Three Arengo petitions unanimously approved by the Grand and General Council (Consiglio Grande e Generale), yet several questions remain about their actual implementation.
Attiva-Mente is once again asking San Marino’s government for answers on strengthening the protection of fundamental rights, starting with the establishment of a national human rights ombudsman — an independent body that, according to government forecasts, was supposed to be up and running as early as the first months of 2026.
The request comes as the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) deemed only partially implemented the recommendation addressed to the Republic regarding the creation of an independent equality body.
The issue has been raised by the Attiva-Mente association, which traces back the initiatives promoted in recent years through the Arengo petitions (Istanze d’Arengo). Three proposals were accepted by the San Marino Parliament — in 2021, 2024 and February 2026 respectively — all sharing the goal of strengthening tools to combat discrimination and protect citizens.
“This is a question that arises from revisiting some of our initiatives, aimed at encouraging stronger protection of fundamental rights in the Republic of San Marino through one of the oldest and most precious tools of our democracy: the Arengo petitions,” the statement reads. The association, however, highlights the difficulties encountered in following up on what happens after such requests are approved.
“Perhaps this is also a limitation on our part, but it is not always easy to understand what happens after an approval, what steps are taken, and what results have been achieved.”
The first initiative dates back to 2021, with the petition “A signature against hate” (Una firma contro l’odio), through which Attiva-Mente called for more effective tools to prevent and combat intolerance, racism, discrimination and incitement to violence.
The proposal initially envisaged the creation of a special commission, but strengthening existing bodies was later favored instead. The association is now asking to know what results have actually been achieved from that choice.
In 2024, the petition to establish a national human rights ombudsman was approved — an independent figure equipped with adequate tools to intervene in defense of citizens.
The third step came in February of this year, when the Grand and General Council approved the request to introduce specific legislation against discrimination based on disability, including fast and accessible legal remedies.
On this last front, the government recently announced that the Department of European Affairs is working on a framework bill on non-discrimination, as part of aligning San Marino’s legal system with the Association Agreement with the European Union. Attiva-Mente has welcomed this process but is asking for precise information on timelines and on the safeguards that will be introduced.
The main sticking point remains the national human rights ombudsman, also referred to as the Ombudsman. The association recalls that, in the 2026 Economic Programme, the government had planned for the adoption and completion of the process within the first months of the year. As late October approaches, however, Attiva-Mente is once again questioning the state of progress of the project.
Adding urgency to the issue are the conclusions published by ECRI, the Council of Europe body dedicated to combating racism and intolerance. While acknowledging the progress made by San Marino, the Commission found the recommendation on creating an independent equality body only partially implemented.
“We are now at the doorstep of November.
What stage is that project at? Is there a finalized text?
When will it be presented? What functions and powers will actually be assigned to the ombudsman, and how will it coordinate with existing protective bodies?
And what progress has been made, in the meantime, on the path toward the anti-discrimination framework law announced by the government?” the association asks.
Attiva-Mente acknowledges that incorporating Arengo petitions into law requires institutional steps and careful study, but insists on the need for greater transparency in the process that separates parliamentary approval from the adoption of the requested measures.
“We know that institutional procedures require a government report on approved petitions, and that turning proposals into concrete measures takes time and careful consideration.
But between a formal response and its actual implementation lies a path whose developments, difficulties and timelines citizens should be able to know about.
Because when it comes to fundamental rights, time is not a neutral variable. Every delay can mean a missing safeguard, discrimination without an adequate response, a citizen who still doesn’t know who to turn to.”
Another point raised concerns the involvement of associations and individuals directly affected by the new rules, especially when it comes to disability. Attiva-Mente is calling for representative organizations to take part in shaping the measures from the earliest stages, rather than merely being allowed to comment on texts that have already been drafted.
“The principle of ‘Nothing about us without us’ cannot be reduced, as unfortunately still happens, to the mere possibility of commenting on decisions that have already been substantially finalized,” the association stresses.
“Ultimately, this is the very essence of our reflection: a democracy grows stronger not only when it listens to its citizens, but also when it gives value and continuity to their participation,” Attiva-Mente concludes.
