In the morning of Saturday 8 April, a male immigration detainee was found unconscious in his cell in Geneva’s Favra detention facility. His death has prompted renewed calls for authorities to close the controversial centre. According to a press release from the Department of Security, Population and Health (DSPS), the man (reportedly a Tunisian awaiting […]
11 May 2021 – Switzerland
In early May 2021, the Swiss immigration authority (Secrétariat d’Etat aux Migrations or SEM) launched an investigation into allegations of violence at federal asylum centres in Switzerland. The investigation followed the release of press reports about the use of excessive force by security officers when dealing with some asylum seekers. According to SEM, appropriate procedures […]
02 February 2021 – Switzerland
On 26 January 2021, the SRF/RTS reported that the Asylum Departure Centre in Aarwangen was placed under quarantine by the Canton of Bern because 19 of its 100 inhabitants had tested positive for COVID-19. They also closed the facility’s kindergarten and school. On 29 January 2021, the Canton reported that the number of positive cases […]
02 December 2020 – Switzerland
In a recent finding, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) concluded that Switzerland violated provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when it failed to show due diligence in assessing a child’s best interests and did not take the child’s views into account in a case involving a […]
06 August 2020 – Switzerland
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 […]
27 June 2020 – Switzerland
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 […]
09 June 2020 – Switzerland
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 […]
28 May 2020 – Switzerland
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 […]
04 April 2020 – Switzerland
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 […]
Last updated: June 2020
DETENTION STATISTICS
Reported Detainee Population (Day)
DETAINEE DATA
DETENTION CAPACITY
ALTERNATIVES TO DETENTION
ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT DATA
PRISON DATA
POPULATION DATA
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA & POLLS
LEGAL & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Bilateral/Multilateral Readmission Agreements
GROUNDS FOR DETENTION
Immigration-Status-Related Grounds
LENGTH OF DETENTION
DETENTION INSTITUTIONS
Custodial Authorities
Canton Bern, Migrationsdienst des Kantons Bern/ Einwohnerdienste, Migration und Fremdenpolizei der Stadt Bern
(Canton Bern, Migrationsdienst des Kantons Bern/ Einwohnerdienste, Migration und Fremdenpolizei der Stadt Bern)
Regional Authority-Immigration or Citizenship
Office cantonal de la population et des migrations (OCPM)
(Canton of Geneva, Office cantonal de la population / Service de la Population, Canton Vaud / Service des Migrations, Canton Neuchâtel)
Regional Authority-Immigration or Citizenship
Migration Office
(Department of Security and Justice, Migration Office, Canton Appenzell Ausserrhoden)
Regional Authority-Internal or Public Security
(Office for Migration, Canton Basel-Stadt / Service de la Population, Canton Vaud / Office for Migration, Canton Basel-Landschaft)
(Canton Bern, Migrationsdienst des Kantons Bern / Service de la Population, Canton Vaud / Service des Migrations, Canton Neuchâtel)
(Canton Bern, Migrationsdienst des Kantons Bern/ Einwohnerdienste, Migration und Fremdenpolizei der Stadt Bern / Service des Migrations, Canton Neuchâtel)
(Service de la population et des migrants, Canton Fribourg / Service de la Population, Canton Vaud / Service des Migrations, Canton Neuchâtel)
(Canton Nidwald, Amt für Justiz Abteilung Migration / Office for Migration and Labour, Canton Uri)
(Canton Bern, Migrationsdienst des Kantons Bern/ Einwohnerdienste, Migration und Fremdenpolizei der Stadt Bern / Service des Migrations, Canton Neuchâtel)
Regional Authority-Immigration or Citizenship
Migration Office
(Department of Security and Justice, Migration Office, Canton Appenzell Ausserrhoden)
Office for Migration
(Office for Migration, Canton Basel-Stadt / Service de la Population, Canton Vaud / Office for Migration, Canton Basel-Landschaft)
Office for Migration
(Service de la population et des migrants, Canton Fribourg / Service de la Population, Canton Vaud / )
Migration Office
(Canton Nidwald, Amt für Justiz Abteilung Migration / Office for Migration and Labour, Canton Uri)
Justiz, Polizei and Militärdepartement, Canton Appenzell Inerrhoden
(Justiz, Polizei and Militärdepartement, Canton Appenzell Inerrhoden)
Regional Authority-Internal or Public Security
Detention Facility Management
Chef de service, service de l'application des peines et mesures, Departement des Institutions, Republique et Canton de Genève
(Governmental)
PROCEDURAL STANDARDS & SAFEGUARDS
COSTS & OUTSOURCING
COVID-19 DATA
TRANSPARENCY
MONITORING
Types of Authorised Detention Monitoring Institutions
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
(International or Regional Bodies (IRBs))
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING BODIES
NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISMS (OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE)
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS (NGOs)
GOVERNMENTAL MONITORING BODIES
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & TREATY BODIES
International Treaties Ratified
Ratification Year
Observation Date
CAT, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
1986
2020
OPCAT, Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
2009
2020
CTOCTP, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children
2006
2020
CTOCSP, Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
2006
2020
ICPED, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
2016
2020
Ratio of relevant international treaties ratified
Ratio: 16/19
Relevant Recommendations or Observations Issued by Treaty Bodies
Recommendation Year
Observation Date
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
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
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 on the Rights of the Child
§ 65. "The Committee recommends that the State party further strengthen its system of family allowances and benefits with a view to ensuring that all children, including children of refugee, asylum-seeking and migrant parents, have an adequate standard of living throughout its territory...
68. While welcoming the entry into force in 2014 of the revision of the Asylum Act which requires priority treatment of asylum applications from unaccompanied children, the Committee remains concerned that the asylum procedure for unaccompanied children is not always guided by their best interests and, in relation to the reservation made to article 10 of the Convention, that the right to family reunification for persons granted provisional admission is too restricted. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that:
(a) Considerable cantonal disparities exist in relation to reception conditions, integration support and welfare for asylum-seeking and refugee children, with children being placed in, for instance, military or nuclear bunkers;
(b) “Persons of trust” for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are not required to be experienced in child care or child-rights matters;
(c) Asylum-seeking children face difficulties in accessing secondary education and there is no harmonized practice in granting authorizations for them to take up vocational training;
(d) The accelerated asylum procedure, which is also carried out at airports, may be applied to children;
(e) A considerable number of sans-papiers children (children without legal residence status) live in the State party and they face many difficulties in accessing, inter alia, health care, education, in particular secondary education, and vocational training, and there is a lack of strategies on how to address these issues...
69. The Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Ensure that the asylum procedure fully respects the special needs and requirements of children and is always guided by their best interests;
(b) Review its system for family reunification, in particular for persons granted provisional admission;
(c) Apply minimum standards for reception conditions, integration support and welfare for asylum seekers and refugees, in particular children, throughout its territory , and ensure that all reception and care centres for asylum-seeking and refugee children are child-friendly and conform to applicable United Nations standards;
(d) Ensure that “persons of trust” are properly trained to work with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children;
(e) Ensure that asylum-seeking children have effective and non-discriminatory access to education and vocational training;
(f) Exempt unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from the accelerated asylum procedure and establish safeguards to ensure that the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration is always respected;
(g) Develop policies and programmes to prevent the social exclusion of and discrimination against sans-papiers children and allow these children to fully enjoy their rights, including by ensuring access to education, health care and welfare services in practice."
2015
2015
Committee on the Rights of the Child
43. With reference to the joint general comments No. 3 and No. 4 of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families/No. 22 and No. 23 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2017) on the human rights of children in the context of international migration, the Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Ensure that authorities in charge of asylum procedures comply with the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration in all decisions related to the transfer, detention or deportation of any asylum-seeking or refugee child, including by: (i) developing a procedure for assessing and determining the best interests of the child in all asylum processes; (ii) strengthening coordination between the asylum system and the child protection system and ensuring that child protection professionals are involved in such decisions; and (iii) exempting children from the accelerated asylum procedure;
[...]
(h) Ensure that children under the age of 18 are not detained because of their migration status;
[...]
2021
2021
> UN Special Procedures
> UN Universal Periodic Review
REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MECHANISMS
Regional Legal Instruments
Year of Ratification (Treaty) / Transposed (Directive) / Adoption (Regulation)
Observation Date
ECHR, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights
1974
1974
2020
ECHRP7, Protocol 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights (amended by protocol 11)
1988
1988
2020
ECPT, European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment
1988
1988
2020
Relevant Recommendations or Observations of 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
HEALTH CARE PROVISION
HEALTH IMPACTS
COVID-19
Country Updates
In early May 2021, the Swiss immigration authority (Secrétariat d’Etat aux Migrations or SEM) launched an investigation into allegations of violence at federal asylum centres in Switzerland. The investigation followed the release of press reports about the use of excessive force by security officers when dealing with some asylum seekers. According to SEM, appropriate procedures and reporting by security staff were not followed properly. By May, 14 private security staff had been suspended at three centres, including eight at Boudry in the Canton of Neuchâtel.
One of the cases reported by Swiss news agencies was that of Ayoub, a young Moroccan national who was housed at the largest centre, in Boudry, in November 2020. He was placed in a container without heating in the middle of winter. Said Ayoub: “It is a very small place. On the floor and on the walls, there were traces of blood. On the ground, traces of vomit and urine. The smell was unbearable and I felt like I was lacking oxygen. It was terribly cold and there was no bed or mattress.” Ayoub was found in a state of advanced hypothermia, and a criminal investigation was launched after medical staff alerted judicial authorities.
The investigation comes as other cases of mistreatment of asylum seekers by officials gain attention in Switzerland.
On 9 May, a Swiss court convicted three border guards of mistreatment of a pregnant Syrian asylum seeker who suffered a miscarriage during her removal to Italy in 2014.
In February 2021, the case of a Guinean national named Abdou Mariga, who died shortly after Switzerland deported him to Guinea in 2019, gained national attention when members of the Swiss Federal Council opened up an investigation into SEM’s decision to deport the young man. This decision was taken despite the fact that he had no family members in that country and the canton he resided in had wanted to regularise his status. Suffering from hepatitis B and destitute, Abdou Mariga was unable to find treatment and died just months after his deportation at the age of 30.
In a separate development, the number of people held in Swiss prisons and detention centres was at its lowest level in a decade as of early 2021. According to experts, the decline is partly due to measures put in place since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. On 31 January 2021, the number of people held in Swiss prisons was 6,316, 8.4 per cent lower than on the same day in 2020. Foreign nationals detained for migration-related procedures made up a small fraction of that number, accounting for only 115 of the country’s total detainee population on that day, down from 267 on that same day in 2019 and 428 in 2009.
However, foreign nationals nevertheless account for the largest percentage of Switzerland’s total prison population, according to a recent Council of Europe study, which found that nearly 75 percent of detainees in Swiss prisons are non-citizens. The Swiss prison system comprises 92 institutions with a total capacity of 7,397 places. Nearly 95 percent of prisoners are men and more than 70 percent are foreign nationals. An important reason for this is that Switzerland has one of the highest percentages of foreign residents in Europe: 25.1 percent in 2017, or 2.1 million people. This translates to “almost three out of every 10 residents in Switzerland.”
Despite the decrease in the overall prison population, Switzerland did not opt to release large number of prisoners after onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, opting instead to impose a series of other measures to prevent the spread of the disease, including restricting visits to prisoners, limiting paroled absences, and cutting back on sporting and other social activities. This resulted in inmates having to spend more time in their cells in isolation. Prisons in some cantons, however, appeared to try to implement comparatively more humane measures. At Champ-Dollon in Geneva, Switzerland’s most overcrowded prison, plexiglass partitions were put up in the visiting area so that family members could still visit. The prison’s population also dropped from 650 to 560 as alternatives to custodial sentences were adopted including, house arrest, electronic bracelets, and an obligation to report to the police. For its part Canton Bern released some three dozen inmates who were in an open prison or in semi-detention as they belonged to at-risk groups, and they waived custodial sentences for individuals serving less than 30 days who were not considered to be a danger to society.
On 26 January 2021, the SRF/RTS reported that the Asylum Departure Centre in Aarwangen was placed under quarantine by the Canton of Bern because 19 of its 100 inhabitants had tested positive for COVID-19. They also closed the facility’s kindergarten and school. On 29 January 2021, the Canton reported that the number of positive cases had increased to 32, one of which a mutated version of the virus (it was not explicitly stated that the mutation was the B117 strain).
Asylum seekers at the Aarwangen centre have said that there has been over-congestion, as well as mismanagement of early isolation orders and sanitary conditions. An article in Berner Zeitung (30 January 2021) reported that a woman and her five family members, who all tested positive for COVID-19, were not receiving food, and that the woman had to go to the closest town herself to shop. Residents were reportedly provided with just one mask a week. A former centre employee confirmed that even though several people had warned them early on, the centre management ignored the impending danger of infections and let the situation escalate until the canton had to intervene and pay for the inhabitants’ food.
A SRF/RTS journalist, after exchanges with operators of the asylum centre, described how the quarantine situation (in terms of respecting hygiene rules and cohabitation) largely depends on the actions of those housed in the centre. For young men at the centre who face negative asylum decisions and deportation, the added health crisis worsens the difficult situation they find themselves in. A spokesperson ORS Service AG, which operates the centres, denounced criticism of operations at the centre. He argued that there is a tense atmosphere there even including attacks on staff, as well as instances of quarantined residents failing to follow internal health and safety regulations and instead mingling with other people.
The Swiss National Commission for the Prevention of Torture published a report on 18 January 2021 on the situation in the Federal Asylum Centres in Boudry, Balerna, Chiasso, Geneva Airport, Kappelen, Kreuzlingen, "Via Motta" (Chiasso), and ”Halle 9 Oerlikon," which is operated by the city of Zurich. According to their findings, the accommodation of asylum seekers by the federal government conforms with human and fundamental rights, and they welcomed initiatives like primary school lessons and addiction consultations. Moting areas where improvement was needed, including better conflict prevention and resolution, and responding to complaints, they also reported that there is room for improvement in the identification of vulnerable people, access to basic psychiatric care, disciplinary measures and, infrastructure.
The cantonal authorities in Bern re-opened four centres for asylum seekers in 2020 in order to cope with the pandemic, in Gampelen, Enggistein (Worb), Konolfingen and Beatenberg, according to a 16 July 2020 letter from the Office for Population Services.
Irrespective of the pandemic, new centres are also planned in Switzerland for other purposes. On 2 February 2021, SRF/RTS reported that Neuchâtel would open two new reception centres for migrants in the coming months, aiming for their professional and social integration into local society. A “Special Federal Asylum Centre” in Les Verrières (Neuchâtel) is also to be reopened by the federal authorities in mid-February 2021. According to a press statement by the State Secretariat of Migration (2 February 2021), it will be reopened to house disruptive male asylum seekers from other federal asylum centres and will have stricter exit and safety rules. These developments follow media coverage of apparent increasing criminality around federal asylum centres (C. Liechti, 7 January 2021).
Deportations continue to be carried out by the Swiss authorities. Most recently, the planned forced return of five people to Ethiopia on 27 January 2021 was criticised by Amnesty International, AsyLex, and Migrant Solidarity Network. On 25 January 2021, Amnesty International demanded a halt in all forced returns to Ethiopia from Switzerland in light of the tense security situation and human rights violations in the country. On 26 January 2021, RTS reported that the deportations of two of the Ethiopians represented by AsyLex were suspended by the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) and the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
In a recent finding, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) concluded that Switzerland violated provisions in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when it failed to show due diligence in assessing a child’s best interests and did not take the child’s views into account in a case involving a removal procedure for a family from Azerbaijan. The ruling comes as Swiss authorities are facing increasing legal challenges regarding its detention decisions stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. It also comes just a year and a half after Switzerland introduced a controversial new asylum system enabling the country to rapidly process applications.
The CRC case concerned a family of four that had made its way to Switzerland after fleeing their home in Azerbaijan. After a seven-month wait for an asylum hearing in Switzerland, the family reluctantly agreed to withdraw its asylum claim and be voluntarily repatriated. The complainant’s husband was told by his father that it was safe for him to return to Azerbaijan and that he no longer risked incarceration. Upon their return to Azerbaijan, the husband was arrested and the mother arranged to flee to Switzerland again. In May 2018, the mother and her two children, E.A. and U.A., arrived in Ticino and filed a new asylum application. As a result of the persecution and trauma she suffered, the mother’s mental health had worsened. In a report drafted by a psychologist from the Baobab centre, which provided support to the family, it was noted that the mother had developed symptoms of anxiety and depression, insomnia and somatic reactions and that the social network established by the mother and her children during their first stay in Ticino “allowed them to maintain a minimum level of mental and physical well-being.”
However, the asylum request was unsuccessful and Swiss authorities submitted a request to Italy to take charge of the mother and her children, as they had entered the European Union through Italy on an Italian visa. Italian authorities agreed to take charge of the family and so Swiss authorities ordered the removal of the mother with her children. The mother filed an appeal against this decision in July 2018, but the Swiss Federal Administrative Court rejected her appeal. The court ruled that there were no concrete and substantiated indications that the persons concerned would be unable to travel or that the alleged health problems were so serious that the family’s transfer to Italy would be contrary to the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights.
Despite being aware that the children had contracted chickenpox and the risk of contagion had been reported by a doctor, on 12 September 2018, the police picked up the mother and her children from their hotel to carry out their removal from Zurich airport. Officers showed the children an image of forced removal (people being restrained), telling them that if their mother did not cooperate, they would remove them in the same way. The mother suffered panic and anxiety attacks during the removal, which reportedly prompted the police to leave the family at Zurich airport without any money and instruct them to make their own way back to their accommodation in Ticino. The mother thus complained that the Swiss authorities violated their obligation to respect the rights set out under Articles 3 (due diligence in assessing the children’s best interests) and 12 (right of the child to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting the child) CRC.
The CRC pointed out that Article 12 does not impose an age limit on the right of the child to express his/her views. In absence of a direct hearing for the children, the situation amounted to a violation of Article 12. Also, the committee credited the argument that Swiss authorities did not take into account the trauma experienced by the children and in consequence, it considered that the national authorities failed to hear E.A. and U.A. and did not show due diligence in assessing the children’s best interests, constituting a violation of Article 3.
The CRC finding is the latest in a string of recent legal challenges involving detention and removal proceedings that have confronted Swiss authorities, mainly stemming from the impact of COVID-19. The group Asylex, which campaigns for the rights of people in administrative detention in Switzerland, has helped spearhead these challenges. As previously reported (see 27 June Switzerland update on this platform), on 9 June, the Swiss Supreme Court handed down a judgment in a case brought by Asylex, stating that due to limitations on the ability to deport people, brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, “detention pending removal” was unlawful during this period. According to Asylex, it has pursued similar argumentation in more than 40 cases between March-June and as of 11 June, more than 30 people had been released. After two successful challenges against the Zurich Migration Office at the Federal Supreme Court in June, Asylex president, Lea Hungerbühler said: “The fact that the Federal Supreme Court has now ruled this way in the two precedent cases is a strong indication that the Zurich Migration Office must change its practice.”
Following the establishment of Switzerland’s new asylum system in March 2019, the Coalition of Independent Asylum Lawyers (Coalition des juristes indépendant-e-s pour le droit d’asile) released a critical assessment of the first year of operation of the new accelerated procedure. As part of the coalition, Asylex argued that the procedure is too quick and superficial, and that there have been numerous problems associated with quality of translations during asylum hearings, complaints of racism, and the placement of asylum seekers in isolation in federal asylum centres.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
