Individual Identification Codes on Anti-riot Police Gear: a Step Forward Accountability

Introduction

“Police brutality” is a term we have become accustomed to in the last few years, especially in the media. It is mostly used to describe abuses of power and the excessive and unwarranted use of force by police officers. Instances of police brutality can occur to civilians during an arrest, while they are under police custody, or in the event of operations of public order and crowd management during all types of demonstrations and rallies. This phenomenon disproportionately impacts racialised people (Nwabuzo, 2021).

This article specifically addresses the use of excessive or unwarranted force by police officers involved in public order tasks during demonstrations and rallies. These usually consist of politically motivated protests or groups of sports fans. This specific task of crowd management performed by the police presents several peculiarities. First of all, demonstrations can have, for their nature, an antagonistic and tense atmosphere that can escalate into open aggression. Secondly, in the case of politically motivated protests, an excessive use of force by the police can represent not only an abuse of power, but also a repression of the right to express dissent. Lastly, the uniforms worn by police officers during these types of duties cover the entirety of their faces for safety reasons, preventing the identification of the officers who happen to commit abuses, even when there are witnesses present or the act is caught on camera.

A proposed solution to this problem is the application of individual identification codes on the anti-riot gear worn by police officers. Most European Union member states already adopted identification codes on police uniforms. Italy is among the few that still oppose this measure, despite the lobbying efforts of Amnesty International. 

Police brutality during demonstrations in Italy and Europe

In Italy, the most egregious case of excessive use of force by law enforcement on demonstrators was during the G8 summit that was held in Genoa in 2001. In response to this international event, thousands gathered in Genoa to protest against globalisation, filling the streets and occupying the “Armando Diaz” school. Afterwards, the school was raided and the protestors were detained at the Bolzaneto police station. During the protests, the following raid, and detention, there were multiple reports of abuses and violations of human rights perpetrated by police forces. This event solicited the reaction of Amnesty International which, on 17 July 2001, had preemptively written a letter recommending a proportionate use of force and power by Italian law enforcement agencies, after the previous mismanagement of riots in March 2001 during the Third Global Forum held in Naples (Amnesty International, 2001a). After the events in Genoa, Amnesty International immediately asked for the institution of a commission of inquiry to investigate the human rights violations that had been perpetrated (Amnesty International, 2001b; 2001c).

Nowadays, the issue of how to correctly handle both violent and peaceful demonstrations has resurfaced in the Italian media in relation to other topics. Current demonstrations involve protests against the introduction of new “securitarian” measures that seem to criminalise protesting, acts of traffic obstruction and “eco-vandalism” against climate change, and pro-Palestine rallies (Redazione ANSA, 2024). Similar riots have taken place following the death of Ramy El Gaml, an Egyptian teenager who was intentionally rammed off a scooter during a police chase in Milan (Redazione ANSA, 2025).

The situation in the rest of Europe is not dissimilar. In the last decades, French police have become one of the most prone to violence in Europe and also one of the most heavily armed. During protests, the police is used to “terrorising” protesters, using physical and verbal abuse, and employing weapons such as crowd dispersal grenades and lanceur de balles de défense (LBD), guns firing rubber bullets that can cause severe bodily harm and even death. Moreover, they use tactics that result in an escalation of violence, since they involve a gradual increase in the use of force to match the level of resistance by protestors. This situation has gotten out of hand since the protests in 2005 in the banlieues, at the economic and social outskirts of French cities, which normalised the type of militarised police tactics that were later implemented during other protests. Violent measures have also been deployed in 2018, when the gilet jaunes movement rose against the imposition of a carbon tax on fuel and economic inequality, and in 2023 during the demonstrations against the new pension reform (Barbero, 2023).

Other countries have records of excessive violence by the police as well. Similarly to what happened in Italy, there have been abuses during the protests against the G20 that was held in London in the summer of 2009 (Lewis, 2010). More recently, there have been accounts of excessive force when confronting non-threatening protesters during the demonstrations in Catalonia following the referendum in 2017. Human Rights Watch reported instances of police officers using batons and causing multiple injuries. In response, it suggested that Spain incentivises police to use alternatives to force as much as possible and emphasised that the right to protest and express opinions freely must always be preserved, especially in the context of the tensions between Catalonia and the Federal government, where it is crucial that police adheres to human rights standards (Human Rights Watch, 2017).

The advantages and challenges of identification

In the years following the events of the G8 in Genoa, Amnesty International continued reaffirming some of the requests made at the time of the events. Firstly, it asked for the introduction of the crime of torture in the Italian legislation, since its absence from the penal code would have caused the culprits to go unpunished (Amnesty International, 2005). In addition, it reiterated the necessity to establish an independent public commission to investigate the events. It asked for police forces to be trained in non-violent and de-escalating methods of crowd management. Lastly, it requested that police officers compulsorily display some forms of individual identification during anti-riot operations (Amnesty International, 2006).

International law has expressed non-binding opinions on the topic of police officers’ identification. In 2016, the United Nations published a joint report on the proper management of assemblies that declares, at point 65, that “Law enforcement officials must be clearly and individually identifiable, for example by displaying a nameplate or number” (Kiai & Heyns, 2016). The Council of Europe also published the European Code of Police Ethics which states, at point 45, that the identification of the officers is suggested because it allows accountability (Recommendation 10/2001). The European Parliament resolution of  December 12th, 2012 on the situation of the fundamental rights in the European Union (2010-2011) in paragraph 192 “calls on the Member States to ensure that police personnel carry an identification number”, to ensure accountability and avoid disproportionate use of force or inhuman treatments (Resolution 2069/2011).

Italian law currently states that State Police officers in uniform have to carry an identity card, but they are not obliged to show it unless they are in plainclothes. The same rules apply to military forces tasked with public order duties, such as the Carabinieri (DPR 782/1985, art. 20). In 2019, Amnesty renewed its efforts with a different approach, also engaging the public on the matter. The request for identification codes on the anti-riot gear, which had already been expressed after the violence during the G8 in Genoa, was reaffirmed through a nationwide petition that was launched in 2019, seizing the opportunity that Italy was elected as part of the United Nations Council for a three-year mandate (2019-2021). The petition was then closed on 26 January 2022 and the letter of request, with the attached signatures, was delivered to Italian authorities (Amnesty International, n.d.).

Presumably because of this encouragement, in the year 2022 alone, six law proposals regarding the introduction of identification codes were presented by the Italian politicians Riccardo Magi  (PdL 89/2022), Nicola Fratoianni (PdL 145/2022), Ilaria Cucchi (PdL 256/2022), Sergio D’Elia (PdL  289/2022), Matteo Orfini (PdL 317/2022), and Laura Boldrini (PdL 561/2022), all part of centre-leftist or leftist parties. By contrast, other political authorities and police unions’ representatives are strongly opposed. Matteo Piantedosi, not affiliated with any party but currently Minister of the Interior in the right-wing government led by President Meloni, expressed his disagreement. He stated that the hypothesis of introducing identification codes for police officers encourages ideologically motivated mistrust in law enforcement. Valter Mazzetti, general secretary of the FSP police union, also added that this solution jeopardises the officers’ safety and that body-cams would be a more acceptable option (Luciano, 2023).

Amnesty International states that body-cams can be a helpful tool, even though they pose potential issues regarding the privacy of both civilians and officers who are not committing any crimes but are still recorded. Besides, not only body-cams can malfunction, but they lose their usefulness if the ill-doers they record are not identifiable. The attribution of identification codes would not be public and, although it is impossible to completely rule out the risks, officers’ safety cannot be to the detriment of civilians’ safety (Amnesty International, n.d.). According to Amnesty International, most EU Member States have already legally introduced individual codes that allow the identification of police officers, especially during anti-riot and public order duties. In Germany, this rule is applied only in some regions, while in Hungary and Sweden it is not established by law but by practice (Amnesty International, n.d.).

In France, identity codes were introduced in 2013 (Arrêté 46-24/1/2013) but police behaviour, as described before, has become more violent since 2005 and has continued to escalate in recent years, too (Barbero, 2023). In the United Kingdom, during the protest against the G20 in London in 2009, it was reported that some officers had removed or covered up their individual codes when engaging with protestors, which is why it was decided to partially substitute the traditional badges with embroidered epaulettes (Lewis, 2010). In Spain, identification codes had already been introduced before the violent response to the protests in Catalonia (Human Rights Watch, 2017). 

Conclusion

News reports, regarding the French example in particular, can lead one to believe that the identification codes do not really constitute an effective deterrent against police brutality. Identification is a vital step in the process of accountability, but it is not sufficient on its own. Identification is useless if the culture and the procedures encourage (or at least do not discourage) violent behaviours.

Other good practices can be taken into consideration. In Spain, for example, a Mediation Department was founded: it is composed of officers specifically trained in sociology and psychology whose role is to de-escalate conflict during protest. Derived from an EU-funded project, the introduction of this Department seems to be responsible for a 70% decrease in violent conflicts during protests from 2011 to 2014 (Barbero, 2023).

Identification is a requirement for accountability, and many victims of abuses and human rights violations could never hope to see justice without it. Nevertheless, the change needs to be carried out on many fronts, as systemic issues must be approached systematically.

Sources:

Amnesty International (2001/07/17). Italy: Policing of demonstrations during the Group of Eight (G8) Summit must respect human rights standards. Amnesty International. Retrieved from  https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/002/2001/en/

Amnesty International (2001/07/30). Italy/G8: Amnesty International calls for commission of inquiry. Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/006/2001/en/ 

Amnesty International (2001/09/18). Italy: Alleged human rights violations during the G8 policing operation in Genoa require an independent public commission of inquiry. Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/010/2001/en/

Amnesty International (2005/04/04). Italy: G8 Genoa policing operation – 6 April trial opening is a step towards combating police impunity. Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/003/2005/en/

Amnesty International (2006/07/21). Italy: Five years after the G8 Genoa policing operations: Italian authorities must take concrete action to prevent and prosecute police brutality in all circumstances. Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur30/005/2006/en/ 

Barbero, M. (2023/04/25). Liberty, Equality, Police Brutality. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/25/france-pension-protests-police-violence-macron-europe/

Codici identificativi – Le domande frequenti. Amnesty International Italia. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.it/codici-identificativi-le-domande-frequenti/

Codici identificativi subito. Amnesty International Italia. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.it/appelli/inserire-subito-i-codici-identificativi/

Kiai, M & Heyns, C. (2016). Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association and the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions on the proper management of assemblies : note / by the Secretariat. Geneva: United Nations General Assembly. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/831673?v=pdf 

Lewis, P. (2010/03/18). No police officer disciplined over G20 protests, says report. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/mar/18/g20-protest-officers-not-disciplined-report

Luciano, L. (2023/10/05). Codici identificativi Polizia di Stato, favorevoli e contrari: perché l’Italia è tra i pochi Paesi a non averlo. Money.it. https://www.money.it/codici-identificativi-polizia-stato-favorevoli-contrari-perche-italia-tra-pochi-paesi-non-averlo 

Nwabuzo, O. (2021). The Sharp Edge of Violence: Police brutality and community resistance of racialised groups. Brussels: European Network Against Racism (ENAR). https://www.enar-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/enar_report_-_the_sharp_edge_of_violence-2.pdf 

Recommendation 10/2001. Recommendation (EU) No 10/2001 of the Committee of Ministers to member states of 19 September 2001 on the European Code of Police Ethics. (2001). https://search.coe.int/cm?i=09000016805e297e#{%22CoEIdentifier%22:[%2209000016805e297e%22],%22sort%22:[%22CoEValidationDate%20Descending%22]} 

Redazione ANSA (2024/02/24). Cortei pro-Palestina a Firenze e Pisa, manifestanti caricati. ANSA. https://www.ansa.it/toscana/notizie/2024/02/23/cortei-pro-palestina-a-firenze-e-pisa-manifestanti-caricati_e0958ef1-80da-44ee-9399-5614f6024d47.html

Redazione ANSA (2025). Chi era Ramy Elgaml, il giovane morto a Milano dopo un inseguimento dei carabinieri. ANSA. https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cronaca/2025/01/12/chi-era-ramy-elgaml-il-giovane-morto-a-milano-al-centro-delle-proteste_812fc030-470a-492a-ad14-6b2fa8326ab4.html 

Resolution 2069/2011. Resolution (EU) No 2069/2011 of the European Parliament of 12 December 2012 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2010-2011). (2012). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012IP0500&qid=1738111685908 

“Spain: Police Used Excessive Force in Catalonia” (2017/10/12). Spain: Police Used Excessive Force in Catalonia. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/12/spain-police-used-excessive-force-catalonia#:~:text=(London)%20%E2%80%93%20Spanish%20police%20engaged,Human%20Rights%20Watch%20said%20today