Turin's CIE - International University College of Turin

P A R T B . C O N D I T I O N S O F D E T E N T I O N
This section assesses the conditions of detention inside Turin’s CIE by examining: family
relationships, children and CIE; CIE and prison; practical day-to-day issues in CIE; health and
medical issues; relationships with CIE staff; and relationships between detainees. Each of these
issues are diverse and yet to an extent interrelated, since they all impact detainees’ everyday lives
in detention, their vulnerability and their relative experiences of the conditions within which they
live. Throughout Part B we will paint a picture of what it can mean to be detained inside Turin’s
CIE: a centre that geographically a bus ride away from the parks, piazzas and coffee shops of
Turin, and yet still seems a world away.
I. THE DECISION TO DETAIN
Prior to considering the conditions of detention it is first crucial to remember that in order for a
person to be inside Turin’s CIE, an initial administrative decision must be made by the Italian
authorities to detain that particular migrant. Whilst legal and administrative procedures
pertaining to CIE detention will be discussed in detail in Part C, to an extent the conditions of
detention and the decision to detain are interrelated due to the arbitrariness test under Article 5
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(ECHR) 11 concerning the right to liberty and security of person. The right to liberty and security
of person is also well founded in international law, as per Article 9 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 12 , and Article 3 and Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) 13 .
In particular, Article 5 ECHR limits the circumstances in which the deprivation of liberty is
justifiable, noting that deprivation of liberty must not be arbitrary. The European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR) expressly forbade any detention which violated the prohibitions on
arbitrariness, was unnecessary and disproportionate. In light of the proportionality test, factors
discussed throughout Part B, such as family life, health issues and the nature of detention, will
be relevant to determining if an individual’s detention meets the following Article 5 ECHR nonarbitrariness
test 14 , which provides that immigration detention must:
i. Be carried out in good faith and not involve deception on the part of the authorities;
ii.
iii.
Be closely connected to the purpose of preventing unauthorised entry of the person
to the country or deportation;
The place and conditions of detention must be appropriate, bearing in mind that the
measure is applicable not to those who have committed criminal offences but to
people who have fled from their own country, often in fear for their lives;
11 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature
4 November 1950, ETS 5 (entered into force 3 September 1953 and ratified by Italy 26 October 1955).
12 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 U.N.T.S.
171 (entered into force 23 March 1976).
13 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 at 71 (1948).
14 Saadi v. United Kingdom, 13229/03, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 29 January 2008,
para.74.
16 | P a g e