Child Protection for Unaccompanied (Foreign) Minors: Local Organizations in Italy

(1)

Child Protection for Unaccompanied (Foreign)

Minors: Local Organizations in Italy

Name: Ana Margarida Marques de Abreu Soares dos Santos Student Number: 3259919

University of Groningen

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Joost Herman

Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict Ruhr University Bochum

Supervisor: Mrs. Mais Masadeh Master Thesis (20 ECTS)

April 2018 This thesis is submitted for obtaining a Joint Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action. By submitting the thesis, the author certifies that the text is coming from his own hand, does not include the work of someone else unless clearly indicated, and that the thesis has been produced in accordance with proper academic practices.

(2)

Abstract:

The need for non-governmental organisations result from an ineffective government attempt to guarantee the safety, protection and rights of its citizens. Nevertheless, the increasing number of NGOs throughout the years has made it impossible to guarantee adequate resources for all. Hence, the international non-governmental organisations tend to prevail, even though their actions tend to be delayed due to the increasing amount of policies and bureaucracy. The migratory history of Italy, added to the value of religion, has created throughout the years an extremely resilient communal charity network. This, together with the government’s dichotomy between the need of a better protection for refugees and the need for a higher migration control, resulted in the emersion of numerous local organisations in attempts to fulfil basic needs of refugees and migrants. It was only in May 2017 that a specific law for unaccompanied minors was put in place, known as the legge zampa. This law aims to tackle the major critiques against the protection of unaccompanied minors in Italy, such as staff training, guardianship practices and identification processes.

This research paper will be based on extensive literature and semi-structured interviews. Through these resources, it will attempt to understand both the role and the potential of local organisations, as well as the possible changes that may outcome from the zampa law in the future.

Legge zampa may potentially eradicate all the critiques previously made to the protection of

unaccompanied minors in Italy, if all actors involved behave accordingly. However, local organisations are not being used to their full potential. Instead, they mostly depend on international organisations through a referral system due to lack of resources. Thus, the paper will conclude by regarding the benefits of involving local organisations towards the reinforcement of child protection for unaccompanied minors in Italy.

(3)

Preface:

This thesis is inspired on ‘Help Refugees’, the non-governmental organisation where I worked for 6 months in Calais. This grassroots organisation began with a dozens of dreamers who could not stand and watch the continuous injustice and lack of conditions in which human beings were living just across the border of the United Kingdom. Now, Help Refugees is aiding refugees across eight countries worldwide, including Lebanon and Syria.

My wish was to investigate NOHA’s main theme of 2016/2017, localisation. Having witnessed first-hand how European Union member states have failed unaccompanied minors, added to the amazing experience of working alongside such passionate and amazing human beings for 6 months, it would only make sense that I would write a thesis that joins both these factors. On one side, the failure of the governments which is translated on the suffering of unaccompanied minors. On the other, the potential of the common people doing amazing things and the outstanding work delivered by local, grassroots, community and volunteer-based organisations.

Thank you to all volunteers who helped and contributed for the creation of ‘Help Refugees’, as well as other non-governmental organisations, from the ground up. You are my daily inspiration.

Thank you to all Unaccompanied Minors who I have met and worked with in “The Jungle”, particularly ‘Shibly’, Saleh, ‘Bambino’ and ‘Kai’. You are my heroes.

(4)

Abbreviations/Acronyms:

Ai.Bi: Amici dei Bambini

ANCI: Associazione Nazionale Comuni Italiani

ASGI: Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione CEAS: Common European Asylum System

CFM: Committee for Foreign Minors CIR: Consiglio Italiano Rifugiati

CNCA: Coordinamento Nazionale Comunita di Accoglienza CRC: UN Convention of the rights of the Child

DOCM: Prime Ministerial Decree

EASO: European Asylum Support Office ECHR: European Convention on Human Rights EMN: European Migration Network

EU: European Union

ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights INGO/INGOs: International Non-Governmental Organization/s

IOM: International Organisation for Migration MEDU Doctors for Human Rights

NGO/NGOs: Non-Governmental Organisation

RRMRP: Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan UFM/UMFs: Unaccompanied Foreign Minor/s

UAMs: Unaccompanied Foreign Minors UMs: Unaccompanied Minors

UN: United Nations

UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund

(5)

Introduction

Protecting any Unaccompanied Minor (UM) is the obligation of any European Union (EU) state members. Nevertheless, national governments find themselves conflicted with the necessity of protecting children who come unaccompanied from a third world country, versus protecting their own population by increasing migration control. Consequently, the governmental inaction results in an increased involvement of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in efforts to protect these minority groups. In the case of Italy, religion, civil society and the private sector have always played crucial roles in regards to the aid provision and protection of minorities. Added to the inefficient public systems in response to the migration influx, these roles have been translated in a resilient charity network through the support and active participation of the community.

Hence, the first objective of the research is to fully understand the role of local NGOs within the child protection system of UMs. Italy will be the country in focus, given its extensive migration history, added to the crucial role of the country as a point of arrival and transit towards other European countries. Besides their level of involvement, the research also aims to understand the extent to which local NGOs are able to provide protection for UFMs. In order to comprehend this, the research will be based in varied and extensive literature, coupled with semi-structured interviews.

Followed by a brief description of the background, as well as the research’s aim, question and methodology, the third chapter is dedicated to the clarification and definition of the research main concepts: Child Protection, Unaccompanied Minors and Local Organisations. The clarification is essential, given the variety of assumptions that may arise when settling for the definition of a word, thus, it is crucial to settle upon a single one. Additionally, within the definition of Unaccompanied Minor, the research also focuses on the Italian context of the word, given that in Italy it is termed ‘Unaccompanied Foreign Minors’ (UFMs). Similarly, the

(7)

definition of International Organisations will also be included within the definition of local organisations, given their importance throughout the research.

In attempts to fully understand the UFMs rights, the fourth chapter is dedicated to the revision of relevant laws protecting UFMs at all levels - International, European and National. Besides learning the rights of UFMs, this chapter also allows an understanding in regards to the evolution of the legal frameworks protecting the group. Thus, it is also an opportunity to revise and comprehend the development of these laws over time and the attention given by the International, European and Italian community to the issue.

The following chapter will focus on understanding UFMs and their experience, which will be done through the analysis of the UFMs history and migration process. Thus, it starts with a statistical review of UFMs, in order to numerically understand their impact and increase throughout the years. This review will then be followed by a theoretical analysis of the existing types of UFMs, as well as the reasons leading to the minor’s decision of adventuring himself through the Mediterranean Sea. Posteriorly, the third sub-chapter is dedicated to the process of asylum. This will allow an understanding of the UFMs experience as asylum-seekers, as well as the existing gaps created by the national institutions in the current child protection mechanisms provided to the group in Italy. Finally, the fifth chapter is concluded by a review of the recent, first ever law specifically oriented for UFMs in Italy, the zampa law. Even though the migratory history in Italy is extensive, it was only in May 2017 that this subject-oriented law was put in place. Prior to this date UFMs were under the law of national minors who were either abused or put under the care of social services for any other reason. Given the International praise towards legge zampa, it is crucial to review its potential impact towards the current child protection legislation for UFMs, as well as towards the various agencies and actors involved in the process. This review is fundamental for the prediction of possible future

(8)

improvements, not only towards the current child protection mechanisms for UFMs, but also towards local organisations.

The sixth chapter marks the beginning of the empirical chapters, starting with the analysis of the various agencies involved in the protection of UFMs in Italy. Accordingly, understanding the agencies involved and learning about each of their roles individually allows us to verify their competences, as well as their contributions and weaknesses. Additionally, given the aim of the research, it is imperative to make a comparison between the involvement of international and local NGOs in the Italian child protection system for UFMs. This will then be followed by regarding the need for an integrated child protection system, inclusive for both local NGOs and community actors.

Given that local organisations have limited resources, preventing them from fully protecting vulnerable groups, the last chapter will be dedicated to a review regarding the potential of these local, volunteer and community-based, grassroots organisations in protecting UFMs. It will review their potential in providing basic emergency child protection services - shelter and food - as well as improve certain areas of protection, such as advocacy, guardianship and integration of the UFMs. The aim is to understand their potential and the extension to which local organisations have the ability of providing help, given their particular status within society and considering that International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) will integrate them more further in the future, specially after the full implementation of the zampa law.

This research fails to provide solutions to the current issue of child protection of UFMs. However, due to the uncertainty regarding the outcomes of the recent legge zampa, the research will hopefully allow for a future comparison between the expectations and the reality of the implementation of this law. Accordingly allowing to verify how it has affected local organisations and their integration amongst INGOs.

(9)

2.

Background, Aim, Research Question and Methodology

2.1 Background

Although migration has always been associated with the adult population, Europe has witnessed a steady rise of children and teenagers travelling through land and see to seek refuge (Rania, et al., 2014). Through 2015 and 2016, one in every four applicants for asylum in the EU was a minor (European Commission, 2016a). Just in 2015, a total of 48 million minors worldwide were displaced from their homes, out of these 48 million, 17 million were internally displaced, 11 million were refugees and 20 million were migrants. Throughout a period of 6 years - from 1st of January 2011 to December 2016 - a total of 85.937 minors arrived to Italy, from which 62.672 (72.9%) were unaccompanied by any adult or legal guardian. The fact that unaccompanied minors (UMs) lack strong protection systems during the hardship of the migration process, such as family, makes them undeniably the most vulnerable group towards the risks of migration (Save the Children 2017). The increasing number of official reports regarding suicide (Dearden, 2017), sexual abuse, human trafficking and exploitation (Hodal, 2017), as well as a serious rise of mental health issues (FRA, 2017) within underage migrants, reflects the emergency in prioritizing and guaranteeing effective protection and support mechanisms for UMs.

The research will focus in Italy, given its extensive migration history, added to the crucial role of the country as a point of arrival and transit towards other European countries. The fact that an increasing number of UMs don’t seek to claim asylum in Italy makes them even more vulnerable and unprotected, given the current legislation which prioritizes protection towards actual asylum seekers (Prandelli, 2015).

The protection mechanisms provided to unaccompanied minors in Italy are dependent on the International, European and National legal frameworks. Internationally, minors are protected for the sole reason of being children by one of the most ratified treaties in the world, the

(10)

Convention on the Rights of a Child (1989) and the Geneva Convention on Refugee Status (1951). By European standards, UMs are protected by the European Convention of Human Rights (1950), European Convention on the exercise of children’s right (1996) and the Common European Asylum System, created in 1999. Lastly, UMs depend on the Italian law, which not only meets the objectives of international and regional laws, but has also put into effect on May 2017 provisions on measures to protect this particular group, known as “Zampa Law”.

Nevertheless, although it would seem like an easy task to fulfil, the continuous upsurge of UMs arriving to Italy makes this group increasingly difficult to track by international organisations and national authorities (Borghi and Santarossa, 2012). Furthermore, the lack of monitoring and tracing of UMs, added to the inexistent common legislative framework, results in difficult integration experiences by these minors (Signori, 2016). Consequently, the lack of effective public and social systems, which are particularly witnessed in the south of Europe - Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal – resulted, throughout the years, on a rise of religious charities, local NGOs and an increased involvement of the private sector towards providing aid to refugees and asylum-seekers from all groups (Puggioni, 2005).

2.2 Aim & Research Question

Given the fractured protection mechanisms provided to UMs by the public sector, the aim of this research is to find how local organizations fill these gaps. Thus, the research aims to understand how local organizations have the ability to create a more solid support to children who, not only seek asylum in the country, but also to those who chose to move to another country in order to reunify with their family or for any other reason. Ultimately, the research aims to comprehend the extent to which local organizations are able to fill this gap from the inadequate legal frameworks in Italy.

(11)

Even though migration is such a frequent and increasing matter in the country, there is undoubtedly a lack of attention given by the academia in regards to refugees in Italy (Puggioni, 2005). Thus, I believe that this research will be an attempt to deepen the limited existing findings and hopefully build a bridge towards new future studies.

Throughout my personal experience in Calais refugee camp “The Jungle”, I have witnessed, first-hand, the importance of local organizations in fulfilling gaps created by INGOs and the government authorities, especially in regards to children on the move. Hence, and given the intention to explain and describe the problem with child protection towards UMs - whilst also looking into the role and the potential of local organisations towards this issue – the research question will be based in understanding what is the role of local organisations in protecting unaccompanied minors arriving to Italy. This empirical research is an attempted explanation of the relationship between local organisations and the enforcement/effectiveness of child protection provided in Italy to this group.

Furthermore, the continuous disappearances of UMs, the drastic increase on child trafficking and the constant news regarding suicides committed by lone minors reflect the emergency in including and considering local and community-based organizations in the provision of child protection. Hence, the research will not only question their level of involvement, but also, to what extent can local organisations, due to their position in society, able to achieve a high level of success in protecting UMs. For this latest, the main hypothesis focuses on the fact that, due to their size and local staff, local organizations tend to deal with less bureaucracy, thus, have an increased facilitation of movement and are able to provide aid at a faster pace, as well as in a more straightforward manner. Hence, the last chapter of the research will be dedicated to the understanding of the potential of local NGOs in areas where they are able to intervene and support UMs.

(12)

2.3 Methodology & Limitation

The research will commence with the definition of the main concepts: Child Protection; Unaccompanied Minors; and Local Organisations. These definitions will be followed by an attempt to understand the target population by looking into the increase of unaccompanied minors in Italy in efforts to comprehend the statistics, as well as their process in arriving to Europe. Furthermore, there will be a revision regarding the International, European and National laws which are meant to protect UMs, in order to understand their rights and verify the level of attention given by the national and international community. This latter step will allow the comprehension in regards to the evolution and functioning of child protection mechanisms, as well as the gradual priority given to them. After the brief definitions and better understanding of the target population, as well as the laws which are meant to protect them, the research will then focus on the child protection process provided to UMs in Italy. It is essential to go through the process of how child protection is provided to UMs by the Italian system, in order to identify any existing gaps. These steps mentioned above will be done through extensive literature of books, articles, laws and official reports of both INGOs and national authorities.

Given the research purpose, the analysis made throughout will be both comprehensive and comparative. Furthermore, an evaluation will be done, between the role of INGOs in comparison with local NGOs, in efforts to understand, not only the different roles played by the agencies meant to protect UMs, but also the potential of local NGOs in strengthening the existent UM protection mechanisms in Italy. This analysis will require, not only extensive literature regarding protection methods and analysis of data provided, but also, semi-structured interviews with local NGOs working in child protection for unaccompanied minors in Italy, such as Centro Astalli and Baobab.

The literature review was mainly based in scholar articles, news and official reports. Initial readings have shown that there is still limited number of academic articles which regard

(13)

unaccompanied minors in Italy, especially when specifically linked with localisation. Initial readings have also indicated that risks of an ineffective child protection mechanism include trafficking, exploitation, radicalisation, mental health issues and integration issues. Although this research will fail to provide solutions to the issue, it will provide information regarding the failures of the existent protection mechanisms and explain how can localisation be of better use in order to strengthen the child protection of UMs arriving to Italy. Furthermore, given the depth of information regarding certain aspects of the conditions, processes and laws, I believe that this research will also allow a comparison between the theory and practice methods of UMs protection in Italy. Thus, by understanding the process and agencies involved, we will learn both the positive and the negative versions of the system, allowing us to detect the failures and hopefully be able to amend them. Nevertheless, the research’s purpose is not to detect the system’s failures, nor try to solve any kind of issue, but rather to focus on one particular aspect of the system: local organisations.

Given the use of both quantitative and qualitative methods, the research will have a more pragmatic approach, thus, allowing an increased flexibility in regards to the interpretation, data sources and research method. In regards to the limitations of the research, the main one would be the language, given that official and most INGO’s reports are written in Italian. Additionally, the fact that the research fails to perceive the UM’s own personal perspectives may potentially be perceived as an ethical issue. The implementation of the Zampa law may also be considered a limitation, given its potential to outdate recently collected information.

3.

Definitions

Starting with the definitions of the key concepts is imperial, given the variety of assumptions that may rise from a word. Thus, the research will start with the clarification of the definitions of the main key words – Unaccompanied Minors; Child Protection; Local Organization

.

It is

(14)

not only important to agree upon one single definition, but also to look into the definitions in Italy, given the important role of the country in this research. Thus, I will start by looking into the broad definition of the key words, moving onto the more specific definitions that are found and utilized in Italy.

3.1 Unaccompanied Minor & Unaccompanied Foreign Minor

It is extremely important to keep in mind that an unaccompanied minor is, first and foremost, a child, which according to the Article 1 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) is “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. The definition of the term ‘unaccompanied minors’ can be found in various governmental and organizational documents. For instance, it can be found in article 2(l) in the Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and Council (13th December 2011) – “‘unaccompanied minor’ means a minor who arrives on the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by an adult responsible for him or her whether by law or by the practice of the Member State concerned, and for as long as he or she is not effectively taken into the care of such a person; it includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he or she has entered the territory of the Member States”. Additionally, the official definition of UNHCR of UM’s is “…a person who is under the age of eighteen, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier, and who is separated from both parents and is not being cared for by an adult who by law or custom has responsibility to do so” (UNHCR, 1997)

Not only is the definition important but it is equally essential to notice the terminology used in each country. Hernandez (2007) states that the terminology chosen in each nationality reflects the extent of protection measures regarding the minor. For instance, Italy uses the terminology “Unaccompanied Foreign Minors”, as opposed to most European countries, which normally refer to this group as “Unaccompanied asylum-seekers” or “Unaccompanied refugee minors”,

(15)

reflecting their limitations towards assisting and favouring migrants or refugees. Thus, it is important to look into the Italian definition of their own terminology, which defines Unaccompanied Foreign Minor (UFMs) in accordance with the “Regulation in the tasks of the Committee for Foreign Minors, as minors who are not nationals of Italy neither of other European Union Member States, who have not applied for asylum and are, for any reason, in the territory of the State without assistance and representation by parents or other adults legally responsible for them under the law force in Italian law (DPCM, 1999). Nevertheless, Directive 2001/55/CE brought a new similar, yet updated definition for this group – according to article 2(f) of the decreto legislativo, UFMs are minors who are not residents from the European Union or are stateless individuals under the age of eighteen who were abandoned before or after entering the territory (Decreto Legislativo, 2003). Thus, the fact that the child is applying for asylum is no longer a determinant factor to be considered a UFM. Lastly, the new so-called ‘Zampa Law’ for provision of protection measures for UFMs defines the group as a minor who is neither an Italian or European Union resident, who is for any reason in the territory of the state or is subjected to Italian jurisdiction, without assistance and representation of parents or other adults legally responsible for him under current Italian laws (Commissione Parlamentare, 2017, Art.2).

Given that the research refers to the protection of unaccompanied minors in Italy, this research, from now on, will use the Italian definition and terminology – Unaccompanied Foreign Minors.

3.2 Child Protection & Protection of Unaccompanied Minors

When looked upon the dictionary, the meaning of protection is “the act of protecting or state of being protected” (Cambridge Dictionary 2018). And, as mentioned before, a child is an individual under the age of eighteen (UN Convention of the Rights on the Child, 1989). Nevertheless, protection may come in various forms. According to UNICEF (2006) the concept

(16)

of ‘child protection’ refers to the prevention and response towards exploitation, abuse and violence against minors. In order for child protection to be efficient it is imperative to respect the fundamental rights of the child which are outlined by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989). A total of 16 out of the 54 articles are specifically dedicated to child protection, which will be further explained in chapter 4.1. Having ratified the CRC in 1991, the Italian laws regarding minors attempt to respect and enforce child protection measures. Furthermore, frequently INGO’s have guidelines regarding child protection and, more specifically, protection of unaccompanied minors. For instance, the guidelines by International Organization for Migration (IOM) contain, not only the definition and the principles of protection of unaccompanied minors, but also the necessary assessment and measures, the specific protection needs, and the long term options. It is imperial to look into the specific protection needs in order to understand how child protection is done towards such a vulnerable group. Thus, according to IOM, it is crucial to (a) guarantee the appointment of the guardian; (b) provide care and accommodation arrangements; (c) maintain access to quality education throughout all phases of migration; (d) guarantee access to health to unaccompanied children through all phases of the migration cycle; (e) implementation of legal and practical measures which covers the vulnerability to exploitation experienced by unaccompanied minors; (f) specific measures for child soldiers; (g) avoid, or even gradually abolish detention centres for unaccompanied minors; (h) in case of juvenile offenders, strictly follow international standards by CRC and the United nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice; (i) protect children from forced labour and exploitation but also differentiate “work” from “exploitation” in order to facilitate employment of children (between 15-18, depending on the legislation of the state); (j) ensure the training of staff working with unaccompanied minors. When these guidelines are followed, the provision of child protection for UMs is guaranteed at a greater level (IOM, 2011).

(17)

3.3 Local and International Organisations

The definition of local organisations used in this research will be in accordance to the Oxfam Research Report “Turning the Humanitarian System on its Head” by Gingerich and Cohen (2015). Thus, the term ‘local’ refers to the services and actors from the crisis-affected country, such as local organisations, local actors or local partners. The meaning of local extents to operations ran in between communities, as well as at a sub-national and national level. Hence, it may range from an organisation working in a village, to an organisation working across the whole country. Although it is important to consider the authors differentiation of International NGOs (works across two or more countries), National NGOs (works across most of a whole certain country) and Local NGOs (operates within a limited area of a certain country), given the purpose of the research, local and national NGOs will be treated equally.

According to Allen and Thomas (2000, pp.212), at a national level, NGOs include “…Western-style human rights or conservationist (…) indigenous, national (and provincial) service-providing NGOs – mostly concerned with welfare and rural development. (…) Lastly, there are membership organizations which exist to further their members interests. The term ‘grassroots organizations’ is often used to refer to local organizations of this type.”. Hence, the latter implies also a more ‘volunteer-based’ type of organisation, project or association, where the community comes together for a certain purpose and cause. Therefore, throughout the present research, local, national and grassroots organizations will be interpreted as one, given that the main aim is to contrast the local humanitarian services provided with the international and governmental services.

Given the comparison between Local and International on chapter 6.2, added to the clear importance within the Italian child protection system, it is equally important to assert on a clear definition of what is an International NGO, besides the fact that it works across two or more

(18)

countries. Accordingly, there are two different types; campaigning and charitable or service-providing. The first one being organizations like Greenpeace and the latest being organisations such as Save the Children and INTERSOS. (Allen and Thomas, 2000)

Lastly, it would be crucial to mention the importance of UN specialized agencies within the present research. Even though these agencies will be mentioned on chapter 6.2 - throughout the comparison of local vs. international - as international NGOs, to differentiate INGOs and UN agencies is common basic knowledge. The two UN agencies that will be mentioned, given their importance towards the protection of UFMs in Italy, is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

4.

Laws Protecting Unaccompanied Minors

Given the importance of understanding the protection that UFMs are intituled to, this chapter will attempt to attentively review the International, European and National laws protecting UFMs. The chapter is divided in three sub-chapters – International, European and Italian - which will result in a multileveled understanding of UFMs rights, both as migrants and children.

Additionally, further along the research, this chapter will also allow us to have a global vision of the legal framework put in place, versus the protection that UFMs receive. Hence, a better understanding of the controversy suffered by UFMs in Europe, in regards to the fact that they are both unaccompanied minors – implying a high level of vulnerability, innocence and passivity – and migrants/refugees, which increasingly sets the image of cunning and danger. It is therefore natural to wonder if the States rather enforce migration control legislations to prevent UFMs from coming, or if they are more concerned with strengthening protection mechanisms towards the UFMs who are already in the territory. According to the Prandelli (2015, pp.18), “at first glance the representations and rhetoric that prevails is that attachment

(19)

to minors and their protection, regardless their status. The tensions emerging from being at the interstice between the interests of the state to control migration and its duty of protecting minors are not immediately evident”.

4.1 International

Children have their rights universally protected mainly under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (Prandelli, 2015).

Nevertheless, in regards to unaccompanied children, the main international protection tool is the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC), which envisions care and protection for children in any given circumstance and “incorporates the most comprehensive standards concerning children (including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights)” (Borghi and Santarossa, 2012, pp.13). UNICEF (n.d.) regards numerous articles in the CRC which specifically regard protection: The protection of rights (art. 4); Kidnapping (art. 11); Protection from all forms of violence (Article 19); Children deprived of family of family environment (art. 20); Adoption (Article 21); Child Labour (art. 32); Drug Abuse (art. 33); Sexual exploitation (Article 34); Abduction, sale and trafficking (Article 35); Other forms of exploitation (Article 36); Detention and exploitation (Article 37); War and armed conflicts (art. 38); Rehabilitation of child victims (art. 39); Juvenile justice (Article 40); Respect for superior standards (art. 41). Additionally, article 22 mentions specifically refugee children, however, all other articles mentioned above fit into the protection that should be provided to UFMs, because, first and foremost, children are children and should be respected as such. Other articles which are worth pointing out are the principle of non-discrimination (art. 2), best interest of the child (article 3) and the right of the child to express his/her views freely (article 12) (UN, 1989). These are worth mentioning given the increasing discussions regarding the participation

(20)

of the child in the decision-making process, which, according to Prandelli (2015, pp.25), it “is in fact a crucial aspect of the concept of protection itself”.

Furthermore, in order to call attention to this specific group, the General Comment nº6 ‘Treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin’ was developed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in 2005, explicitly stating that all children, no matter their state or form of migration, are included in the set of rights envisioned by the CRC. Additionally, it emphasizes the need to prioritize UFMs when it comes to the right of the child (article 4) given their vulnerable state compared to other children (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2005). The purpose of the document is not only to draw attention to the UFMs, but also to provide “guidance on the protection, care and proper treatment of unaccompanied and separated children on the basis of the legal framework provided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child” (Borghi and Santarossa, 2012, pp.14).

Nevertheless, according to Bissel et. al (2009, pp.7/8), although CRC succeeds to supply a general framework to implement, conceptualize and analyse child protection, “it has definitional limitations with problematic implications for children’s well-being”, which is better understood when we look into the conceptualization of protection and realize that it ranges from armed conflict to more specific individual risks such as family abuse. Thus, the concept includes “such a wide range of practices and circumstances within a single generic construct that it is hard to identify features that are common to all protection infringements”. However, although I recognize the challenge of conceptualizing and applying protection, I also agree with Prandelli (2015, pp.25) when the author states that “ (…) if we consider CRC’s rights jointly a holistic view of protection emerges and can be applied to every child, including UASC without neglecting the specificity of each case”.

(21)

4.2 European

Created in 1996, the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights took place in order to ensure and promote children’s rights. With the increase of unaccompanied children’s migration movement throughout the 90’s it became urgent to create a tools and institutions that would be capable to manage the phenomenon (Council of Europe, 1996; Prandelli, 2015). Thus, the Council of the European Union (1997) developed the ‘European Council Resolution on Unaccompanied Minors who are Nationals of Third Countries’, with the main purpose of establishing “...guidelines for the treatment for unaccompanied minors, with regard to matters such as the conditions for their reception, stay and return and, in the case of asylum seekers, the handling of applicable procedures” (Council of the European Union, 1997, Art. 1.3). Hence, the resolution includes minimum guarantees for all UFMs, as well as guidelines regarding the procedure of asylum.

Furthermore, since the creation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), several mechanisms have been created in order to guarantee freedom, security and justice. Based in the 1951 Geneva Convention and followed by the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999), the CEAS was created in 1999 by the European Council and it was one of the efforts made by the European Union to guarantee harmonization amongst State members towards asylum-seekers (Signorini, 2016). This system was first agreed upon during a EU Summit meeting in Tampere with the intent of underlining the ‘non-refoulement’ principle, thus, to ensure that people would not be sent back to their origin countries. Presently, CEAS consists in the provision of minimum standards that State Members should follow when providing asylum, as well as legal frameworks regarding all the aspects of the process of asylum (Baldin and Zago, 2017). In May 2016 the European Commission presented proposals to reform CEAS, which included child-specific provisions for accompanied and unaccompanied minors (European Commission, 2016), nevertheless, “the shortcomings of the CEAS and the disregard in its implementation

(22)

reveal that the current harmonising approach has failed to provide suitable legal framework” (Baldin and Zago, 2017, pp.70). It is also important to point out that both CEAS and the Resolution on Unaccompanied Minors who are Nationals of Third Countries only regard children who apply for asylum or international protection in the EU.

In regards to the specific sub-group of UFMs - who are applying for asylum or international protection in a Member State - the EU has other relevant provisions which give special attention to UFMs regarding minimum standards on reception of asylum seekers (Council Directive 2003/9/EC, art.2(h), art.17-19), as well as on the qualification and status of third country nationals, refugees or people granted international protection (Council Directive 2004/83/EC, art. 2(i), art. 20.3, and art. 30) and on the procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (Council Directive 2005/85/EC, art. 2(h), art.2(i), art.6.4(b), and art. 17). Other pointed out provisions which make “reference to the child’s best interests and the non-discrimination principles set in the Convention on the right of the child” also include directives regarding common standards on return of third-country nationals (Council Directive 2008/115/EC, art. 3.9, art.17 and art.10) and family reunification (Council Directive 2003/86/EC, art.2(f) and art.7.3). Lastly, UFMs are also mentioned and considered in the Dublin II Regulation (Council of the European Union, 2003, art.2(h), art.6 and art.15.3), stating that, in accordance to the best interest of the minor, the responsibility of examining the asylum application of the UFM is the Member State in which a family member is legally residing (Art.6). The Dublin Regulation works through a fingerprint database which includes the fingerprint of both asylum applicants and people who have been detained due to irregular crossing of the boarder and thus, identified. Overall, there are several provisions which take in consideration UFMs and their high levels of vulnerability in various issues such as family tracing, legal representation, accommodation and access to the health and education system. (Borghi and Santarossa, 2012, pp.14-15)

(23)

4.3 Italian

Although all international and European legal frameworks have influence on the Italian national law (given that the country participated or ratified), it is still of utmost importance to look into the Italian legal mechanisms of child protection (Prandelli, 2015). Besides being extremely influenced by CRC in regards to child protection legislations (Ministero Dell’Interno, 2016), Italy has created a specific legislation regarding to UFMs and has included special provisions for UFMs in its national Immigration Act, as opposed to other EU state members, such as France (Hernandez, 2013). Thus, it is imperative to point out the entitlement of UFMs for protection regardless nationality or legal status (Borghi and Santarossa, 2012). Italy has proven to be a country worthy of analysing, given their equal laws to national and non-national in providing protection to minors. Italian legislation guarantees an automatic entitlement to a resident permit once the minor has been identified and located on the institutional care system, through the “Regulation Regarding the Release of the Permit to Stay as Minor” (Prandelli, 2015).

According to the Italian Civil Code (Art.403) the public authorities are responsible for the protection of any minor who suffered abandonment, is living in an unhealthy and dangerous environment, or is being deprived from education (Il Codice Civile Italiano, 1942). This is reinforced by the Legislative Decree 25 July 1998 which states that minors cannot be expelled from the territory unless with a parent or a care-taker (Art. 19). Furthermore, the same decree also regards the right of family unity and protection of minors (Art. 28 – 33), guaranteeing the ‘best interest of the child’ (in accordance to the CRC) and the right of the minor for family reunification (Decreto Legislativo 25 Luglio 1998).

One of the most notorious outcomes of the later decree was the establishment of the Committee for Foreign Minors (Art. 33) with the objective of supervising the presence of foreign minors in Italy, while guaranteeing the protection of their rights in conformity with the CRC, which

(24)

Italy ratified and converted into the Italian law of 27 May 1991 (Commissione Parlamentare, 1991). Even though the Committee for Foreign Minors (CFM) released several census regarding UFMs in national territory, many contained statistical irregularities (EMN, 2014; Signorini, 2016), “on one hand, it does not include those unaccompanied foreign minors who apply for asylum, who are victims of trafficking or who are EU citizens, and, on the other hand, it does not take into account all those unaccompanied foreign minors who have never been in contact with the national reception system” (EMN, 2009, 17). The Committee was merged into the Directorate General Immigration and Immigration Policies – Ministry of Labour and Social Policies as the Ministerial Directorate in 2012 (EMN, 2014) and is one of the parties immediately informed after a UFM is intercepted by the Italian authorities (Accorinti 2015). Additionally, the Directive of 7th of December 2006 was developed in order to simplify the asylum process, thus, it is aimed solely to UFMs who are applying for asylum (Ministero Dell’Interno, 2007). Nevertheless, a main challenge faced by the Italian State are the UFMs to whom Italy is a transit country and not a final destination, thus, UFMs who keep themselves away from the Italian protection system or go missing from the initial reception facilities (Accorinti, 2015; EMN, 2014; Borghi and Santarossa, 2012; Bertotti and Campanini, 2012). The reasons for this includes inadequacy of services, expectations not met by the minor, lack of durable solutions from the state offered to UFMs, misinformation of UFMs regarding their rights or available protection programs, and personal or communal reasons such as income, family pressure or family reunification in another country (EMN, 2014; Hernandez, 2013). Despite all these efforts in ensuring protection and care to the UFMs (EMN, 2014), “Official statistics show a pattern of discrimination relating to foreign children in the administration of juvenile justice with more foreign than Italian children sent to custodial facilities rather than benefiting from alternatives to detention” (World Organisation Against Torture, 2002, 10). This may be partly explained with the increasing conflict of interests experienced by the Italian State

(25)

in strengthening the migration control while also providing protection to minors who come in illegally (Prandelli, 2015). Undoubtedly, there is a paradox towards the systems put in place for UFMs by the EU member states because “they are at the same time minors to be protected and also migrants to be controlled” (Baldin and Zago, 2017, pp.81).

Given this evident - yet complex - conflict of values, Italy implemented in May 2017 the so-called ‘zampa law’ (Commissione Parlamentare, 2017). This law results in the attempt of the Italian State to provide an effective and just protection to every minor equally, and has been extremely complimented by International NGOs (UNICEF, 2017b). Legge Zampa was implemented in the Italian regulation, which applies standards regarding the treatment of UFMs, whether claiming asylum or not. This new law will be covered in greater depth further on chapter 5.4.

5.

History & Process

Throughout the last ten years Italy “had to re-conceptualize itself as a country of arrival or transit of people movements coming from the East (from Eastern Europe to Afghanistan and Bangladesh) and the South (the Maghreb area and increasingly Sub-Saharan countries)” (Prandelli, 2015, pp.5). Thus, it is important to look into the history and process of the UFMs in Italy. Additionally, according to Save the Children (2017) it is also important to look into their process and origins, in order to fully understand the phenomenon. Understanding who are the UFMs, the numbers, their reasons to migrate and the process of asylum in Italy will allow us, not only to fully understand the present but also look into, and maybe even predict, the future. Most importantly, looking into the history and process of UFMs in Italy will allow us to point out the fractures and gaps of the child protection mechanisms provided by the Italian state, and consequently, understand the role of local organisations, as well as their potential.

(26)

This chapter will start with an overview of the UFMs in Italy throughout the years until the current numbers of today, moving onto the reasons and types of UFMs, where we will look into UFMs who may be in the system or on the move to another country. The third part of the present chapter will regard the process of asylum, in order to understand the child protection provided to those within the system, as well as any possible fragments. Finally, the chapter will finish with an overlook of the ’zampa law’, which aims to protect UFMs in Italy, in order to determine the actual and possible future results from its establishment in May 2017.

5.1 Upraise of Unaccompanied Foreign Minors in Italy and Current Numbers Although there is available data from multiple sources regarding the number of UFMs in Italy, the accurate number is hard to define given the large portion of UFMs that go unnoticed, unreported or do not fulfil the residence regulations. Besides the number of children that go unreported by the public officials, public organisations and civil servants – although they have the obligation to report immediately to the Ministerial Directorate – there are also UFMs who are in Italian territory as a transit country and, thus, because they wish to go to another EU State these UFMs tend to not seek the proper authorities and the support of local institutions. Instead, these ‘UFMs on the move’ remain illegally in the country while waiting to pass the boarder (EMN 2014). Nevertheless, due to the overcrowding of the reception centres added to the increasing public topic regarding boarder control, throughout the last year attention has been given towards the importance of collecting information in order to fully comprehend the phenomenon and control, as well as reduce, the margins of uncertainty (Save the Children, 2017).

The number of the UFM phenomenon became particularly noticeable in Italy throughout the 1990’s (Accorinti, 2016). Nevertheless, according to Campani and Salimbeni (2006), the phenomenon of UFMs in Italy can be seen through four phases which started throughout the

(27)

1950’s and the 1960’s with a few hundred UFMs coming mostly from Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The second phase started in the 1960s and was marked by arrival of Cambodians and Vietnamese orphans or abandoned minors who were mostly being cared by the Italian religious charities. Throughout the second half of the 60s Italy saw most of the UFMs coming from the Horn of Africa. The authors then describe the third phase, which took place throughout the 80s, with varied nationalities, from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. Lastly, the fourth phase (1980s) was followed by the temporary and permanent arrival of UFMs aged between 7 and 14 from the regions of Belarus after the Chernobyln nuclear accident.

Resulting from these four phases, the Italian government created the CFM which had the intent of providing information regarding the presence of UFMs, as well as “monitoring solidarity interventions proposed by the public and private entities within international solidarity programmes aimed at entities within international solidarity programmes aimed at UAMs” (Accorinti, 2016, 30). The fifth phase began by the end of 2010 as a consequence of the Arab Spring, involving various countries from the Middle East and North Africa migrating through the Mediterranean Sea, and also resulting in a state of emergency declaration by the Italian government in 2011 (Accorinti, 2016).

Looking into more recent numbers, according to the European Migration Network (EMN) study, from 2007 to 2013 the number of UFMs in Italy was considerably stable, with an average number of 7.000 to 8.000. Yet, after reaching the peak of 8,3461 UFMs in 2013, the number increased drastically throughout 2014 (EMN, 2014).

(28)

Figure 1: Disembarked Unaccompanied Foreign Minors. (Ministero Dell’ Interno, 2017)

Although it is important to point out the lack of untracked children in any official data (Prandelli, 2015), the data above is provided by the Ministero Dell’Interno (2017) in regards to the number of UFM arrivals in Italy in between January 2014 to 7th of December 2017. The most noticeable factor when looking at the figure 1 is definitely the peak of 25,846 UFMs in 2016, which made up 15,6% of the total migrants arriving in Italy (De Marco et al., 2017). Although there were more refugees and migrants coming to Europe that same year, the drastic increase to almost double the number of UFMs in comparison with past years may also be partly explained by the higher demand and efforts towards information collection in 2016, as well as the increased importance of data in organisational and governmental decision-makings. Finally, although the number of UFMs has decreased in 2017, the total number of UFMs arriving to Italy is still significantly superior to 2014 and 2015. Actually, in the beginning of 2017 there were more UFMs expected, given that by April there was a 40% increase of UFM’s arrivals (1,875) when compared to the same period of 2016 (UNICEF, 2017). Furthermore, in regards to applying for asylum, 4.500 of UFMs have applied in the first semester of 2017, which is an 80% increase when compared to 2016 during the same period (De Marco et al., 2017). Accordingly, in 2016 there were 6.000 UFM asylum applications in Italy (De Marco et

(29)

al., 2017), from which most of applications are normally submitted upon arrival or at the time of the UFMs identification (Accorinti, 2015).

(2016) (2017)

Figure 2: Countries of Origin of Untraceable UFMs. (INTERSOS, 2017, pp.17)

According to an INTERSOS report (2017, pp.17), although the number of children arriving in Italy has decreased from 2016 to 2017 to less than half, the number of unaccompanied minors within the reception circuit increased by 2,82%. Accordingly, the number of untraceable minors decreased from 6.561 in 2016 to 5.226 in the following year. Above we can witness the nationality of the majority of untraceable UFMs for both years

5.2 Reasons and Types

Each individual has his or her own motivation to leave their own country and move illegally and dangerously across the Mediterranean Sea towards an unknown state. Motivations range “…from fleeing persecution and seeking protection, to economic and aspirational reasons” (Prandelli, 2015, pp.29). The EMN study (2009) highlights the importance of the UFM’s family socio-economic condition in their country of origin. Poor socio-economic conditions usually lead to the “adultization” of the minor, a phenomenon regarding the unsuitable age-appropriate

(30)

social roles played by minors, as well as their premature sense of responsibility. Although poverty itself is an undeniable reason for the migration of minors who hope to find a better life, job conditions and salaries, it is naive to assume that all UFMs come from low socio-economic backgrounds. EMN (2009) resorts to the work of the author Giovannetti (2008), in order to point out the four main motivation profile of UFMs coming to Italy: firstly, the author identifies UFMs who are fleeing war, thus, those who have no specific destination; secondly, Giovannetti (2008) points out the UFMs who are looking for better job opportunities, which are usually influenced by, not only the utopian idea of the western countries, but also by the positive examples in regards to migration experiences within their community; the third profile concerns also UFMs who look into the western world as the land of opportunities, hence, move to Italy in search of a new and improved life style; lastly, the author outlined the four UFMs who find their encouragement within their own crumbling society, thus, are ready to take the risk given the departure of many of their family and friends.

The majority of UFMs in Italy come from North-African and Middle-Eastern countries, which may be explained through their current social, political and economic struggle (Accotinti, 2015). There are 47 different nationalities of UFMs in Italy, and, according to statistics provided below by Save the Children Italy and the Italian Ministry of Interior, we verify that from 2011 to 2016 the majority of UFMs were from Eritrea, Gambia, Nigeria and Egypt. (Save the Children, 2017, pp.31)

(31)

Figure 3: Total of UFMs entering Italy by Sea from 2011-2016 (Save the Children, 2017, pp.31)

Nevertheless, it is important to point out again the issue mentioned by Prandelli (2015), regarding the lack of coinciding data available on UFMs in Italy and to the fact that, because UFMs tend to be in constant mobility, they might be identified in the system two times under different names. Consequently, the statistics regarding UFMs tend to diverge, not only amongst institutions but also in terms of what field workers are in fact experiencing. Thus, we verify the need of a statistical harmonization, which can only happen with consistent communication amongst the different authorities responsible for data collection and with NGOs working on the field.

Moreover, it is important to highlight the fact that many UFMs “…are the victims of trafficking, and are therefore “hidden”; some are facing criminal proceedings, and some are “accompanied” by adults, who are not able, in fact, to take care of them. By the same token, not all UAMs who

(32)

enter Italy come into contact with institutions, nor are they necessarily intercepted by Law Enforcement Authorities.” (EMN, 2014, pp.2). Hence, these minors are untraceable by the national system, whether by choice or not.

Another additional challenge is also the increasing significant number of UFMs who view Italy solely as a transit country, thus, who wish to move into other EU member state, whether for family reunification, community or educational reasons. They avoid at any cost being identified, registered and fingerprinted in Italy, given their usual belief that this “would lead to their subsequent enforced return to another EU Member State under the Dublin II Regulation.” (Borghi and Santarossa, 2012, pp.23). This group is known amongst the Humanitarian Sector as ‘Children on the Move’ and it is essential to give attention to this group, given their superior level of vulnerability when compared to UFMs who apply for asylum or international protection. Given that the Italian system requires UFMs to be identified and registered in order to provide them protection, these minors are often ignored and forgotten given their lack of entitlement for accommodation, health care and other basic needs (Borghi and Santarossa, 2012). A report by IOM (2011) points out to the fact that not every UFM suffers from exploitation and that their migration experience is not always negative nor damaging, in fact, it might actually be a positive experience. Nevertheless, problems persist in regards to the lack of involvement of UFMs in the decision-making process, added to the inconsistent and fragmented systems of support, as well as the absence of subject-specific expertise.

According to Borghi and Santarossa (2012), there are several factors which determine why UFMs on the move decide to continue their journey, which may vary from reasons within their own personal network, within a national level or even a European level. In regards to the UFMs personal network, the two main reasons underlined by the authors are; the possible pressure by the family for the minor to reach his/her destination, as well as the influence from experiences of people within the community. Secondly, within a national level, reasons which result in the

(33)

UFM moving to another country further from Italy are varied. They differ from the fact that Italy may not meet the UFMs expectations, to the lack of quality services provided, lack of reception responses to this specific group of children in migration, scarcity in a uniform and systematic methodology regarding identification procedures and age assessment, inefficient and excessively extensive procedures for the guardian’s appointment, and the slow procedure in asylum procedures, as well as towards granting UFMs a legal status. Finally, the authors identify three main reasons in a EU level. Firstly, the fact that the minor might have been identified before and is afraid of being returned by the Dublin II Regulation, therefore, choosing to move illegally from one country to another. Secondly, the very little possibility of family reunification within the EU, given the EU restrictive definition of family. Lastly, UFMs may decide to continue on the move due to the extensive and complex family reunification procedure, which for many minors is not worth the wait.

Below we can find a graph developed by Save the Children (2017, pp.59) with data provided by the Ministry of Labour and Social Politics, in regards to the number of the so-called ‘invisible children’ in 2016. This includes UFMs who are either on the move to another EU country or may be voluntarily or forcibly ‘hidden’. Accordingly, Egypt, Eritrea, Somalia and Afghanistan are the nationalities with highest percentage of ‘invisible’ UFMs in 2016, thus, it shows a tendency of higher percentage of ‘invisible UFMs’ in accordance to a higher number of UFMs. Furthermore, we can also verify on the right inferior corner a graph representing the number of ‘invisible UFMs’ from 2012 to 2016. Hence, it is most noticeable the quadruple increase of the total ‘invisible UFMs’ in four years.

(34)

Figure 4: Untraceable UFMs – nationalities and numbers (Save the Children, 2017, pp.59)

Baldin and Zago (2017, pp.72) explain this drastic general increase by stating that “In the last years, starting from the Middle-Eastern and North-African crisis, the number, provenance and the typology of minors involved in the immigration flows have changed. Situations linked to war, social and economic deprivations, better opportunities have increased the presence of unaccompanied foreign minors”.

5.3 Process of Asylum in Italy

Looking into the asylum process of UFMs in Italy will allow us to identify the main protecting agencies, as well as understand the services provided and detect the fragments within the child-protection system. Accorinti (2015; 2016) and the EMN (2014) study will be the main literature

(35)

referenced throughout this sub-chapter, given their ability to explain the process clearly, nevertheless, all information is in accordance with other literature references, as well as with the interviews. It would also be important to note that, these are the practices that are meant to be in place theoretically, nevertheless, these processes tend to be flawed and lacking the resources to be fully efficient. Hence, the process described below is how it should be set, and not how it actually happens. (Accorinti, 2016).

When arriving to Italy, the UFM normally proceeds in two diverse ways, either is identified by the national authorities or tries to reach out by himself to an adult reference. The later results in many minors going missing (EMN, 2014). In the case of being intercepted by a civil or public servant, the minor is reported to police authorities in order for them to identify the minor. The presence of the minor will be then reported by the police authority to three main agencies; the Ministerial Directorate (previously known as the CFM), the Public Prosecutors Office at the Juvenile Court and the Guardianship Court. The police authority is also responsible for seeing which first-reception centre within the district has availability, as well as in guaranteeing that an initial age assessment of the minor is made. In the case that there are no first-reception centres available in the district, the police authorities have to immediately inform the Juvenile Court and request from the Ministerial Directorate an indication of which facility is available, together with its contact details. It is important to notice that these first-reception centres are important in the sense that they allow the minor to be identified and it is the first contact that UFMs have with the Italian culture. Given that these centres only take care of the initial reception of the minor, they are also known as bridge facilities. The purpose of these facilities is to provide immediate protection for the minor by offering a temporary safe space, while also allowing time for authorities to make a background check on the UFM and define the best integration processes, keeping in mind the best interest of the child. (EMN, 2014; Accorinti, 2015).

(36)

After being instructed what first-reception facility to use, police authorities have the responsibility of transferring the minor, report his/her presence to the social services of the municipality, to the Juvenile Court and to the Guardianship Court. As quickly as possible, the Mayor of the municipality or a representative takes several responsibilities, such as; identify the minor; check his legal status, acquire information regarding the UFM’s family in Italy, inform UFM of his legal rights to international protection, as well as guarantee that a health check-up is made in order to protect both the minor and the community.

The third step towards the asylum process is the reporting to the Ministerial Directorate by the Mayor or his/her representative, followed by the indication by the Ministerial Directorate in regards to what centres can the minor be transferred to, with accordance to his/her needs, in order to provide better protection. It depends on the bridge facility to perform the transfer, in accordance with the destined municipality. When the transfer of the UFM from the bridge-facility to the reception centre is done successfully, the minor will then be dealt with and taken care of by the local Social Services. The latter will then “…initiate the procedures provided by the law (request to the Guardianship Court to open a public guardianship case, application for a residence permit for minors, etc.) and update the Ministerial Directorate, the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Juvenile Court and the Guardianship Court” (Accorinti, 2015, pp.63). All asylum applications are examined by the Commission for the Recognition of Refugee Status, which is supposed to hear both the minor, as well as his/her designated guardian, throughout the proceedings. When granted the refugee status, the UFM will obtain a residence permit for asylum. Otherwise, when the Local Commission dictates that the UFM is in Italy due to serious humanitarian reasons, the UFM may be granted a Subsidiary or Humanitarian Protection, regulated by the Immigration Law Commission. Nonetheless, whatever the decision, it may be appealed in front of an ordinary court through the guardian or a family

(37)

member who has been living in the country during the last three years (Accorinti, 2015; EMN, 2014).

Once the UFM’s asylum application is accepted and granted, he/she will be under the protection of the Central Service of the Protection System for Asylum Applicants and Refugees (SPRAR). Likewise, SPRAR protection measures are also provided when a UFM requests International Protection. Nevertheless, this process can only take place when initiated the guardianship case. It is therefore essential to find a guardian promptly, prior to the beginning of the asylum proceeding. Nevertheless, being the guardian of a UFM is a long-term commitment which results in no financial remuneration, where 3,500 UFMs can be appointment amongst 16 guardians and where responsibilities are extremely extensive. Additionally, even though the European Council Resolution (1997) on Unaccompanied Minors who are Nationals of Third Countries declares that no legal asylum procedure should take place without the UFM having the assistance of the legal guardian (Article 4.1), this has shown, in the case of Italy, to be extremely ineffective due to the amount of time that a UFM has to wait to be appointed a legal guardian. Some UFMs can wait up to 11 months, or even sometimes more (Ministero Dell’Intero, 2015). There are a wide-ranging number of responsibilities that the guardian is meant to fulfil, such as: to report every 6 months to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Juvenile Court; handle the permit application of the UFM with the Questura (police headquarters); guarantee the registration on the health system and the enrolment in school; assist the UFM in case he/she wants to apply for international protection; represent the minor in legal terms; assure full availability at all times deemed as necessary; and assure protection of all assets of the UFM (Accorinti, 2015). This is visibly an excessive number of responsibilities and extremely time consuming for someone who is receiving no economic reward, thus, possibly explaining the excessive number of UFMs to one guardian. Another possible justification would also be the increase of UFMs in the country.

Child Protection for Unaccompanied (Foreign) Minors: Local Organizations in Italy