When was the last time you had sex? For many detainees in Italian prisons, the answer is probably years. But things are changing. In April, the first intimate visit took place in an Italian detention centre. The inmate met his partner for two hours in a room with a double bed, not monitored by the penitentiary police, with the door closed but not locked, and a prison officer on guard duty outside the room. This marked the first instance of ‘conjugal visit’ in Italy after a 2024 Constitutional Court ruling that recognised what some have defined as the right to affection of the detainee (diritto all’affettività).
Conjugal visits in prison are ‘private meetings between a male or a female inmate with his or her significant other, during which the couple may engage in whatever legal activity they desire’, including sexual activity. These visits are characterised by the absence of surveillance and can last hours or even days. Access to them is usually subject to specific conditions, often based on the inmate’s behaviour, the nature of their crime, and their relationship with the visitor, who may be required to be a legal spouse or long-term partner.
This blog post begins by examining the landmark 2024 judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court and the early stages of its implementation. Next, it focuses on the regional level, examining the Council of Europe (CoE) system. After that, it analyses the current status of conjugal visits under international human rights law. Finally, it presents a series of policy arguments in support of establishing conjugal visitation programs.
Conjugal visits in Italy in light of the recent Constitutional Court jurisprudence
In January 2024, the Italian Constitutional Court declared the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 18 of Law No. 354/1975 on the penitentiary system. This provision did not permit, de facto, conjugal visits since it required the supervision of meetings with inmates by the custody staff. The Court found problematic that this norm did not allow meetings between the detainee and their partner without supervision, when taking into account the behaviour of the inmate in prison, there were no security reasons, nor, as regards the accused, any judicial reasons.
The Court held the law to be unconstitutional with reference to various articles of the Italian Constitution: Article 3 on the principle of equality, Article 27(3) on the principle of rehabilitation of the convicted and Article 117(1) on the need to respect international obligations. This latter article was put in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the right to respect for private and family life. The Constitutional Court argued that the absolute and indiscriminate nature of the prohibition of conjugal visits conflicted with Article 8 ECHR due to a lack of proportionality between such a radical ban and its, albeit legitimate, aims (Constitutional Court, judgement 10/2024, §4.4).
Although this judgement was delivered in January 2024, no inmate was allowed conjugal visits until a few weeks ago. The main problems were the absence of implementation guidelines and the lack of appropriate facilities for conjugal visits in detention centres. This latter point is not surprising considering the problem of prison overcrowding in Italy. In April 2025, specific guidelines were finally published to operationalise this ruling. They foresee, among others, that conjugal visits can happen once per month, for a maximum of two hours; that the room must be supervised from outside by prison officers; and that the partner/spouse must sign an informed consent form.
Conjugal visits under the Council of Europe system
Under the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, States are not obliged to permit conjugal visits, as they retain a wide margin of appreciation in this area. As affirmed by the ECtHR: ‘[T]his is an area in which the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention with due regard to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals’ (ECtHR, Lesław Wójcik v. Poland, 2021, §114). Accordingly, the State may prohibit conjugal visits when justified by legitimate objectives such as crime and disorder prevention, in line with Article 8(2) ECHR (ECtHR, Aliev v. Ukraine, 2003,§188).
However, the ECtHR emphasises the need to strike a ‘fair balance’ between the public and private interests involved (ECtHR, Dickson v. United Kingdom, 2007, §85; ECtHR, Ciorap v. Moldova, 2007, §118). In addition, the ECtHR, despite not interpreting the convention as requiring the State to permit conjugal visits, usually notes that more than half of the States parties to the ECHR now allow them and expresses approval for this legislative evolution (ECtHR, Dickson v. United Kingdom, 2007, §81; ECtHR, Chocholáč v. Slovakia, 2022, §54).
The importance of keeping contact with the outside world during incarceration is underlined in several CoE’s soft law documents. The European Prison Rules (2006) provide that ‘[t]he arrangements for visits shall be such as to allow prisoners to maintain […] family relationships in as normal a manner as possible’ (rule 24.4). The accompanying Commentary of this rule explains that, where possible, intimate family visits should extend over a long period, for example, 72 hours, as practised in many eastern European countries, and that such long visits allow inmates to have intimate relations with their partners.
Similarly, the CPT Standards issued by the CoE European Committee for the Prevention of Torture underline the value of preserving inmates’ family and social ties. According to them: ‘[A] prisoner must be given the means of safeguarding his relationships with his family and close friends. The guiding principle should be the promotion of contact with the outside world; any limitations upon such contact should be based exclusively on security concerns of an appreciable nature or resource considerations’ (§51).
Conjugal visits under international human rights law
Human rights treaties do not contain explicit formulations on conjugal visits. However, several human rights norms are relevant to this issue. Among them are Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides that all persons deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity, and Article 17, which protects individuals against arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy and family life. According to the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, prisoners must be allowed, under necessary supervision, to communicate with their family, including through visits (Rule 58.1). Furthermore, they foresee that where conjugal visits are permitted, access to them must be granted without discrimination (Rule 58.2).
The most active UN treaty body on this matter is the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT), which has the right to visit the detention centres of States Parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT). The SPT has mostly focused on cases of discrimination in access to conjugal visitation programmes. For instance, it has found cases of discrimination in Panama, where conjugal visits were allowed for male but not female prisoners in the same facility, and Peru, where women faced more complex administrative procedures than men to accede to conjugal visits.
Conjugal visits: potential benefits
Beyond strict legal considerations, several policy arguments support the introduction of conjugal visit programmes:
- Rehabilitation. Conjugal visits are closely linked with the rehabilitative aim of punishment. Maintaining relationships can play a vital role in the social reintegration of incarcerated individuals (see here and here). As noted by the Italian Constitutional Court: ‘A punishment that prevents the convicted from expressing emotional closeness during family visits risks proving incompatible with its rehabilitative purpose’ (Constitutional Court, judgement 10/2024, §4.3).
- Mental health. Incarcerated persons are more likely to suffer from mental health problems in comparison to the general population. One contributing factor seems to be the limited opportunity to engage in a satisfying sexual life. Furthermore, heterosexual persons might start engaging in homosexual activity because this is their only possibility of having sex, which can also create psychological distress. As a result, conjugal visits may help alleviate some of the mental distress associated with incarceration.
- Efficacy. States that allow conjugal visits present fewer cases of rape and other sexual offenses in their detention centres. In addition, prisons that permit conjugal visits have better disciplinary records than those that do not allow them. While further research is needed to establish definitive causal links, current findings indicate that conjugal visits may contribute to a more stable and safe prison environment.
Conclusion
Although there is no general obligation to allow conjugal visits under international human rights law and within the Council of Europe system, the Italian Constitutional Court found that a general and absolute prohibition of such visits is incompatible with human rights standards. This landmark judgment aligns Italy with a growing number of European countries that already permit conjugal visits, including Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. As outlined in this post, conjugal visits can offer significant benefits not only for prisoners and their partners but also for the prison system and, ultimately, for society at large.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
