Switzerland

3,284

Immigration detainees

2018

2,155

Detained asylum seekers

2018

7

Detained children

2019

5

Long-term centres

2020

14,269

New asylum applications

2019

Overview

Many of Switzerland's immigration detention practices contrast sharply with those of its neighbours. For instance, when compared to detention centres elsewhere in Europe, some Swiss detention sites—like its Frambois facility in Geneva—have been lauded for having a comparatively humane regime. On the other hand, the country continues to make widespread use of prisons for immigration detention purposes, making it one of last countries in Europe to do so.

Types of facilities used for migration-related detention
Administrative Ad Hoc Criminal Unknown

06 August 2020

M. Shields, “Switzerland Expands COVID-19 Quarantine watchlist,” Reuters, 22 July 2020, https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/world/switzerland-expands-covid-19-quarantine-watchlist-476185/
M. Shields, “Switzerland Expands COVID-19 Quarantine watchlist,” Reuters, 22 July 2020, https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/world/switzerland-expands-covid-19-quarantine-watchlist-476185/

As the GDP previously reported (see 27 June update), while Swiss authorities did not issue a moratorium on new detention orders during the pandemic, many immigration detainees were released due to the impossibility of conducting returns. This has been confirmed by Amnesty International Switzerland, which informed the GDP that some cantons declared a moratorium on administrative detention orders within the context of Dublin returns, and that some decided to release detainees who had been in immigration detention related to negative Dublin-decisions. According to the rights watchdog, released asylum seekers were placed in “very basic” structures, “where more or less appropriate measures against Covid-19 have been taken (information, distribution of soap, separation of infected people…, depending on the canton and on the responsible persons for the camps).”

Regarding deportations, there was no general policy implemented. Switzerland’s official position has been that individual case assessments are taken to decide whether a deportation is executable within a reasonable time frame.

Immigration detainees are not under specific measures regarding testing, and are subjected to the same regime as the rest of the country, Amnesty reported. Tests are being conducted only on individuals showing one or more Covid-19 symptoms. With the closing of most borders, asylum applications at the borders have no longer been accepted. Emergency measures have been taken regarding the domestic asylum procedures, such as the opening of new shelters to avoid overcrowding.

As Covid-19 cases declined, borders were reopened to members of the Schengen zone. Switzerland has implemented mandatory quarantine for travelers entering the country from a list of several dozen territories and countries, including recently Spain. Individuals who do not follow quarantine rules face a 10,000 Swiss franc fine. Most of the restrictions in the country were lifted in June, with schools and shops reopening.


27 June 2020

Image of a Dormitory in Asylum Accommodation, (Blick TV,
Image of a Dormitory in Asylum Accommodation, (Blick TV, "Genug Schutz vor Corona?," 20 April 2020, https://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/zuerich/asylzentrum-genug-schutz-vor-corona-id15853493.html)

Responding to the Global Detention Project Covid-19 survey, AsyLex reported that although Switzerland has not established a moratorium on new immigration detention orders, many immigration detainees have been released because returns are no longer possible. Certain local governments (cantonal authorities) have released all detainees, confirming information provided to the GDP by the Director General of the Geneva Cantonal Population and Migration Office (Office Cantonal de la Population et des Migrations) (see 9 June Switzerland update on this platform), whereas other local authorities have not released anyone. However, all detainees in Dublin procedures were released towards the end of March.

Asylex indicated that for released detainees, no “alternatives to detention” programs were used; instead, according to AsyLex, people were returned to crowded “camps,” referring to “asylum accommodation” (Asylunterkünften) or “asylum centres” (Asylzentren), which they said may lack adequate protections for preventing the spread of Covid-19. AsyLex explained that these places are often underground, with up to 15 people sleeping in one room. Blick TV investigated these facilities and published a video filmed by a detainee showing an overcrowded dormitory where social distancing is impossible to implement (see link below).

Asylex also said that immigration detainees have only been tested for Covid-19 if infection is suspected. In addition, according to the organisation, deportations were not halted as removals to Serbia and Albania took place and potentially to other countries.

On 9 June, the Swiss Supreme Court handed down a judgment in a case brought by AsyLex concerning the detention of a Somali national prior to deportation. The Court found that due to limitations on the ability to deport people, “detention pending removal” was unlawful during this period. AsyLex explained that the law stipulates that to detain people under this provision deportation must be foreseeable, as per Article 76 of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration (AIG).

In a statement on their website published on 11 June, AsyLex also mentioned that they presented challenges in more than 40 cases throughout Switzerland during the Covid-19 pandemic, invoking various provisions (Articles 78(6)(a); 80(a)(6); and 80(a)(7)) of the AIG as well as Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. More than 30 of their clients were released from detention, while other cases are still pending.


09 June 2020

Champ-Dollon Prison in Geneva, (EaG,
Champ-Dollon Prison in Geneva, (EaG, "Protestation à Champ-Dollon: les détenu-e-s doivent aussi être protégé-e-s face au Covid-19," 3 April 2020, https://eag-ge.ch/mutinerie-a-champ-dollon-les-detenus-doivent-aussi-etre-proteges-face-au-covid-19/)

Responding to the Global Detention Project’s Covid-19 survey, the Geneva Cantonal Population and Migration Office (Office Cantonal de la Population et des Migrations or OCPM) reported that while Geneva had not established a moratorium on new immigration detention orders, no new orders have been issued since the end of April, owing to the impossibility of deporting people. The OCPM also confirmed that all immigration detainees in the canton had been released towards the end of April by orders of the OCPM and the Geneva first instance administrative tribunal.

The Migration Office stated that two immigration detainees had tested positive for Covid-19 and that they had been placed in isolation in the Champ-Dollon prison in Geneva. One of the positive Covid-19 cases received medical assistance at the Cantonal Hospital (HUG) and the other remained in isolation in prison and was serving a prison sentence.

Immigration detainees placed in the Frambois immigration detention centre since the end of May have not been tested for Covid-19 upon entry. As former criminal prisoners subject to deportation orders, the protocol followed requires the nurse to contact the facility where these persons were previously detained prior to their transfer to Frambois in order to enquire about their health and to know whether a Covid-19 test has been undertaken. At present, it seems that only persons showing symptoms of the disease are tested in criminal facilities.


28 May 2020

Bunkbeds in a Dormitory of a Federal Asylum Centre, (Anthony Anex, Keystone,
Bunkbeds in a Dormitory of a Federal Asylum Centre, (Anthony Anex, Keystone, "Die Schweiz stoppt Ausschaffungen von Asylbewerbern – erster Corona-Fall im Bundeszentrum Zürich," Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 26 March 2020, https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/die-schweiz-stoppt-ausschaffungen-von-asylbewerbern-erster-corona-fall-im-bundeszentrum-zuerich-ld.1548486?reduced=true#back-register)

Since the beginning of April, certain immigration detention centres, including the Frambois and Favra centres in Geneva, have been closed. Around 30 people were detained in the centres at the time. Reports suggest that they may have been assigned to a temporary residence or may be prohibited from entering a specific perimeter or region. The situation in Geneva is complicated by the fact that detention spaces in the canton are shared with other cantons as part of an agreement, or “concordat.” However, according to Tribune de Genève, Geneva is taking charge of all detainees previously held in the Vaud and Neuchâtel cantons.

In Bern, certain immigration detainees have been released by order of the court. Nonetheless, the Director of Security of Bern rejected a request to release all immigration detainees and stated that every case is examined individually. At the end of March, it was reported that around a dozen asylum seekers and seven employees had been infected with the virus in the federal asylum centres.

The halt of deportations may also have legal consequences, as reported by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. As authorities have a period of six months to return rejected asylum seekers in Dublin procedures, depending upon the duration of the Covid-19 crisis, numerous deportations may no longer be feasible. As stated by Marcel Suter from the cantonal migration authorities, “if returns are stopped for a long time, it is difficult to get them going again.”

Migrant workers in irregular situations in Switzerland (estimated at 100,000) have been left in a precarious situation due to the coronavirus crisis. Various organisations and support centres in Zurich, Lucerne, Basel, Bern, Geneva, and Lausanne have been providing food and food vouchers. However, requests for advice and financial support have continued to flood in. Bea Schwager, head of the Zurich centre SPAZ (Sans-Papiers Anlaufstelle Zürich), said that “in Zurich, over 400 people have called us for financial aid to cover essential expenses during confinement.” She added that the organisation had “received about CHF 100,000 but much of that money has already been spent.” In Lausanne, before the crisis, the Protestant church gave out 80 food rations, whereas today, it distributes 350. In mid-April, the Protestant Social Centre and the Vaud Collective Support of Sans Papiers, together with other organisations, wrote to the federal, cantonal, and municipal authorities requesting financial aid and other support for the most vulnerable. For now however, no response has been provided.

On 1 April, the Swiss Federal Council passed a legal order (ordonnance Covid-19 asile) regarding the measures taken with respect to asylum in view of the Covid-19 crisis. Article 6 of the order allows the Swiss Migration Secretariat (Secrétariat d’Etat aux Migrations, or SEM) to conduct an interview without a legal representative being present with the asylum seeker. In addition, following a review of the asylum legislation in March 2019, time limits for appeals against negative asylum decisions had been reduced from 30 days to 7. The order has now amended this time-frame and re-established a 30 day period for people to respond to decisions by the SEM.

In some of the country’s prisons, alternatives to incarceration have been implemented. In Bern, 27 vulnerable prisoners that were accommodated in open or semi-open prisons have been released. In addition, sentences of less than 30 days for prisoners that “do not present any risk for society” have been suspended. In the Champ-Dollon prison in Geneva, the number of inmates has been reduced from 650 to 560 as certain detainees have been assigned to house arrest, given electronic tags and others have been given reporting obligations. As of 15 April, authorities had confirmed that there were 35 people that tested positive in prisons, including 33 staff members.


04 April 2020

Detainees Playing Football During Recreation in the Frambois Detention Centre in Geneva, (https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/un-licenciement-injuste-coute-tres-cher-letat-geneve)
Detainees Playing Football During Recreation in the Frambois Detention Centre in Geneva, (https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/un-licenciement-injuste-coute-tres-cher-letat-geneve)

Swiss authorities have temporarily closed some immigration detention facilities, and detainees who have contracted the virus have been placed in isolation in prisons.

In the early stages of the virus’ spread within the country, three Covid-19 cases were detected within federal asylum centres (Chevrilles, Basel, and Bern). Transfers between such facilities were subsequently reduced, but the State Secretariat for Migration (‘SEM’) decided against introducing systematic testing for Covid-19.

As cases continued to rise within the country, various NGOs and official bodies urged the adoption of additional measures to protect vulnerable persons. On 18 March, Solidarité Sans Frontières’ called for several measures, including: access to health for asylum seekers; the release of immigration detainees; and the suspension of deportations. On 20 March, staff working at the Basel federal asylum centre criticised the lack of protective measures within the facility. The employees stated that approximately 200 refugees lived in the centre, most of them sleeping in 12 person rooms, and they were practically “shoulder to shoulder when serving food.” The SEM denied these allegations and said that it was following the Federal Office of Health’s recommendations in asylum centres.

On 23 March 2020, a detainee at the Frambois immigration detention centre tested positive and was thus placed in isolation at the Champ-Dollon prison in Geneva. A staff member also contracted the virus, and three other detainees were placed in isolation at the Geneva prison. The Frambois and Favra detention centres in Geneva were temporarily closed and detainees released.

During a protest in early April at the Champ-Dollon prison in Geneva, some 40 prisoners refused to return to their cells in the afternoon protesting against the conditions of their detention due to the measures taken to avoid the spread of Covid-19. The prisoners later complied with orders and returned to their cells.


Last updated: June 2020

 

 

 

Switzerland has one of the highest percentages of non-citizen (or “foreign national”) residents in the world, which by 2018 numbered more than two million people, or nearly 25 percent of the entire population.[1] Reasons for this high percentage are the country’s high immigration rates as well as challenges in acquiring citizenship, which is not automatically granted to people born in Switzerland. The Swiss Federal Statistical Office reported in 2016 that nearly 400,000 foreign nationals were born in Switzerland, which made up about 20 percent of the country’s non-citizen population.[2] What is more, nearly half of Switzerland’s non-citizen residents have lived at least 10 years in the country.[3]

Immigration and asylum policies are the subject of heated political debates in the country and have also received international scrutiny. For instance, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), whose headquarters are located in Geneva, described the country’s 2005 asylum law as “one of the strictest pieces of legislation in Europe.”[4] More recently, in 2018, Switzerland opted not to join 160 other countries in adopting the non-binding Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration, even though the country had played an important role crafting the compact.[5] 

Switzerland’s detention policies have been impacted by these national debates. However, an equally important influence is the fact that “coercive measures,” as detention procedures are called in Swiss law, are applied at the local (or cantonal) level rather than at the federal level, a system similar to Germany’s. This can create varying degrees of enforcement between different parts of Switzerland. It also may be an important reason that Switzerland, unlike nearly all other countries in Europe, continues to make widespread use of prisons for immigration detention purposes. Of the more than 30 dozen detention sites used for applying coercive measures in Switzerland, the Global Detention Project has identified only five that are specialised immigration facilities.

In 2018, there were reportedly 3,284 total detention orders, the majority of which concerned “detention pending deportation” (Article 76 FNA), with 1,895 orders (57.7 percent), followed by Dublin detention (Article 76a FNA) with 1,213 orders (i.e. 36.9 percent).[6] The numbers of people placed in detention have steadily decreased during the past decade, down from a high of 7,540 in 2011.[7] In 2018, the top nationalities of detainees were, by order of importance, Algeria, Nigeria, Albania, Morocco, and Kosovo.[8] 

For more information, see Global Immigration Detention Observatory, “Switzerland Immigration Detention Data Profile.”

 


[1] Federal Statistical Office, “Foreign population” (website), https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/population/migration-integration/foreign.html

[2] O. Lavoustet, “La Suisse Dépasse les 8,5 Millions d’Habitants,” Le Temps, 9 April 2019, https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/suisse-depasse-85-millions-dhabitants; D. Q. Nguyen, “Qui Sont ces 25% d’Etrangers en Suisse?” Swissinfo, 10 November 2017, https://www.swissinfo.ch/fre/societe/s%C3%A9rie-migration-partie-1-_deux-millions-d-%C3%A9trangers-en-suisse-mais-qui-sont-ils/42409190

[3] Swissinfo, "Defining the 25% foreign population in Switzerland,” 19 November 2017, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/migration-series-part-1-_who-are-the-25-foreign-population-in-switzerland/42412156

[4] UNHCR, “Switzerland: UNHCR Deeply Regrets Adoption of New Asylum Law,” 18 March 2005, https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2005/3/423ab71a25/switzerland-unhcr-deeply-regrets-adoption-new-asylum-law.html

[5] Swissinfo, "Why do we need the Global Compact for Migration?” 11 December 2019, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/explainer_why-do-we-need-the-global-compact-for-migration-/44572400

[6] State Secretariat for Migration (SEM), “Datenerhebung Zwangsmassnahmen (DAZ) ganze Schweiz 2018,” 18 January 2019, provided to the GDP by Philippe Feliser (SEM), Email exchange with Agnese Zucca (GDP), 7 June 2019.

[7] Federal Office for Migration (P. Feliser), Responses to Global Detention Project/Access Info Questionnaire, 9 and 24 October 2013.

[8] State Secretariat for Migration (SEM), “Datenerhebung Zwangsmassnahmen (DAZ) ganze Schweiz 2018,” 18 January 2019, provided to the GDP by Philippe Feliser (SEM), Email exchange with Agnese Zucca (GDP), 7 June 2019.

IMMIGRATION AND DETENTION-RELATED STATISTICS

Total number of immigration detainees by year
3,284
2018
3,724
2017
5,732
2016
5,417
2014
6,039
2013
6,806
2012
7,540
2011
Top nationalities of detainees
Algeria, Nigeria, Albania, Morocco, Kosovo
2018
Albania, Algeria, Nigeria, Morocco, Kosovo
2017
Number of detained asylum seekers
2,155
2018
Total number of detained minors
7
2019
8
2018
21
2017
25
2016
37
2015
131
2014
130
2013
177
2012
176
2011
Number of detained unaccompanied minors
2
2019
2
2018
4
2017
Number of detained accompanied minors
5
2019
6
2018
17
2017
Number of apprehensions of non-citizens
14,420
2018
13,800
2014
15,045
2013
14,170
2012
Immigration detainees as a percentage of total international migrant population
0.16
2018
0.3
2013
Estimated total immigration detention capacity
Not Available
2020
352
2018
Number of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres
5
2020
5
2011
Estimated capacity of dedicated long-term immigration detention centres
166
2020
91
2011
Number of transit facilities
2
2020
2
2011
Number of criminal facilities
33
2020
20
2011
Number of deportations/forced returns only
2,486
2018
3,021
2017
Criminal prison population
6,909
2020
6,884
2015
7,072
2013
6,599
2012
Percentage of foreign prisoners
69.6
2020
71
2015
74.3
2013
73.8
2012
Prison population rate (per 100,000 of national population)
80
2020
83
2015
87
2013
82
2012
Population
8,700,000
2020
8,603,899
2020
8,299,000
2015
7,700,000
2012
International migrants
2,572,000
2019
2,438,700
2015
2,335,100
2013
International migrants as a percentage of the population
29.9
2019
29.4
2015
28.9
2013
Refugees
116,700
2019
104,037
2018
93,056
2017
82,608
2016
73,336
2015
69,390
2015
52,464
2014
50,747
2012
Ratio of refugees per 1000 inhabitants
9.87
2016
7.63
2014
6.48
2012
6.6
2011
Total number of new asylum applications
14,269
2019
9,042
2016
22,113
2014
32,359
2012
Stateless persons
49
2018
62
2017
66
2016
76
2015
79
2014
69
2012
Number of immigration detainees on a given day
Number of persons granted alternatives to immigration detention
Number of detained stateless persons
Number of dedicated medium-term immigration detention centres
Number of immigration offices
Number of ad hoc facilities
Number of persons removed/returned (voluntary returns and deportations)
Percentage of persons removed in relation to total number of people placed in removal procedures
Estimated number of undocumented migrants
Refugee recognition rate

SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Gross Domestic Product per capita (in USD)
82,828
2018
85,594
2014
80,528
2013
79,052
2012
Remittances to the country
2,519
2019
2,737
2015
2,901
2011
Remittances from the country
26,750
2018
21,611
2010
Unemployment Rate
5
2019
Net official development assistance (ODA) (in millions USD)
3,120.78
2019
3,045
2012
3,051
2011
Human Development Index Ranking (UNDP)
2 (Very high)
2019
3 (Very high)
2014
9 (Very high)
2012
Immigration Index Score
21
2014
23
2011
World Bank Rule of Law Index
99 (1.93)
2018
97 (-0.8)
2012
94 (-1)
2011
95 (-0.9)
2010
Unemployment rate amongst migrants
Detention for deterrence
Pew Global Attitudes Poll on Immigration
Domestic Opinion Polls on Immigration

DOMESTIC LAWS AND POLICIES

Legal tradition
Civil law
Constitutional guarantees?
Yes (Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation - (Constitution fédérale de la Confédération Suisse du 18 Avril 1999), Articles 10 and 31) 1999 1999
1999
Core pieces of national legislation
Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration - (Loi Fédérale sur les Etrangers et l'Intégration du 16 Décembre 2005) (2005) 2014
2005
Asylum Act - (Loi sur l'Asile du 26 Juin 1998) (1998) 2014
1998
Additional legislation
Ordonnance sur l’Exécution du Renvoi et de l’Expulsion d’Etrangers (1999) 2020
1999
Immigration-status-related grounds
Detention to prevent unauthorised entry at the border
2020
Detention for failing to respect a voluntary removal order
2020
Detention to effect removal
2020
Detention during the asylum process
2020
Detention pending transfer to another Schengen country
2020
Detention for unauthorized stay resulting from criminal conviction
2020
Detention to prevent absconding
2020
Detention to ensure transfer under the Dublin Regulation
2020
Does the country provide specific criminal penalties for immigration-related violations?
Yes (Yes)
2020
Grounds for criminal immigration-related detention/incarceration and maximum potential duration of incarceration
Unauthorized entry (365)
2020
Unauthorised stay (365)
2020
Unauthorized exit (365)
2020
Has the country decriminalized immigration-related violations?
No
2020
Maximum length for administrative immigration detention in law.
540
2020
Average length of detention
28
2018
25
2017
25
2016
21
2014
22
2013
20
2012
23
2011
Maximum length of detention for persons detained upon arrival at ports of entry
15
2020
Provision of basic procedural standards
Independent review of detention (Yes)
2020
Right to appeal the lawfulness of detention (Yes)
2020
Access to consular assistance (Yes)
2020
Right to legal counsel (Yes)
2020
Access to free interpretation services (No)
2020
Types of non-custodial measures
Release on bail (No) infrequently
2020
Supervised release and/or reporting (No) infrequently
2020
Registration (deposit of documents) (No) infrequently
2020
Designated non-secure housing (No) infrequently
2020
Electronic monitoring (No) No
2020
Is the detention of vulnerable persons provided in law? Are they detained in practice?
Accompanied minors (Provided) Yes
2020
Unaccompanied minors (Provided) Yes
2020
Asylum seekers (Provided)
2020
Re-entry ban
Yes
2020
Regulations, standards, guidelines
Non-immigration-status-related grounds providing for administrative detention in immigration legislation.
Longest recorded instance of immigration detention.
Maximum length of time in custody prior to issuance of a detention order
Maximum length of detention for asylum-seekers
Impact of alternatives
Mandatory detention
Expedited/fast track removal

INTERNATIONAL LAW

International treaty reservations
Reservation Year
Observation Date
CRC Article 37 1997
1997
CRC Article 40 1997
1997
Individual complaints procedure
Acceptance Year
ICERD, declaration under article 14 of the Convention 2003
2003
CEDAW, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, 1999 2008
2008
CAT, declaration under article 22 of the Convention 1986
1986
Ratio of complaints procedures accepted
Observation Date
3/5
3/5
Relevant recommendations issued by treaty bodies
Recommendation Year
Human Rights Committee §34. The Committee takes note of the progress made in the granting of legal aid to asylum seekers. It remains concerned, however, about reports that migrants are being placed in administrative detention virtually as a matter of course and that adults are not separated from unaccompanied minors (arts. 7, 9 and 13). §35. The State party should: (a) pursue its efforts with respect to the granting of legal aid to asylum seekers and ensure that they have access to remedies; (b) see to it that adults and unaccompanied minors are strictly separated ; and (c) establish and apply alternative measures to administrative detention. §36. The Committee notes that efforts made to improve conditions of detention. It wishes to express concern, however, about information that, in certain regional institutions, juveniles are held with adults and are not adequately supervised (arts. 7, 9, 10 and 24). §37. The State party should: (a) pursue its efforts to reduce prison overcrowding, in particular by applying non-custodial measures, including in respect of foreign detainees; and (b) ensure strict separation of adults and juveniles and adequate supervision of the latter. 2017
2017
Committee against Torture

§ 17: The State party should develop and implement alternatives to administrative detention and should use detention only as a last resort, particularly where unaccompanied minors are concerned, and, when detention is necessary and proportionate, for as short a period as possible. The State should continue its efforts to provide special facilities in all cantons in order to accommodate migrants in administrative detention under an appropriate regime.

2015
2015
Committee against Torture

§ 13: The State party should reconsider the maximum period of administrative detention, resort to it only in exceptional circumstances and limit its duration in light of the principle of proportionality.

§ 17: The State party must also take measures to ensure that minors and adults, as well as detainees serving under different prison regimes, are separated. Finally, it must take steps to ensure the application of legislation and procedures concerning health-care access for all prisoners, especially those with psychiatric problems.

2010
2010
Regional legal instruments
Year of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
ECHR, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights 1974
1974
ECHRP7, Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11) 1988
1988
ECPT, European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment 1988
1988
Return Directive 2011
2011
CATHB, Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2012
2012
CPCSE, Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse 2014
2014
Recommendations issued by regional human rights mechanisms
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) § 37: agir au plus vite aux niveaux fédéral, concordataire et cantonal afin que les personnes faisant l’objet de mesures de contrainte en matière de droit sur les étrangers ne soient pas hébergées en milieu carcéral et soient toujours placées dans des centres spécifiquement conçus à cet effet, répondant aux critères énoncés dans les 7ème et 19ème rapports généraux du CPT. En attendant, lorsqu’il n’y a encore aucune alternative au placement en milieu carcéral, il convient de veiller à ce que les personnes concernées bénéficient de conditions de détention appropriées. 2012
2012
2020
Bilateral/multilateral agreements linked to readmission
Year in Force
Observation Date
Austria 1911
1911
2017
Croatia 1993
1993
2017
Kuwait 2017
2017
2017
Tunisia 2014
2014
2017
Albania 2000
2000
2017
Algeria 2007
2007
2017
Armenia 2005
2005
2017
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2009
2009
2017
Bulgaria 2009
2009
2017
Croatia 1997
1997
2017
Czech Republic 2011
2011
2017
Estonia 1998
1998
2017
Finland 2010
2010
2017
France 2000
2000
2017
Georgia 2005
2005
2017
Germany 1994
1994
2017
Greece 2009
2009
2017
Hong Kong 2000
2000
2017
Hungary 1995
1995
2017
Italy 2000
2000
2017
Kyrgyzstan 2003
2003
2017
Kosovo 2010
2010
2017
Latvia 1998
1998
2017
Lebanon 2006
2006
2017
Lithuania 1996
1996
2017
Macedonia 2012
2012
2017
Moldova 2011
2011
2017
Norway 2005
2005
2017
Philippines 2003
2003
2017
Poland 2006
2006
2017
Romania 2009
2009
2017
Russian Federation 2011
2011
2017
Serbia 2010
2010
2017
Slovakia 2007
2007
2017
Slovenia 2005
2005
2017
Sweden 2003
2003
2017
Ukraine 2004
2004
2017
United Kingdom 2006
2006
2017
Viet Nam 2006
2006
2017
Spain 2005
2005
2017
Luxembourg 2007
2007
2017
Netherlands 2007
2007
2017
Belgium 2007
2007
2017
Austria 2001
2001
2017