On 13 February 2023, the Italian Embassy in Hungary was informed that Ilaria Salis, an Italian national, had been arrested in Budapest two days earlier. She had been taken into custody on charges of armed group violence for assaulting far-right activists during a demonstration. She was accused of being part of organised groups that allegedly planned to attack people present at the demonstration. The Embassy was informed that Ms. Salis was being held in a Budapest prison and that the prosecution was seeking a prison sentence of 11 years.

In 2024, while expressing concern for non-compliance with fair trial and minimum standards on detention, Italy initially only stressed the need to respect Hungary’s sovereignty and the impartiality of its judiciary.[1] On 29 January 2024, the Minister of Justice, Mr. Carlo Nordio, emphasised that “the Hungarian judiciary is sovereign” and that Italy could only take action through diplomatic channels to improve the conditions of detention.[2] Further statements by both Mr. Nordio and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Mr. Antonio Tajani, underlined that the principle of judicial sovereignty of a State would prevent interference in the conduct of the trial and Ms. Salis’s detention status.[3]

In January 2024, however, pictures from the hearing were circulated, showing Ms. Salis being led into the court in chains.[4] This caused increased attention for the events surrounding her arrest, as well as a shift in tone in the declarations of the Italian Government. Although at the beginning of February the President of the Council of Ministers, Ms. Giorgia Meloni, stated that “in several countries, including Western ones, it is common for detainees to be brought to court in this manner” and that it was not “such a rare occurrence”,[5] the Government’s position quickly changed. A few days later, before the Chamber of Deputies (241st Meeting, XIX Legislature, 8 February), Mr. Tajani stated:

[t]he display of the defendant in chains in the courtroom, with the images broadcast on television, had a strong impact on public opinion. It does not, in fact, appear to be in line with the spirit of European law.

He specifically referred to European Union (EU) Directive No. 343 of 2016, which at Article 5 establishes that “Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that suspects and accused persons are not presented as being guilty, in court or in public, through the use of measures of physical restraint”. Italy thus seems to point to a specific violation of EU law by Hungary in the treatment of Ms. Salis, as confirmed by further statements given by Mr. Tajani.[6] On this point, the Italian position was supported at the European level. Answering a parliamentary question on the matter,[7] the European Commission stated that while “detention related matters are primarily a responsibility of the Member States”, “all Member States have committed themselves to respect the standards on this matter drafted by the Council of Europe”.[8] Although less explicitly phrased, the numerous references to the right to a fair trial and the protection of human dignity[9] reflect Italy’s concerns about the legality of Ms. Salis’s detention conditions in Hungary.

Doubts as to such conditions should not be misunderstood as requests for freedom of Ms. Salis.[10] Indeed, all public statements balanced support for Ms. Salis with respect for Hungary’s sovereignty. This emerged fully in the debate concerning the possibility of Ms. Salis spending her pre-trial detention under house arrest. Contrary to the request of Ms. Salis’s lawyer, who asked for the house arrest to be served in Italy, the Government took a strong stance on the steps that had to be taken in the matter. Already on 11 January 2024 (Senate of the Republic, 144th Meeting), in a reply to parliamentary question no. 3-00849, Mr. Nordio stated that in the absence of a final conviction, “no international convention or other instrument allows for the enforcement of pre-trial detention measures in the country of origin”. The Minister pointed to the 2009 Council Framework Decision on the principle of mutual recognition of measures alternative to pre-trial detention[11] as the only instrument that could, possibly, allow Ms. Salis to be brought back to Italy.[12] For the Decision to apply, however, Ms. Salis had first to obtain a measure alternative to pre-trial detention, such as house arrest in Hungary, which was ultimately granted on 16 May 2024.[13] The possibility for Ms. Salis to serve house arrest in the Italian Embassy in Hungary was also a matter of controversy. Representatives of the Italian Government strongly opposed this proposal, deeming it impossible due to the legal peculiarities of an embassy. Although Mr. Tajani first declared that he would not oppose this option in principle,[14] on 8 February 2024, before the Senate (156th Meeting), he stated:

The embassy is not a suitable place for the enforcement of coercive measures; it lacks both the facilities and the legal standing to serve as a substitute for a private residence as a place of detention. This is not a principled objection, but rather a practical one – it is virtually impossible to hold any detainee inside an embassy. We have 2,405 of them [i.e., Italian citizens detained in a foreign country] and not all of our embassies are equipped, if need be, to accommodate Italian detainees – whether awaiting trial or already convicted – who might request to serve their detention in an Italian embassy rather than in a foreign prison.

Other reasons for this opposition were outlined by the Minister of Justice, including the presence of confidential documents in the embassy, as well as the impossibility, for the Hungarian police, to freely enter the diplomatic premises to check on Ms. Salis.[15] During the same meeting before the Senate, faced with the comparison with the case of the two Italian marines who, accused of killing two Indian fishermen in 2012,[16] were allowed to stay in the Italian Embassy in New Delhi, Mr. Tajani promptly distinguished the two cases, declaring:

The case of the marines […] is not truly comparable, because the alleged offense was committed on an Italian vessel in international waters. Italy immediately challenged the jurisdiction of the Indian authorities, giving rise to an international dispute in which it ultimately prevailed. […] The case of Ms. Salis is different, as Italy is not contesting – nor can it contest – Hungarian jurisdiction, since every State has the right to exercise criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed on its own territory.

In conclusion, Italy’s position on the arrest and detention of Ms. Salis, who was ultimately released following her election as a Member of the European Parliament,[17] was marked by extreme caution and a notably formalist approach to the law, especially that of the European Union.[18] While this stance may reflect the will not to infringe foreign sovereignty, it remains debatable whether there was a genuine concern about the risk of violating the principle of non-interference or whether Italy’s restraint was instead politically motivated. If coercion is the benchmark for interference,[19] then a mere request – e.g., for an Italian citizen to serve house arrest in Italy – does not seem to meet the threshold of unlawful conduct. In any event, since under a well-established rule of customary law a minimum standard of treatment is owed to foreign nationals facing trial and detention,[20] requests presented by Italy on Ms. Salis’ detention could have possibly been framed as a legitimate exercise of its right to raise concerns about violations of its citizens’ rights abroad.

Caterina Milo

A quotable version of this post was published in the Italian Yearbook of International Law: Milo, “The Arrest and Detention of Ilaria Salis in Hungary”, IYIL XXXIV (2024), 2025, pp. 422-426; available here.

---

[1] “Consiglio europeo straordinario, punto stampa del Presidente Meloni”, 1 February 2024.

[2] “Caso Salis, Nordio: ‘Immagini molto dure, ci stiamo attivando’”, giustizia news online, 29 January 2024.

[3] “Caso Salis, i Ministri Tajani e Nordio incontrano il padre”, giustizia news online, 5 February 2024.

[4] “Italy lodges protest after citizen led in chains into Budapest court”, The Guardian, 30 January 2024.

[5] See supra note 1.

[6] During a joint session of the Committee on Foreign and European Community Affairs (III) of the Chamber and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence (3rd) of the Senate, held on 30 January 2024, he affirmed that while the State has “no power to bring a detainee back to Italy from a foreign country”, it can protest through institutional channels and public statements if there is a belief “that certain regulations are not being respected in another country”, including, in particular, “Article 1 of the European directive concerning the treatment of pre-trial detainees, which states that such individuals must be treated in a manner proportionate to the fact that they have not been convicted”.

[7] “Question for written answer E-000304/2024“, 31 January 2024.

[8] “Answer given by Mr Reynders on behalf of the European Commission”, 18 March 2024.

[9] See supra note 1; statement of Mr. Tajani before the Chamber (241st Meeting) on 8 February 2024; Mr. Tajani’s reply to parliamentary question no. 3-00985 before the Chamber on 14 February 2024 (244th Meeting); statement of Mr. Tajani before the Senate (156th Meeting) on 8 February 2024.

[10] In this sense the case of Ms. Salis was distinguished from that of Mr. Gabriele Marchesi, an Italian citizen detained in Italy under a European arrest warrant issued by the Hungarian courts, on the same charges brought against Ilaria Salis. In the latter case, Italy could directly intervene by denying the extradition request as Mr. Marchesi was already in the country. This was outlined by Mr. Tajani in his response to parliamentary question no. 3-00985 (cit. supra note 9).

[11] Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention.

[12] This was further restated in the replies of Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Mr. Giorgio Silli, to parliamentary questions nos. 4-00923 and 4-00912 before the Senate (150th Meeting) on 24 January 2024.

[13] Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Tajani: ‘Credit goes to the Embassy, rather than those who raised the tone’”, 16 May 2024.

[14] See Mr. Tajani’s response to parliamentary question no. 3-00985 (cit. supra note 9).

[15] Ibid.

[16] For an overview of the case, see the articles by Cataldi, Marotti, Nigro, and Ronzitti in IYIL, Vol. XXX, 2020.

[17] “Italian activist Ilaria Salis to be released following her election as an MEP”, Euronews, 10 June 2024; “Italian activist freed from Budapest house arrest after being elected MEP”, The Guardian, 14 June 2024.

[18] In the 156th Meeting of the Senate (cit. supra note 9), Mr. Tajani stated: “[t]he only path available to us for an offense committed in a Member State of the Union is that of following the rules”.

[19] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports, 1986, p. 14 ff., para. 205.

[20] See, inter alia, Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No. 21: Article 10 (Humane Treatment of Persons Deprived of Their Liberty), 1992. See also Dickerson, “Minimum Standards”, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2010.