As the build-up towards the Chisinau Declaration continues, with the corresponding meeting of the Committee of Ministers just days away, the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) has taken a clear stand on some of the issues raised by the “letter of nine”/”statement of 27” States in their demands for revising the ECHR, and in particular the prohibition of torture in its Article 3. In its concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of Italy, adopted on 28 April 2026, the CAT considered the legal characterization of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, taking issue with Italy’s role in the “letter of nine” process (para. 26).
The CAT noted that Italy, through the letter, “asserts that the “scope of ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ under Article 3 [of the European Convention on Human Rights], which is an absolute right, should be constrained to the most serious issues in a manner which does not prevent State Parties from taking proportionate decisions on the expulsion of foreign criminals, or in removal or extradition cases, including in cases raising issues concerning healthcare and prison conditions” (para. 23). In this regard, the Committee expressed its concern that, “while the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is correctly recognized as an absolute right, the State Party appears to assert that the upholding of such right should be subject to a proportionality assessment, including in cases regarding access to healthcare and detention conditions”. In this regard, the CAT urged Italy to “uphold the absolute nature of the principle of non-refoulement under all circumstances, in a non-discriminatory manner, with due cognizance of the non-derogability of the prohibition against torture and all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The CAT also noted its concern that the implementation of the principle of non-refoulement in Italy “appears increasingly undermined by policies that link migration management to security and prioritize deterrence and forced returns” (para. 15). It noted the “extensive list of “safe countries” for returns maintained by the State Party, and expressed its concern about the rights-compatibility of measures taken to manage large-scale migration flows, including allegations about a lack of individualized assessments, arbitrary categorizations based on nationality, pushbacks, chain refoulement, and collective expulsions.
The coming days will show to what extent the Committee of Ministers agrees with the CAT, and is willing to defend the fundamental, absolute, non-derogable protection provided by Article 3 ECHR from political attacks that would narrow its scope, apply it unequally, or undermine its absolute nature. The timing of the CAT’s response is, in any case, excellent: it shows that the ECtHR is not alone in applying the prohibition of torture, and other human rights protections, as key safeguards in the context of migration. Instead, these protections are part of a multi-layered, long-established acquis of human rights protection – one with a fundamental role to play in protecting human dignity.
