Author
The Asylum Act contains a general provision on the right of asylum applicants to submit supporting evidence in the asylum procedure.[1] It further foresees the possibility for AIMA to request reports on specific issues from experts (e.g. cultural or medical) during the regular procedure.[2] Nevertheless, there are no specific standards in law or administrative guidance relating to medical reports for those claiming to have been subjected to torture or other serious acts of physical, psychological and sexual violence.
The lack of standard operational procedures regarding the issuance, content and relevance of medical reports in the asylum procedure has been highlighted in the particular case of survivors of torture and/or serious violence.[3] According to the available information, medical reports are currently not issued based on the methodology laid down in the Istanbul Protocol.
According to AIMA, in 2025 the Agency requested medical examinations or reports ex officio in a limited number of cases involving adult applicants, primarily where the applicant was unable to participate effectively in the interview due to their psychological condition, displayed signs of physical or psychological vulnerability, or where their state of health was relevant to the assessment of the claim. Such requests were made on a case-by-case basis, guided by considerations of necessity and proportionality. AIMA states that applicants also retained the right to submit medical evidence on their own initiative, which was duly taken into account in the assessment of the application and the determination of special procedural guarantees.
According to CPR’s observations, the procedures and criteria followed by the authorities in order to request medical evaluations (including concerning mental health) were unclear and sparse. Furthermore, both in cases where reports were requested by the Agency and where submitted by the applicant or the host entity, AIMA suspended the procedure under general administrative rules rather than providing special procedural guarantees (namely admission to the regular procedure), even in cases where the incapacity was evident. In a Dublin case involving compulsory hospitalisation, the Agency refused to suspend the time limit for exercising the right of appeal (see The discretionary clauses).
[1] Article 15(2) Asylum Act.
[2] Article 28(3) Asylum Act.
[3] Italian Council for Refugees et al., Time for Needs: Listening, Healing, Protecting, October 2017, available here.