In a rare cross-party accord, lawmakers in Rome have rewired the criminal standard for sexual offences by making voluntary, ongoing consent the decisive factor, reversing the burden of proof and prescribing prison terms of six to twelve years for sex without consent.
Italy’s justice committee approved an amendment that places consent — defined as both “free” and “current” — at the centre of the offence now codified as a revision of article 609-bis of the penal code, marking a decisive departure from the prior rule that criminalised sexual violence only when accompanied by force, threats or abuse of authority.
Under the new wording approved on Wednesday, anyone who performs or causes another to perform sexual acts “without the free and current consent” of that person will face a custodial sentence of six to twelve years. The provision specifies that consent must be present for the duration of the sexual act, may be withdrawn at any moment, and that consent granted on a prior occasion cannot be taken as valid for a subsequent encounter.
A further and politically consequential change reverses the evidentiary burden: rather than requiring alleged victims to prove they resisted, the draft requires the accused to demonstrate that valid consent existed. Supporters of the amendment described this shift as a long-overdue reorientation of legal perspective, from searching for proof of resistance to establishing proof of consent.
Proponents stressed the reform’s practical aims as well as its symbolic importance. Lawmakers and experts cited international research on involuntary immobility or “freezing,” in which victims are physically or psychologically unable to resist, and argued that the old “linked” model left such survivors legally exposed when no visible resistance occurred. The committee’s report notes that failing to recognise consent as the core element had produced inconsistent verdicts and, in some cases, acquittals despite clear evidence of non-consensual sex.
The amendment was drafted and presented jointly by Deputy Michela Di Biase of the centre-left Democratic Party and Carolina Varchi of Brothers of Italy, reflecting a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation that the government led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni publicly welcomed as an advance in protection for women. Parliamentary sources say the measure will be sent to the full Chamber of Deputies for debate on Monday, 17 November, before being transmitted to the Senate to complete the legislative process.
Advocates framed the reform as a cultural as well as legal turning point. Di Biase and other supporters argued that recognising sex without consent explicitly as rape removes the burden on victims to justify themselves to the court, and aligns domestic law with prevailing understandings of sexual autonomy. Legal practitioners quoted in committee hearings said the amendment would provide clearer guidance to judges, prosecutors and investigators handling complex and sensitive cases.
Specialists in gender-based violence and several parliamentarians emphasised that the change is especially significant for offences that occur within intimate partnerships, which account for roughly one-third of recorded rape cases in Italy. They warned that prior legal thresholds made it difficult to secure convictions when abuse occurred behind closed doors or without overt physical coercion. The committee record notes that the reform is intended to close that protection gap.
The amendment was also presented as a step toward full compliance with the Istanbul Convention — the Council of Europe treaty that defines rape as “sexual intercourse without consent” — which Italy ratified in 2013. International law experts and human-rights organisations had repeatedly urged Italy to incorporate an express consent standard into domestic criminal law; the committee’s vote brings Italian statute law closer to that international benchmark.
Defenders of the amendment pointed to testimony and commentary from lawyers and campaigners who argued that the previous emphasis on resistance had produced uneven outcomes and discouraged reporting. Cathy La Torre, a lawyer specialising in gender violence, described the committee’s decision as a reversal of perspective that places the legal focus on whether consent was present rather than on whether the victim resisted.
Despite broad agreement around the amendment in committee, observers caution that parliamentary debate in the full Chamber and the subsequent Senate review could produce changes or delay final adoption. Lawmakers on all sides characterised the vote as historically significant, but noted that its ultimate impact will depend on the precise text approved in the remaining legislative stages and on subsequent judicial interpretation once the law enters into force.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive
In a world flooded with noise, independent journalism is more vital than ever. We work hard to bring you clear, accurate, and unbiased international news — free from corporate or political influence.If you believe in the power of honest reporting, please consider making a donation. Every contribution, big or small, helps us stay independent and keep the world informed.
Support us via PayPalYour support makes a difference.
