Turin's CIE - International University College of Turin

“6(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by
an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be
pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial
in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where
the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or
the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where
publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.”
However, Article 6(1) ECHR does not apply to expulsion and extradition proceedings and there
are only very limited circumstances when it can apply to immigration matters 101 . In fact, this
distinction between rights protection in criminal matters and rights protection in civil or
administrative matters exists both in the ECHR as well as in Italian domestic law and procedure.
There is a big difference between the procedural guarantees and protections that are afforded
to migrants in immigration matters when compared with those rights guaranteed to accused
people in the criminal justice system. Yet, in both cases an individual risks losing their liberty.
Article 13 of the ECHR states:
“13 Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated
shall have an effective remedy before a national authority […].”
Article 13 ECHR exists in order to ensure that there are remedies in national legal orders to
examine and enforce the other rights and freedoms that are protected in the ECHR. Italy is
obliged to provide an effective method of examining whether or not a violation has occurred,
regardless of whether a violation actually occurred. In order to comply with the right to an
effective remedy, the Italian domestic legal regime must ensure the following 102 :
a) The remedy needs to exist institutionally 103 ;
b) The remedy must be adequate 104 ; and
c) The remedy must be available to the individual.
The third requirement that a remedy must be available to the individual is particularly relevant
when considering the extent to which some detainees actually understand what CIE is and what
their personal legal circumstances and options are. For example, Article 13 ECHR has been
interpreted to mean that an asylum seeker must not only have access to an appeal procedure,
but they should also be in a position to initiate such an appeal and that appeal should have a
suspense effect 105 .
101 See for example Maaouia v. France, 39652/98, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 22
March 2000.
102 See Hélène Lambert, The position of aliens in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights,
Council of Europe Publishing (2006), 37-38.
103 Silver and Others v. United Kingdom, 9310/81, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 6
September 1987, para. 113; Leander v. Sweeden, 9248/81, Council of Europe: European Court of Human
Rights, 26 March 1987, paras. 29-30; and Klass and Others v. the Federal Republic of Germany, (Series A, 28)
2 EHRR 214, 6, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 6 September 1978, para. 67.
104 See for example Chahal v. The United Kingdom, 70/1995/576/662, Council of Europe: European Court of
Human Rights, 15 November 1996.
105 Lambert, The position of aliens in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. See also,
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Commission Report on Platform “Ärzte für das Leben” v.
Austria, judgment of 21 June 1988; Recommendation No. R 98(13) of the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe, Explanatory Memorandum, para. 16.
59 | P a g e