Author
The law does not specifically provide for the screening of vulnerabilities and there is no standard procedure in practice to assess and identify them. Furthermore, all but very complex asylum claims should be assessed and decided within 140 days. The fast-paced procedure puts administrative authorities and legal representatives under increased pressure, which, coupled with the lack of standard identification tools, may result in overlooking potential vulnerabilities. A report published by UNHCR in 2020 details the protection gaps existing in the Swiss asylum system in this regard and advances concrete suggestions to overcome them.[1] According to UNHCR, there remain wide margins for improvement in the screening and identification of vulnerable applicants. Similar concerns were also raised by the NCPT in a report on federal reception published in 2023.[2] So far, as of January 2025, none of these recommendations have been implemented. As indicated in the previous AIDA report of 2023, the SEM’s guidelines for identifying and protecting particularly vulnerable asylum applicants have been in development for a long time. However, to date, no information is available regarding when and how they will actually be published.
Screening of vulnerability: Victims of human trafficking
The obligation to identify victims of human trafficking has been introduced in the Swiss legislation,[3] to respond to European requirements.[4] Most of the efforts of the SEM are focused on trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation. In its second report on Switzerland, the Council of Europe’s Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) strongly encouraged Swiss authorities to step up efforts to detect and prevent trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation and trafficking in children.[5] GRETA visited Switzerland in the summer of 2023, for its third Evaluation Round. In June 2024, the third report on Switzerland was published.[6] According to the report, despite improvements, there is still a need for action in Switzerland to protect victims of human trafficking.[7] The report criticises that the accommodation for asylum applicants is often not suitable for victims of human trafficking. it must be ensured that they are provided with accommodation where they can find peace and rest and where their particular circumstances are taken into account.
Furthermore, GRETA expresses its concern about the disappearance of minors from the federal asylum centres. GRETA also recommends that the Swiss authorities should check more carefully in the context of Dublin procedures whether victims of human trafficking have access to adequate protection and support measures in the responsible Dublin state. Victims of human trafficking are otherwise at risk of falling into the hands of human traffickers again in the relevant Dublin country.[8]
In 2016, of the FAC highlighted the identification of victims of trafficking as the state’s obligation and the importance of their identification within the asylum procedure,[9] but did not explicitly state that a failure to fulfil this obligation represents a violation of Article 10 of the Council of Europe Convention.
Despite this, it remains very difficult to identify victims of human trafficking in the context of the asylum procedure, as the interview conditions and the limited time are not favourable to building the necessary trust between the applicant and the authorities. The Asylum and Human Trafficking working group[10] was established in 2002 to implement action 19 of the National Action Plan against trafficking (NAP). The working group published a report in May 2021,[11] setting out a list of recommendations, which aim to better detect potential victims of human trafficking and to ensure that their rights are respected in asylum procedures. In particular, the SEM introduced a specific interview in case of indications of trafficking in human beings, and a 30-day recovery and reflection period for potential victims is now granted upon detection. SEM also vowed to reinforce staff training and develop practical tools dedicated to this issue.[12] While welcoming the report as a first step in the right direction, the NGOs involved in the consultation process pointed out that some highly relevant recommendations – for example, regarding accommodation and protection from transfer for victims of human trafficking – were not accepted by SEM and are not being implemented. The group is no longer officially active. A yearly meeting between SEM and the NGO active in the field is organised informally once per year.
Age assessment of unaccompanied children
In 2024, 1,304 age assessments were conducted (out of a total of 2,639 applications made by unaccompanied minors); in 719 cases (55%), the SEM concluded that the asylum applicant was not a minor.[13]
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is in force in Switzerland since 1997. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has issued multiple statements on age assessment and the way it should be implemented by State parties,[14] but the Swiss practice falls short of the international standards at different levels.[15]
For instance, even though, in principle, minority of age should always be presumed, in practice not all applicants claiming to be under the age of 18 are treated as children and granted the child-specific protections throughout the assessment process, including the right to not be accommodated with adults (see section on Error! Reference source not found.). If an asylum seeker refuses to undergo an age assessment, their refusal may be regarded as affecting the credibility of their statements. Therefore, even though applicants are not formally obliged to submit to such an assessment, their refusal to do so can have significant negative consequences — for example, they may be considered to be adults.[16] Additionally, there is no effective remedy to challenge the decision on age assessment. The asylum applicants can only challenge it when they lodge an appeal against the asylum decision itself.[17] Finally, Swiss authorities mainly rely on forensic examinations to assess the asylum applicant’s age. In May 2024, the CRC criticised[18] Switzerland with regard to the age assessment of asylum applicants. According to the CRC, the burden of proof should not lie exclusively with the asylum applicants. Furthermore, in the committee’s view, if there is any doubt, the decision should be in favour of the person concerned – in other words, they should be treated as children if there is a possibility that they may actually be minors.
| Unaccompanied asylum-applicants children in Switzerland: 2020-2024 | |||||
| Year | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024[19] |
| Number of applications by unaccompanied minors[20] | 535 | 989 | 2,450 | 3,723 | 2,639 |
| Number of age assessments conducted | 305 | 528 | 664[21] | 1,828 | 1,304 |
| Percentage of age assessments compared to applications | 57% | 53.3% | 27% | 49% | 49% |
| Found to be adults | Unknown | 245 | 330[22] | 901 | 719 |
| Percentage found to be adults compared to applications | N/A | 24.7% | 13% | 24% | 55% |
The FAC had already ruled in the past that age assessments (by way of forensic examinations) could be ordered when the proof of the identity (e.g. date of birth) of the asylum applicant was not sufficient,[23] and the previous legislation already foresaw the use of scientific methods to assess the age. The law now provides for a combination of methods to be used,[24] In a 2018 judgment, the FAC clarified how the outcome of the forensic examinations should be assessed, in case of discrepancies among the different results.[25]
In June 2022, the Swiss Society of Forensic Medicine published a report,[26] which attempts to bring some uniformity and clarity to the way forensic examinations are conducted. The report underlined that some examinations (especially dental examinations) can be influenced by ethnicity: the lack of reference studies can be highlighted if necessary, depending on the applicant’s origins. The FAC admitted for instance the lack of baseline studies on tooth maturation for the Afghan population.[27] According to a paper published in November 2024, due to their complexity, the results of the medical analysis for age assessment are often not interpreted correctly. Moreover, the current forensic medical practice does not fully exploit their informational potential.[28]
In January 2024, the FAC examined the probative value of the Afghan identity document Tazkira and emphasised that relying on this document alone was not sufficient to assess the alleged minority or majority.[29]
[1] UNHCR, written by Angela Stettler, Neustrukturierung des Asylbereichs – Asylsuchende mit besonderen Bedürfnissen im neuen schweizerischen Asylverfahren. Problemaufriss und erste Empfehlungen, August 2020, available in German here.
[2] NCPT, Report on federal asylum centres 2021-2022, December 2022, available in German here p. 13-16; the summary in French is available here.
[3] Articles 35 and 36 of the Ordinance on Admission, Period of Stay and Employment.
[4] Article 10 Council of Europe Convention on action against Trafficking in Human beings, Warsaw, 16 May 2005.
[5] GRETA, Report, 9 October 2019, available in English here § 85 and 95-96.
[6] GRETA, Evaluation report: Switzerland – Third evaluation round: Access to justice and effective remedies for victimes of trafficking in human beings, GRETA(2024)09, 20 June 2024, avaialble in English.
[7] Communication of the SRC in French and German.
[8] This concern was also expressed by the Swiss Platform against Human Trafficking. According to a 2023 study published by the ZHAW, the risk for minors who disappear from centres to fall pray to trafficking networks is very high. What is disconcerting is that no clear action has been taken so far by the Swiss authorities to counter this problem. The study is available in German here.
[9] FAC, Decision D-6806/2013, 18 July 2016. See also: E-1499/2016, 25 January 2017, para 4.3.1.; E-4184/2019, 6 September 2019, para 9.2; F-4436/2019, 1 February 2021, para 4.3.1,
[10] Working under the lead of SEM, it is made up of SEM officials and representatives of the main NGOs active in the asylum field, including the SRC. It is coordinated by the Coordination Unit against the Trafficking and Smuggling of Migrants – Koordinationsstelle gegen Menschenhandel und Menschenschmuggel, KSMM. Its task is to optimise identification processes regarding human trafficking victims, provide victim assistance during the asylum (including Dublin) procedure, outline these processes in an open publication (e.g. handbook, brochure, etc.), and determine what further action is needed.
[11] The report is available in German and French here.
[12] According to information provided by the SEM in April 2021 trafficking in persons is the topic of one basic training (1 hour) and one specialisation training (3 hours) offered to caseworkers. The content of the training or the number of caseworkers having followed such course are not known.
[13] Data provided by the SEM, February 2025.
[14] CRC, General Comment No.4 (2017), available in English here, §II.4; SCEP, Statement of Good Practice (2009), available in English here, §D5.1; CRC, General Comment No. 12 (2009), available in English here, §22; CRC, General Comment No. 6 (2005), available in English here, §21 and section V.b.
[15] In its concluding observations about Switzerland, published in October 2021, the CRC recommended that Switzerland “establish age assessment procedures that respect the privacy and integrity of the child, include multidisciplinary assessments of the child’s maturity and level of development and respect the legal principle of the benefit of the doubt”: Committee for the Rights of the Child, Concluding observations – Switzerland, October 2021. The report is available here, 14; The SRC has developed guidelines with the aim of supporting legal representatives dealing with age assessment, available in French here.
[16] Article 8 AsylA.
[17] In order to allow judicial scrutiny on age assessment, before a final decision on the asylum application is reached, legal representatives have started to challenge the legal age established by SEM through the use of the Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP). In short, procedure is as follows: once the SEM has reached a decision on the applicant’s age, their (presumed) D.O.B is registered in the Central Migration Information System (SIMIC). Since the administration has the obligation to make sure that all personal data recorded in the SIMIC is correct, legal representatives can appeal the SEM inscription of the presumed D.O.B. on the basis of the FADP, arguing that the D.O.B. declared by their applicant is more likely to be the correct one than the one chosen by SEM. This way, they force the FAC to go through the age assessment and decide which of the two dates, whether the one indicated by SEM or the one indicated by the applicant, is more likely to be the correct one, It is to be reminded, though, that this procedure represents an additional burden for the legal representatives, as it is lengthy and expensive in terms of time and resources. The procedure is thus only used in a limited amount of cases.
[18 The SRC had argued for years that the procedures for determining the age of refugees in Switzerland are inadequate.
[19] Date provided by the SEM, April 2025.
[20] SEM statistics are available here.
[21] Data provided by the SEM, May 2023.
[22] Data provided by the SEM, May 2023.
[23] FAC, Decision E-1552/2013, 2 April 2013, available in German here, para 4.2.
[24] Article 7 AO1 provides for a combination of methods, which include skeletal age (e.g. X-ray of the hand, possibly CT scan of the sternum-clavicular joint) as well as dental age and physiognomy (e.g. sexual maturity and physical constitution).
[25] FAC, Decision E-891/2017, 8 August 2018. The FAC does sometimes step in to correct the SEM’s practice, when the latter is too strict or detached from international guidelines. See for instance: FAC, Decisions D-4824/2019, 27 September 2019, available in Italian here, E-7333/2018, 4 March 2019, available in French here; E-4959/2018, 4 February 2019 (Dublin case), available in German here; D-1589/2019, 15 May 2019, available in German here;
E-2999/2018, 14 February 2018, available in German here.
[26] SSML, Forensische Altersdiagnostik, June 2022, available in German here.
[27] FAC, Decision D-1874/2022, 31 August 2022, available here.
[28] E. Sironi, F. Taroni, Expertises médico-legales pour l’estimation de l’âge : fondament scientifique, limites et perspectives futures, Jusletter, 25 novembre 2024