New security package: more repression
New security package: more repression does not mean more rights or more justice
After the conversion into law of the so-called Security and Immigration Decree last June – a measure that represented the greatest attack on freedom of protest in the history of the Italian Republic -, the Government is once again proposing further repressive measures, confirming a political trajectory based on exacerbating criminal penalties and shrinking fundamental safeguards.
The Government has in fact recently presented a new security package consisting of two separate legislative texts, which will be converted respectively into a decree-law and a bill. Taken together, these measures mark a further and troubling step backward in terms of constitutional guarantees, fundamental rights, and civil liberties in Italy.
Although articulated through different legislative instruments, this package reflects a vision of security essentially based on criminal repression and the restriction of rights, rather than on prevention, structured social responses, or truly effective public policies to address complex phenomena.
More punishment, fewer rights: an unbalanced model
The bill provides for unprecedented increases in penalties, with sanctions that are at times disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct involved. The underlying logic is to address delicate social issues – such as urban insecurity, marginalization, and social conflict – solely through criminal law, ignoring the fact that criminal justice alone does not resolve complex social problems and instead risks producing new imbalances and stigmatization.
Migrants once again targeted with measures criticized under International Law
This package also reaffirms measures targeting migrants that revive the emergency-based approach of the past. Among these is the proposal for a temporary naval blockade decided by the Executive without effective judicial oversight, in contrast with the principles of International Maritime Law and Human Rights law.
For CILD, it is essential to recall that Italy has already faced strong criticism from international bodies regarding the management of migration and administrative detention centres, both in terms of human rights consequences and compliance with international law.
Administrative detention centres: an open wound in the system of rights
The issue of the Centres for Repatriation (CPRs) has for years been a testing ground for Italian migration policy. CILD, alongside other organizations, has repeatedly denounced – at both national and international levels – how these centres are places where people who have committed no crime are deprived of their personal liberty, often in degrading conditions and for long periods, without adequate judicial safeguards.
The provision which would abrogate the possibility to get free legal aid without the need of verifying economic means of the person appealing an expulsion order issued against them as non-EU citizens results to be particularly worrying. It is well known that, for people from non-EU countries, verification of income conditions is often practically impossible or in any case not timely. Such a choice could, in effect, completely eliminate access to legal aid and thus to judicial protection.
A further cause for serious concern is the proposal whereby, if a foreign national is located after violating a second order issued by the police authority, no new expulsion order would be issued, but rather the previously issued one would simply be enforced. This reform raises significant questions regarding its compatibility with the principles of our legal system, particularly with respect to procedural safeguards, and appears to respond solely to the need to speed up repatriations, with the risk of compressing the protections afforded to migrants.
A 2025 Constitutional Court ruling confirmed the inadequacy of the current regulatory framework governing detention in CPRs, highlighting the need for genuine constitutional guarantees. However, CILD has long argued that the response cannot be to strengthen or expand a system that has demonstrated serious shortcomings in the protection of human rights. Instead, it is necessary to put an end to administrative detention in CPRs and invest in alternative pathways that respect human dignity.
In the past, CILD also submitted critical documents to Parliament on the rules governing detention in CPRs, showing how increasing detention periods or opening new facilities does not resolve the structural problems of a model that is not only ineffective, but also costly and often harmful to fundamental rights.
Minorities and protest: measures that encircle and compress freedoms
Another deeply concerning aspect relates to the treatment of opposition movements and the freedom to demonstrate. The new rules provide for extraordinary search powers and extended police detentions, often without genuine judicial oversight, as well as the creation of weakened mechanisms of democratic control over police forces and public officials. This orientation conflicts with the constitutional principles of freedom of expression and association, as well as with established case law requiring proportionality and safeguards even in matters of public order.
A flawed vision of security
We reiterated this many times: security cannot be built by responding through solely criminal law to complex social phenomena. Policies based on repression, administrative detention, and harsher penalties do not address the real concerns of citizens. Over the past twenty years, numerous security packages have been adopted, yet the perception of insecurity remains – demonstrating that the chosen approach neither tackles the root causes of the problems nor produces lasting results.
Our appeal to the institutions
CILD will continue to closely monitor legislative developments and to act, together with civil society, to promote solutions that place human rights and constitutional guarantees at their core, enhancing a vision of security that is not synonymous with repression.
Parliament, in its role as guardian of the Constitution, must open a serious and in-depth debate on these issues, placing human dignity, respect for civil liberties, and the role of judicial safeguards at the forefront, rather than pursuing shortcuts that risk eroding the foundations of the rule of law.
