This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L  ROME 001385 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
DEPT FOR PRM, DRL AND EUR/WE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/19/2010 
TAGS: PREF PHUM PREL SMIG IT UNHCR
SUBJECT: ITALIAN RESPONSE TO CRITICISM ON REFUGEE TREATMENT 
 
REF: A) STATE 72108 B) CAIRO 2682 C) ROME 04 3969 
 
Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Tom Countryman for reasons 
1.5 (b)(d). 
 
¶1. (C)  Summary.  In the face of criticism by UNHCR, the 
European Parliament and center-left politicians, the Italian 
Government continues to defend its policy of quickly 
returning illegal immigrants to Libya.  Ministry of Interior 
officials insist the immigrants are being properly processed 
for asylum claims and that Italy is fulfilling its 
obligations to protect Italian and European borders from 
criminals and terrorists.  MOI remains defensive about its 
immigration procedures, a situation exacerbated by the lack 
of a specific Italian law governing asylum procedures and 
political pressure to control illegal immigration. The 
Northern League Party, a key Berlusconi ally following the 
center-right's dismal performance in regional elections, 
strongly favors reduced immigration, so we do not expect the 
Government will support efforts to make asylum processing 
easier.  End Summary 
 
¶2.  (U)  On March 18, UNCHR issued a press release expressing 
"deep concern" about the chain of events that led to the 
March 17 expulsion to Libya of 180 illegal immigrants.  UNHCR 
stated that its representative was denied access to the 
processing facility in Lampedusa due to "security concerns" 
and expressed doubt that there had been enough time to 
adequately process the immigrants for asylum claims.  Amnesty 
International Italia and opposition members (Greens, 
Democrats of the Left) echoed these concerns.  On March 24, 
the UNHCR representative was granted access to the facility, 
which by then held only 88 immigrants, and found no major 
problems.  On April 13, the European Parliament (EP), citing 
events in Lampedusa, approved a resolution that called on all 
member states to refrain from collective expulsion of asylum 
seekers and "irregular immigrants" to Libya, expressed the 
view that Italian expulsion of migrants to Libya violated the 
principle of 'non refoulment,' and called on Italy to grant 
UNHCR free access to Lampedusa. 
 
Italy Responds 
-------------- 
 
¶3.  (U)  In remarks before the Italian Parliament April 15, 
Undersecretary of State for the Interior Saponara provided a 
response to these criticisms.  Saponara confirmed that 
between 13 March and 5 April, 1,504 illegal aliens, more than 
half of whom were Egyptian, landed at Lampedusa.  Of the 685 
processed at Lampedusa (the others were moved to other 
centers on the mainland), 559 were returned to Libya on 
civilian charter aircraft; 76 were repatriated to Egypt; and 
another 50 were still being processed. 
 
¶4.  (U)  Criticism of Italian policy is based on two 
concerns: that Italian authorities are not properly screening 
the illegal immigrants for asylum concerns and that returning 
immigrants to Libya will endanger their human rights because 
of Tripoli's poor human rights record.  On the latter point, 
Saponara conceded that Libya had not signed the 1951 UN 
Convention on Refugees, but he argued that Libya had signed 
two other international instruments (unspecified) under which 
they were obligated to respect the human rights and integrity 
of refugees.  He made a point of noting that most immigrants 
arrived via boat in trips organized by criminal organizations 
that did not respect human rights; these groups trafficked in 
drugs and persons and presented Italy with a potential 
terrorist threat.  Saponara noted that Lampedusa was an entry 
point for Schenghen, which obligated Italy to defend not only 
its own borders but those of Europe as well. 
 
¶5.  (U)  Saponara reported that representatives of the UN and 
the European Commission's Committee Against Torture had 
visited Lampedusa in November 2004 and found no major 
problems.  Saponara acknowledged there was overcrowding 
(Lamepdusa is an identification center built to house 190 but 
officials there repeatedly have had to deal with over 1,000 
immigrants at a time) by saying that Italy was now moving 
immigrants rapidly to other centers to decrease overcrowding. 
 He stated that the decision to temporarily deny UNCHR access 
to the facility in March was due to security concerns created 
by a sudden influx of immigrants.  He reasserted that 
immigrants receive full emergency medical care and said that 
the five Palestinians and four Sudanese who had asked for 
asylum had been immediately moved to another facility to 
continue their processing. 
 
¶6.  (U)  Other Italian officials have also defended Italy's 
policy.  Stefan Zappala (Forze Italia) of the EP's Justice 
and Home Affairs Commission, accused UNHCR and Amnesty 
International of being unfairly prejudiced against Italy and 
insisted that each immigrant who arrived illegally in 
Lampedusa received proper individual processing.  UNHCR later 
accused Zappala of misrepresenting its position.  Zappala, 
backed by other center-right Italian politicians (National 
Alliance, Northern League) said that Italian authorities had 
taken every measure possible to rescue and properly process 
the immigrants.  Reflecting a widely held belief, the mayor 
of Lampedusa issued a press statement March 15 saying that 
expulsion was the only way to deter further waves of 
immigrants from trying to illegally enter Italy. 
 
UNHCR Views 
----------- 
 
¶7.  (C)  Michele Manca di Nissa, UNHCR's Rome deputy 
representative, described to Laborcouns his recent visits to 
Lampedusa.  He stated he was initially denied access on March 
15 when there were lots of media present, but on a return 
trip alone he was allowed into the Lampedusa facility.  He 
indicated there was one Egyptian interpreter working there, 
and that a Libyan delegation had visited Lampedusa for one 
day in March. (Note: MOI representatives confirmed that under 
Italy's 2004 bilateral agreement with Libya, each has access 
to the other's immigration facilities.  Details about the 
agreement remain sketchy.)  Without being present at the 
interviews, di Nissa stressed he could only speculate about 
procedures. However, based on the numbers, he estimated that 
each deported immigrant was interviewed for perhaps five 
minutes each and was put on a plane within 48 hours.  UNHCR's 
concern was that they were being expelled, not on the basis 
of individual asylum concerns, but on nationality alone.  He 
described Italian identification and temporary detention 
centers as generally good -- "five star hotels compared with 
conditions on Malta."  UNHCR had no information, other than 
media reports, on what happened to the immigrants when they 
arrived back in Libya.  He said when they called to ask about 
the arrival of a plane that left Sicily, the Libyans could 
provide no information on where or if it had landed. 
 
¶7.  (C)  Di Nissa described the situation as an Italian 
administrative emergency based on entirely predictable 
events.  The problem, he said, was that Italy is the only EU 
country without an explicit law outlining asylum procedures. 
He estimated an average of 12,000 immigrants request asylum 
every year but that authorities have no legal basis on which 
to plan for regular influxes.  MOI estimates that the illegal 
immigrants who arrive by boat represent only 15% of the total 
of illegals, or "clandestini."  He insisted that UNCHR did 
not want a confrontation with Italian authorities and that he 
had tried to convince MOI officials that increased 
transparency was in their own interest.  But he said MOI 
remained defensive to a degree that created questions about 
its operations. 
 
¶8.  (C)  Comment:  Based on the data provided, it is clear 
that MOI officials are conducting interviews for asylum, and 
its resources are being stretched by the arrival of recurrent 
waves of illegal immigrants.  MOI's reluctance to share 
information makes it difficult to determine if their 
processing is adequate.  This defensiveness (warranted or 
not) is exacerbated by the lack of a specific asylum 
procedures law and political pressure within the Government 
to appear tough on immigration.  One of Berlusconi's key 
allies, the Northern League Party, strongly supports 
increased immigration controls and, following the 
center-right's dismal performance in regional elections, we 
do not expect the Government will support efforts to make 
asylum processing easier. 
 
MINIMIZE CONSIDERED. 
 
SEMBLER 
 
 
NNNN 
 2005ROME01385 - Classification: CONFIDENTIAL