A/HRC/10/9 page 46 213. Allegedly, this provision, if applied to cases where an enforced disappearance has occurred, is not compatible with the aim of prevention and repression of the offence. 214. In a communication dated 7 August 2008, the Government of Italy stated that: “The crime of enforced disappearance falls within Art. 6085 of the domestic criminal code, which is devoted to the offences of abduction, kidnapping and envisages, inter alia, the aggravating circumstance, in case such crimes are committed by a public official or civil servant, the detention penalty term will be increased.” 215. The Government reported that “by Act N. 124 adopted on 3 August 2007, the institute of the so-called ‘functional safeguards’ introduced an ad hoc legal excuse, to be applied to the staff of the Intelligence Services for the State Security, who are authorized by the competent political Authority, to perform duties pursuing institutional objectives of the Service which, in principle, might fall under criminal conduct”. In this connection, the Government added that by art. 17, para. 2, of Act 124/07, it is envisaged that the legal excuse institute cannot cover “crimes aimed at endangering, attempting or affecting the right to life, the physical integrity, the personal and moral liberties, the health and the safety of individuals”. 216. The Government further reported that “by Art. 39 of Act 124/07, the prerequisites for the application of the State secrecy have been defined. The State secrecy is applied only as a last resort, when the State security is challenged and under threat. When such prerequisites emerge, the protection of the State secrecy is decided by the President of the Council of Ministers. Accordingly, there is ‘no possibility for the accused public official’ to decide the applicability of the State secrecy: the public official may only, by jurisdictional action, initiate a parallel, interlocutory proceeding, aimed at getting a decision by the President of the Council of Ministers whether to confirm or not the State secrecy. However, at procedural level State secrecy does not interrupt penal actions.” The Government added that “procedurally, it is worth reiterating that the decision confirming the State secrecy has to be explicit and made solely by the President of the Council of Ministers: in light of the strict prerequisites defined by Law, neither the accused person, nor the witness may take this kind of decision”. Observations 217. The Working Group notes that the response of the Government does not specifically address whether or not it conducted an extraordinary rendition programme, together with other countries, consisting of secretly transporting a person through various countries, a practice which amounts to enforced disappearance. 218. The Working Group reminds the Government that following its general comment on article 4 of the Declaration, the crime of enforced disappearance shall be an offence and included in criminal law as an autonomous crime, and not incorporated in domestic legislation as part of other offences.