Dl Sicurezza, the Csm approves the opinion and turns on the alert on preventive detention: it can broaden police discretion
The plenum approved the opinion on the Security Decree with 15 votes in favour, 7 against and 5 abstentions. The Sixth Commission's document also contains remarks on public demonstrations, 41 bis, collaborators of justice, immigration and international protection
The plenum of the Csm approved the opinion on the Security Decree, passed by the government last February and to be forwarded to the Ministry of Justice. The vote ended with 15 in favour, 7 against and 5 abstentions.
At the heart of the Sixth Commission's opinion are the provisions introduced by the government and 'intended to affect the administration of justice'. The document recalls the regulations on the use of own or improper weapons, those on the prevention of juvenile violence, the measures on the powers of prevention and control at demonstrations in public places, the interventions on the permits for prisoners under 41bis and for prisoners collaborating with the judiciary, as well as the provisions on immigration and international protection.
Among the passages highlighted in the opinion is one dedicated to the new institution of 'preventive detention'. On this point it is stated that 'it would be desirable, when converting the decree, to clarify the characteristics and precise purposes of 'police checks'''.
The opinion then goes into the merits of Article 11 bis and points out that 'in the case of preventive detention under Article 11 bis, the failure to indicate a clear purpose for detaining the person in police stations (moreover, up to twelve hours) would end up unreasonably extending the already wide discretion of police officers'.
According to the document approved by the plenum, the new regulatory intervention 'while responding to a need to prevent violent disturbances caused in the context of public demonstrations, moves on a constitutionally very sensitive ridge so that, for the purposes of its compatibility with Articles 13, 17 and 21 of the Constitution and Article 5 of the ECHR, it seems desirable that, at the time of conversion, the changes are made to conform the new institution to constitutional and supranational principles'.


