Translated by Irene Cecchi
Five United Nations human rights experts have urged the Italian government to definitively repeal the Security Decree titled “Provisions on public safety, protection of on-duty personnel, as well as victims of usury and prison regulations” arguing that it compromises the respect for human rights. The measure was approved by the Council of Ministers on April 4.
This is the second letter addressed to the Italian government by UN rapporteurs expressing concerns about the potential consequences the decree could have on various rights. In fact, six rapporteurs had already written a first letter to the Government on December 19th 2024, criticizing several provisions of the then bill, which they deemed incompatible with Italy’s international obligations. These include articles 9 (right to liberty and security), 12 (freedom of movement), 14 (right to a fair trial), 17 (right to privacy), 19 (freedom of expression) and 21 (freedom of peaceful assembly) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In this second appeal, the UN rapporteurs express alarm at how the government bypassed Parliament and public debate by converting the bill into an emergency decree that was swiftly approved. They argue that the decree contains vague provisions related to terrorism that could lead to arbitrary interpretations, disproportionately affecting freedom of expression and ethnic minorities.
Recently, the bill has also been heavily criticized by organizations such as Antigone and by the European Commissioner for Human Rights O’Flaherty, who consider it an obstacle to the exercise of fundamental freedoms.
The decree replaces the bill, confirming its articles but incorporating the President’s comments. Key measures that have entered into force include:
• Prevention and fight against terrorism
The decree introduces the crime of possessing material for terrorist purposes, punishable by 2 to 6 years in prison, and the online dissemination of instructions for committing violent acts or sabotage (Article 270-quinquies.3 of the Penal Code). It also lowers the threshold for punishability for those who, by any means, distribute or promote materials with instructions on preparing and using explosives relevant to serious crimes.
• Protections for military and police officers
The decree strengthens criminal protections for law enforcement forces by adding an aggravating circumstance to crimes of violence, threat or resistance against public officials. If the act is committed against a judicial police officer or a public safety officer, the penalty may be increased by up to half.
• Protests in prisons and migrant detention centers
A new offense of “riot” in prisons (Article 415-bis of the Penal Code) and in migrant detention centers (CPRs) is introduced: participation involving violence, threat, or resistance is punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison or 1 to 4 years in CPRs. If a riot leads to death or serious injury, the penalty may be up to 18 years; organizers or leaders of riots face even harsher penalties. Articles 26 and 27 also penalize passive resistance —the only peaceful protest available to prisoners— if it obstructs agents’ actions: sentences can reach up to 8 years, potentially undermining prisoner reintegration processes.
• Harsher penalties for failing to comply with police stop orders
Sanctions are increased for those who violate orders from traffic police, with an additional penalty of driver’s license suspension for 15 to 30 days in cases of repeat offenses.
The most critical point concerns the right to protest, which is restricted by new provisions introducing prison terms of 6 months to 2 years for those participating in peaceful blockades of roads, railways or ports, effectively criminalizing civil disobedience. According to the United Nations, these provisions could lead to unjustified sanctions.
Another potential rights limitation comes from a ban on the processing and commercialization of cannabis flowers with THC below 0.5% (which have no psychotropic effects), risking the elimination of an entire emerging economic sector. This ban, which contradicts EU regulations and rulings by the Italian Supreme Court, appears ideologically driven.
In response to the decree's provisions and prison overcrowding, the Union of Criminal Chambers declared a three-day strike. Furthermore, Pietro Colapietro, Secretary General of the Italian Police Workers Union, stated in an interview that many provisions of the decree are far from a democratic concept of inclusive security and that it restricts freedoms and undermines the dignity of police officers themselves. He concluded that the measure likely serves as a government distraction from other issues.
Conclusions
According to the UN Special Rapporteurs, the decree represents a significant regression for Italian democracy, as it risks enabling arbitrary legal proceedings and excessively harsh penalties against individuals exercising their fundamental rights. The measure criminalizes protest and legitimizes a repressive approach in which dissent is equated with threat. In their official statement, they stress that the Italian government is obligated to “respect and protect the right to peaceful protest, avoiding unjustified restrictions, unlawful dispersals and disproportionate use of force”.
Thus, according to widespread opinion, the Security Decree appears to be a pretext to restrict freedoms and suppress dissent, to the extent that it has been nicknamed the fear decree. Finally, the conversion of the bill into an emergency decree represents a serious distortion of the legislative process as it bypasses parliamentary debate, something that must be challenged through the legal avenues available to us, first and foremost through a referendum.
Mondo Internazionale APS - Riproduzione Riservata ® 2025