A contested change to Italy’s sexual‑violence law has reignited protests, debate and legal scrutiny. The Senate justice committee has replaced the word “consent” in article 609‑bis with references to a person’s “will” and to signs of “dissent.” That lexical shift may look small on paper, but it reshapes how prosecutors, judges and police will assess and present cases — and has immediate political and social fallout.
What changed – The Chamber of Deputies had approved a consent‑based formulation (describing sexual violence as any sexual act without “free, conscious, unequivocal and revocable consent”). – The Senate justice committee amended the draft to remove the explicit word “consent,” instructing courts to evaluate whether an act occurred “against the will of a person” and to consider context and expressions of dissent. – Dates and parliamentary stages: the Chamber reached cross‑party agreement on 19 November; the Senate committee adopted its amendment on 26 January. The bill will return to further debate and votes.
Why language matters – “Consent” vs. “will/dissent” changes the legal lens. A consent‑based standard centers the absence of freely given agreement; a will‑based formulation highlights observable resistance or contextual factors. – Practically, that can alter evidentiary expectations: prosecutors may need more corroborating signs of dissent (witnesses, contemporaneous messages, physical marks), while defence teams can lean on narrower wording to challenge charges. – Courts and juries tend to follow statutory language when framing instructions and assessing proof. Small wording shifts often produce big differences in charging, plea bargaining and conviction rates.
Immediate practical effects – Police and prosecutors: intake forms, interview techniques and evidence collection may be revised to document signs of dissent and coercion. – Courtroom dynamics: trials could place greater emphasis on corroboration and visible resistance, increasing contested credibility battles and the risk of intrusive questioning of survivors. – Support services: victim‑support centres, medical teams and legal aid will likely update protocols and counselling to help people navigate new evidentiary demands.
Arguments on both sides – Supporters: argue the new language clarifies the facts courts should evaluate, protects defendants from wrongful conviction, and focuses judicial assessment on context and intent. – Opponents: warn that dropping “consent” narrows protections, risks reintroducing outdated myths about how victims behave (freeze responses, non‑resistance), and could deter reporting. Human‑rights groups say the amendment may conflict with the Istanbul Convention and other international standards that prioritize consent.
Political and social fallout – The change has fractured earlier cross‑party consensus and provoked mass demonstrations (notably nationwide protests on 15 February under the slogan “Without consent it is rape” and planned mobilisations on 28 February and a strike on 8 March). – Feminist networks, anti‑violence organisations (for example D.i.Re), legal associations and international observers are following parliamentary debates and committee hearings closely. – The Senate committee chair, Senator Giulia Bongiorno, backed the wording change; opponents fear it forces survivors to prove active resistance.
What to watch next – Parliamentary votes: will the Senate text stand, be revised, or be reconciled with the Chamber’s consent‑based draft? – Prosecutorial guidance and police protocols: official directives will signal how the law is to be enforced in practice. – Appellate rulings and data: conviction rates, reporting statistics and appellate decisions will provide the clearest evidence of real‑world impact. Monitoring is already expected by NGOs and treaty bodies. – Courtroom practice: frequency of sexual‑history inquiries, types of admissible evidence and the use of trauma‑informed procedures will indicate whether secondary victimisation increases or declines.
Comparative context and international obligations – Several European countries have moved to explicit consent standards (for example recent reforms in Spain and France), following the Istanbul Convention’s focus on lack of free and current consent. – Comparative law suggests consent‑centred statutes produce more consistent case law and limit prejudicial questioning. Shifting to a will/dissent model could widen judicial discretion and variability between jurisdictions.
Numbers to keep in mind – ISTAT figures: 31.5% of Italian women aged 16–70 reported physical or sexual violence; 21% reported sexual violence; 5.4% experienced severe forms. In, more than 6,200 sexual‑violence complaints were filed. – These statistics underscore the stakes: statutory wording affects both individual cases and public confidence in the justice system.
Practical recommendations from lawyers and advocates – Issue clear prosecutorial guidelines that protect victims from irrelevant and invasive questioning. – Update police intake and forensic protocols to capture evidence relevant under the new test while minimizing retraumatization. – Provide training for judges and juries on trauma and victim responses so that non‑resistance is not mistaken for consent. – Track and publish data on reporting, charges, convictions and courtroom practices to assess impact quickly. It reframes the legal test for sexual violence, with immediate consequences for investigations, trials and survivors’ willingness to come forward. The coming weeks and months — parliamentary votes, prosecutorial directives and appellate decisions — will determine whether the law strengthens clarity and fairness, or narrows protections and raises barriers to justice. Observers will be watching courts, statistics and courtroom practice for the first measurable signs of which outcome prevails.