Diritti al punto

Dear Readers,

On 4 March, the Senate of the Italian Republic approved a bill to combat antisemitism and to adopt the definition of antisemitism, taking on the one formulated by the Plenary Assembly of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Amnesty International has expressed concern in this regard, warning that the use of this definition could turn into an instrument of censorship and repression.

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered Italy to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage over the death of Riccardo Magherini, which occurred on 3 March 2014. Italy was held responsible both for the excessive use of force by officers and for deficiencies in the investigation and in police training. This is a significant judgment that has delivered justice to Riccardo Magherini's family, commented on by Amnesty International Italy as a sign of hope to reopen the debate on the use of force and on the legitimacy of immobilisation techniques employed by law-enforcement authorities.

On 26 March, the European Parliament approved its position on the new Return Regulation. The text is founded on three main elements: the expansion of administrative detention, the reinforcement of the obligation to cooperate on the part of the individual concerned, and the possibility of resorting to transfers to third countries. The picture that emerges is a harsher, more restrictive system, featuring longer periods of detention and more far-reaching obligations of cooperation. Amnesty International maintains that the European Parliament's position is part of a trend towards migration policies that are "increasingly harmful, exclusionary and draconian".

If you enjoy our newsletter, please share it and invite anyone you like to subscribe by clicking on the link at the bottom of the page.

On 15 January, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment against Italy concerning the death of Riccardo Magherini (Case of Magherini and others v. Italy). Italy will have to pay the applicants, who include Riccardo's family, compensation amounting to €140,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment comes after a long legal ordeal lasting 12 years, which began immediately following the death of Riccardo Magherini, aged 39, between 2 and 3 March 2014 in Florence. On his way home, Riccardo entered a state of distress and agitation, likely caused by a combination of alcohol and medication. He first got into a taxi and then went into several pizzerias; his growing agitation prompted several witnesses to call the police. Carabinieri officers arrived and, to prevent him from fleeing, pinned Riccardo to the ground in a prone position with his face against the asphalt. In response to his cries for help and as the restraint continued, the Carabinieri requested the intervention of the emergency medical services (118). Riccardo suffered a cardiac arrest and was pronounced dead upon arrival at hospital. According to witnesses, Riccardo was struck, subjected to prolonged pressure, and rendered helpless through an excessive use of force and restraint techniques. A protracted legal battle ensued, brought by Riccardo's family to uncover the truth and seek justice. In the courts of first and second instance, three of the four Carabinieri were convicted of manslaughter. In 2018, the Court of Cassation quashed the convictions and annulled the sentence without remittal. The family did not give up, and in 2019 lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights. Based in Strasbourg, the Court was established by the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) — subsequently also referred to as the ECHR — to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting States (Article 19). Specifically, this entails securing to everyone the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention, including the right to life, the prohibition of torture, slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of expression. Having exhausted domestic remedies before the Italian judicial authorities, the Magherini family applied to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 34 of the Convention, which governs individual applications: "The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto". According to the European Court of Human Rights, the Italian State is responsible for the death of Riccardo Magherini because there was no "absolute necessity" to restrain him on the ground. In other words, there were other ways to manage Magherini in his agitated state without keeping him pinned down in that position for a prolonged period. The judgment found two violations of Article 2 of the ECHR (right to life): one relating to the use of force by the officers, and the other to shortcomings in the investigation and in police training. The grounds of the judgment state that the guidelines in force at the material time did not contain clear and adequate instructions on restraining individuals in a prone position in order to minimise risks to health and life. On this point, the Strasbourg judges noted that as early as 2003 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture had drawn attention to the risks of the prone position. By 2011, several countries had already updated their directives on the matter. Italy began an updating process, and it was only in 2014 that a circular mentioning the risks of positional asphyxia was issued; however, at the time of Riccardo Magherini's death, that circular was not yet in force. Furthermore, there was a lack of training for police officers to guarantee the level of competence necessary for applying restraint techniques. The organisation A buon diritto described the ruling as a significant and important judgment that also underlines the necessity of training and preparing the Italian police forces, adding that the investigation was neither effective nor sufficiently independent, given that the inquiries were entrusted to the Carabinieri corps itself, thereby undermining procedural safeguards. Amnesty International Italy, while welcoming the European Court of Human Rights' ruling, expressed the hope that this crucial decision will reopen the essential debate on the use of force and on the legitimacy of restraint techniques used by law-enforcement personnel.

On 4 March, the Senate of the Italian Republic approved at first reading, by 105 votes in favour, 24 against and 21 abstentions, the parliamentary majority's bill containing "Provisions for combating antisemitism and for the adoption of the working definition of antisemitism". Specifically, the text entrusts the national coordinator for combating antisemitism with the task of drawing up the three-year national strategy against antisemitism.

The measure also specifies that, for the purposes of the law, the working definition of antisemitism formulated by the Plenary Assembly of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – IHRA) on 26 May 2016, including its illustrative examples, is adopted.

Under the bill, antisemitism is therefore defined as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities".

If confirmed within the statutory framework, the IHRA definition would become a benchmark for the cultural and educational sectors as well as a yardstick to decipher antisemitic language online, particularly on social media platforms, or in public settings such as demonstrations and debates.

As highlighted in a statement by Amnesty International, using this definition in legislation, or within training and educational programmes, could turn into an instrument of censorship and repression extending across civil and institutional life.

Using this definition of antisemitism as a benchmark, the activities of organisations such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, or critical reports on Israeli policies (such as those by Amnesty International), would be viewed solely as an antisemitic campaign against Israel rather than a genuine denunciation of the actions carried out by the State of Israel against the Palestinian population.

Moreover, the measure could be interpreted in a way detrimental to rights, whereby dissent risks being treated as a threat to national security.

Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed its concern, challenging the adoption of the IHRA definition in legislation and arguing that prohibiting certain conduct listed in the so-called "contemporary examples of antisemitism" could restrict freedom of expression: a freedom protected under international law and by Article 21 of the Italian Constitution, which safeguards the right to freely express one's thoughts.

On 26 March 2026, the European Parliament approved, by 389 votes in favour, 206 against and 32 abstentions, its position on the new Return Regulation, outlining the text with which it enters the final phase of European negotiations; however, the reform is not yet final law. The next step is trilogues—interinstitutional negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission aimed at agreeing on a joint version of the legislation.

The proposal aims to replace the current European returns framework with more uniform rules across all Member States and instruments deemed more effective for enforcing removal decisions. A return decision is an administrative or judicial decision stating or declaring the stay of a third-country national to be illegal and imposing or stating an obligation to return. The text approved by Parliament is based on three main elements: the expansion of administrative detention, the reinforcement of the obligation to cooperate on the part of the individual concerned, and the possibility of resorting to transfers to third countries.

Administrative detention refers to custody ordered not as a punishment for a crime, but as a measure to prepare or carry out return. The approved text allows this detention to last up to 24 months under certain circumstances, including when a person is deemed uncooperative or when practical or documentary obstacles impede removal. In legal terms, this means the duration of detention is tied not only to the actual feasibility of carrying out return, but also to the conduct attributed to the person subject to the decision.

On this point, Amnesty International has taken an exceptionally firm stance. Eve Geddie, Director of Amnesty International's European Institutions Office, stated that "today the European Parliament voted to expand the EU's punitive and restrictive plans on detention and deportation". In the same statement, Amnesty notes that Parliament approved an increase in "disproportionate requirements, penalties and restrictions" on people facing return decisions and a vast expansion of detention "for much longer periods", falling below international legal standards.

Another central element of the reform is the obligation to cooperate. In practice, the person subject to a return decision must provide authorities with information, documentation, and cooperation to facilitate their removal. If this cooperation is deemed insufficient, the regulation permits further procedural repercussions and can also affect the duration of detention. ECRE (the European Council on Refugees and Exiles), a pan-European network of organisations working to protect the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and displaced persons, criticised this framework, arguing that it significantly broadens the grounds for detention and weakens procedural safeguards.

Among the most controversial elements is the opening towards so-called return hubs. This term refers to facilities located in third countries—outside the European Union—to which the returns system could transfer individuals on the basis of agreements concluded by Member States or the EU. Amnesty International has described these hubs as "offshore detention centres"—facilities outside EU territory where people could be transferred and held away from the standard European legal framework. The organisation stated that return hubs "pose grave risks of rights violations, cannot be implemented in a manner compliant with human rights, and should be rejected in their entirety". In the same statement, Amnesty also observed that individuals would risk being sent to countries "where they have never set foot".

The regulation also addresses the right to an effective remedy—the ability to ask a judge to review the lawfulness of a return decision. One of the most contentious points is that an appeal does not automatically suspend the execution of the return. Practically speaking, simply lodging an appeal is not enough to halt removal unless suspensive effect is explicitly granted under the applicable rules. ECRE criticised this arrangement, arguing that weakening the suspensive effect reduces the protection guaranteed by the right to an effective remedy and increases the risk of unlawful expulsions.

The reform also introduces mechanisms designed to improve coordination among Member States. Among these is the European return order—a decision registered in the Schengen Information System intended to be mutually recognised by other Member States. According to available reports, by 1 July 2027 Schengen States will be required to recognise and execute return decisions issued by other Member States, although practical enforcement will remain the responsibility of the State in which the person is irregularly staying.

From a legislative perspective, the significance of the 26 March vote is clear. The European Parliament has not yet enacted final legislation, but has set out its mandate to negotiate the final text with the Council and the Commission. In substantive terms, the position adopted by the Assembly heads towards a more uniform and severe returns regime, underpinned by longer detention periods, more demanding obligations of cooperation, and wider scope for transfers to third countries. In its official statement, Amnesty International argues that this approach is part of a trend towards migration policies that are "increasingly harmful, exclusionary and draconian", warning that, "far from reducing irregularities, these proposals risk trapping more people in precariousness".

For further details on the vote and the main public positions taken, the official sources of the European institutions and organisations cited can be consulted directly.