, if they are a homosexual who has fled a persecuting state, or a political opponent. After 60 days, the asylum seeker could theoretically look for work. Unfortunately, with the accelerated procedures provided for by the decree approved immediately after the Cutro massacre, a decision on the request (almost always negative) arrives after nine days.
These procedures are potentially applicable to almost all asylum seekers. After a negative decision, unless a judge intervenes to suspend its effects, the person can be expelled and, pending enforcement, held, if this has not already happened previously, in a CPR (Reception and Repatriation Center). There, individuals are left with quarterly renewals (bimonthly in the case of asylum seekers) for 18 months, likely aiming to create such exhaustion that the unfortunate individual will request voluntary repatriation.
What are the living conditions like in the CPRs?
These facilities are privately managed, paid based on the number of inmates, and are almost never subject to institutional oversight. The protections are therefore far inferior to those provided by law in prisons. In its white paper "Beyond That Door – A Year of Observation Through the Keyhole of the Milan Repatriation Detention Center," published at the end of 2023, the NAGA denounced all sorts of violations of rights in every area, from information on available protections to adequate nutrition, from the right to healthcare to contact with family members or lawyers, to even gratuitous abuse and humiliation. There are numerous cases of desperate acts: attempted or successful suicide, self-harm, and riots.
With the recent 'Security Decree,' any protest, even nonviolent, has become a crime, perfecting that framework of complete 'subjugation to the power of others' (or, let's just say, arbitrariness) described by the Constitutional Court. Thus, innocent people, whose only crime is seeking a better life for themselves and their families, after having suffered terrible injustices, will find themselves accused of crimes that are not crimes, since they are the legitimate protest of those who are mistreated.
And what can you tell me about the Italian Court of Cassation's appeal to the European Court of Justice on the issue of "safe countries"?
The ruling on this matter is expected in August, but we're not very confident in this case either. The European Union has passed a regulation (in force in a year) that further restricts the protection options and safeguards for migrants' rights. The current climate is dire. The European Union will create a mechanism that will allow many countries to be deemed safe, even when they are authoritarian or illiberal regimes.
The government, as we know, under the pretext of "fighting smugglers," obstructs in every way the work of NGOs attempting to rescue migrants at sea. The annual Global Trends 2024 report, prepared by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and published on World Refugee Day on June 20, estimates that 123 million people worldwide are forcibly displaced due to war, violence, persecution, or serious human rights violations.
This is the twelfth consecutive year in which this figure has increased. This represents an increase of 7 million people, or 6%, compared to the end of 2023. Furthermore, at the end of 2024, 8.4 million asylum seekers were awaiting a decision on their individual applications, the highest number ever recorded, a 22% increase from 6.9 million the previous year. The number of pending asylum applications has increased for eight consecutive years since 2016. Faced with such a dramatic situation, Europe's response is one of inhumane closure and insensitivity to human rights.
Luce
