Special procedural guarantees


Country Report: Special procedural guarantees Last updated: 19/04/22


Swiss Refugee Council Visit Website

There is no specific unit to carry out the procedures for vulnerable persons, but there are experts for specific topics within the SEM (“thematic specialists”) who can be asked for advice or support in difficult cases (for example regarding unaccompanied minors, gender-specific violence or victims of trafficking). These collaborators also treat asylum applications themselves and they are responsible for the development of practice trends and decision-making on their topic. In 2017, one out of three collaborators per unit was specialised in unaccompanied minors and in 2017 all caseworkers were trained by internal and external trainers in interviewing children and adolescents. While no data was provided by the SEM for 2020, for 2021 the SEM informed  that due to COVID-19, no trainings took place in 2020.[1]


Adequate support during the interview and credibility assessment

People with serious illnesses or mental disorders, and survivors of torture, rape or other forms of serious violence, including female genital mutilation (FGM)

The UN Human Rights Committee stated in its recommendations on the fourth periodic report of Switzerland,[2] that it regretted that expert evaluations drawn up pursuant to the Istanbul Protocol were not fully recognised and taken into account by the Swiss authorities in implementing the principle of non-refoulement.[3] According to the same recommendations, Switzerland should ensure that all personnel concerned receive systematic and practical training on the Istanbul Protocol and apply it. According to the information available to the Swiss Refugee Council, such training sessions started to be implemented in August 2020, for all the officers working in the new Federal Reception Centres.

Despite this, national NGOs report of numerous cases in which the SEM has failed to carry out further investigations and, in particular, to have expert reports drawn up in accordance with the standards of the Istanbul Protocol if asylum seekers assert – in the hearings or via medical reports – that they are victims of torture or inhuman/degrading treatment.[4] Even when asylum seekers nevertheless succeed in producing such reports in individual cases, the Swiss authorities often fail to take them into account adequately, especially when it comes to the (physical/psychological) consequences of the ill-treatment endured. This in turn can have a very meaningful impact on the asylum claim, as it makes it very hard for the asylum seekers to make their claims credible.[5]

In  a recent report, the National Commission for the prevention of Torture considered that, in all the asylum and migration centres that it visited, there was no standard protocol in practice to facilitate access to assistance and support for victims of torture.[6] The same considerations were repeated in a report published in 2021.[7] A round table with representatives of the SEM and of national NGOs dealing with the topic took place in September 2019, but it is unclear which further steps the Government will take to better implement the provisions of the Protocol (see also section on the  Use of medical reports).

In September 2018 the UN Committee against Torture ruled that the expulsion of a torture survivor from Switzerland to Italy under the Dublin Regulation would violate the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In particular, the Committee reproached the Swiss authorities for not undertaking an individual assessment of the personal and real risk that the complainant would face in Italy as an asylum seeker and victim of torture, and for simply relying on the assumption that he was not particularly vulnerable and would thus be able to obtain adequate medical treatment in Italy.[8]


Despite the information and guidelines provided in the SEM Handbook on Asylum and Return (see section on Victims of gender-based violence),[9] the conduct of the hearings continues to pose many problems. For instance, the asylum seeker is not always granted the right to be interviewed by people of a gender of his/her choice. Also, late disclosure is often weighted against the applicant, despite abundant evidence that trauma or fear can prevent LGBTQI* asylum seekers to disclose their past experiences in a timely manner.[10] Also, the jurisprudence regarding LGBTQI* does not seem to be uniform. Together with NGOs active on the field, the Swiss Refugee council has developed guidelines with the aim of supporting legal representatives dealing with LGBTQI cases.[11]

Victims of gender-based violence

According to the Asylum Act, motives for seeking asylum specific to women must be taken into account.[12] Furthermore, when spouses, registered partners or a family apply for asylum, each person seeking asylum has the right, as far as he or she is capable of discernment, to have their own reasons for asylum examined.[13

If there are indications or if the situation in the country of origin is indicating gender-specific violence and persecution, the asylum seeker will be interviewed by a person of same gender according to the law.[14] The SEM Handbook on Asylum and Return specifies that men who are victims of gender-specific violence and persecution should also be able to choose the gender of the interviewing official, but that in this case the provision will be applied with some “pragmatism”.[15] The rule also applies to the interpreter and the person taking notes. Despite this rather clear legal framework, the SEM does not always comply with these obligations.[16]

When it comes to the assessment of credibility, settled case law accepts that a traumatized woman may try to protect herself from difficult memories by frequently using “stereotypes” or in some cases by changing the subject of phrases.[17] Yet, the SEM is often very strict in assessing credibility, especially of late and somewhat inconsistent narratives, even when they come from highly traumatized women.[18] The same holds true for late declarations, which are often dismissed as non-credible. This is unfortunate, as the SEM Handbook clearly states that the claimant’s credibility must not be dismissed on the sole ground of the belated allegations[19]

Victims/possible victims of human trafficking

The guarantees that are in place for victims of gender-based violence (see section C above) can also be applied to potential victims of human trafficking (PVOT) or victims of human trafficking (VOT). Nevertheless, no specific provision is in place to ensure that. NGOs working in the field remark that the audition seems often more geared at receiving information for the federal/cantonal police and not at gaining an insight into the personal situation and needs of the potential victim. The practice of only granting access to a specialised victim organisation only after an in-depth audition is questionable.

In a judgement on the credibility assessment of victims of trafficking in the asylum procedure and the positive obligations of the authorities to identify victims of trafficking, the Federal Administrative Court noted that untrue statements in earlier proceedings constitute a typical testimony of victims of human trafficking, and therefore should not automatically lead to the assumption that the subsequent human trafficking allegations were unreliable.[20]

Minors/unaccompanied minors

Regarding the personal interview of children, especially unaccompanied children, Swiss law provides for the interviewer to take into account the special nature of being a child.[21] Also according to case law specific guarantees should be in place.[22] Namely, the atmosphere should be welcoming and benevolent, the adults in the room must have an open and empathetic attitude, each of the participants should introduce themselves to the child and the aims and objectives of the interview should be clarified in a child friendly manner. The Court also provided some details on how the interview should take place: the pace should be slower than the one followed in an interview with an adult, breaks should be granted every 30 minutes, ‘open’ questions should be preferred, at least at the beginning, conversation topic should be changes only after announcing it to the minor, the listeners’ attitude should remain neutral.

The practice does not always live up to these standards. In one decision, the Federal Administrative Court took specific issue with the way the SEM conducted the interview, and quashed the SEM decision as in the opinion of the Court the SEM did not take sufficient account of the child’s particular vulnerability during the hearing. Thus, the hearing was conducted in the same way as that of an adult asylum seeker: introductory questions to create a trusting atmosphere were completely absent, the pace of questioning and the type of questions posed were not appropriate, the role and function of the officers present not clearly explained. The Court found that the child’s right to be heard had been breached, and that the administrative authorities should re-assess the case.[23]

In other cases, the administrative authorities fail to consider that the minor’s age could have an impact on the internal consistency of his/her accounts, and apply the same credibility standards in place for adults. This is also in contrast with international guidelines on child-friendly justice and on the child’s right to be heard.[24]

In September 2020 the Committee for the Rights of the Child found that, by removing two minor children with their mother to Italy according to the Dublin III Regulation without properly hearing them, Switzerland had violated Article 3 and 12 of the CRC.[25] The CRC decision addresses a common problem in Swiss practice whereby very young minors, especially if accompanied by their families, are only seldom heard, because it is assumed that their interests coincide with the ones of their parent. Such practice is against the CRC. According to the SEM, they systematically interview accompanied minors aged 14 or over, whereas younger children are only interviewed directly if this is necessary to establish the facts. Since spring 2021, a right to be heard is systematically granted to parents of children under the age of 14 concerning the specific situation of these children. This right is granted in both Dublin and national procedures in order to take into account all elements relating to the particular situation of these young children and to determine whether a personal hearing of the latter is necessary. In this context, the providers of legal protection services have been informed of the new measures taken by the SEM. They were asked to discuss the particular situation of children under 14 years of age during the first interview with the family members and then to promptly inform the SEM of any specificities (obstacles to removal, specific grounds for asylum, conflict of interest with the parents, etc.) so as to enable the planning of a possible hearing of the minor under 14 years of age if this should prove necessary.[26]


Decision-making process

People with serious illnesses or mental disorders, and survivors of torture, rape or other forms of serious violence, including female genital mutilation (FGM)

The practice is not always correct when it comes to victims of FGM (or at risk thereof): sometimes the SEM refuses asylum on the basis that FGM is a one-off act that cannot be repeated on the same girl or woman and that asylum law cannot make up for wrongful acts committed in the past. This is in sharp contrast with the UNHCR guidance on FGM.[27] The Federal Administrative Court generally takes a more careful approach. In one judgement,[28] for instance, the Federal Administrative Court accepted that FGM is a form of persecution specific to women. In examining the risk of future harm, the judges did not consider the risk of re-infibulation, but rather the general risk that the applicant will be subjected to other forms of persecution as a single, displaced woman with children. Moreover, the trauma caused by FGM was mentioned as a cause of the applicant’s fragility and subsequent vulnerability. A recent case concerns a young Somali national, who suffered from FGM in her country of origin and, once in Switzerland, underwent a de-infibulation procedure. According to the Federal judges, the applicant would certainly be at risk of further FGM in case of return to Somalia, but this was because of her own doing (namely, because she submitted to a de-infibulation procedure). Thus, the applicant only received protected status (F-permit refugee) and not asylum.[29]


When it comes to decision-making, the SEM and Federal Administrative Court do not consider criminalization of “non-compliant” sexual identity/gender orientation in the country of origin as sufficient ground for an asylum request.[30] Furthermore, both bodies attach a lot of weight to the “discretion requirement”, often claiming that the asylum seeker could avoid persecution by concealing their sexual orientation upon return to the country of origin. This is though in contrast with CJEU jurisprudence.[31]

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in November 2020 that Switzerland had violated Article 3 ECHR in the case of a Gambian homosexual person who faced removal to Gambia.[32] The European Judges took specific issue with the fact that the Swiss authorities had simply gone by the assumption that the applicant would have been able to live discretely in case of removal to the country of origin, furthermore benefitting from the improved situation for LGBTI-people since the election of a new, more LGBTI-friendly president in 2016. This had led the Swiss authorities to completely overlook whether the Gambian authorities would be able and willing to protect LGBTQI* people against ill treatment by non-State actors. On the contrary, the Court underlined that the applicant’s sexual orientation could still be discovered in case of return, and that the Swiss courts had failed to sufficiently assess the availability of State protection against acts of persecution stemming from non-state actors, leading to a violation of Article 3.

Victims of gender-based violence

Although SEM specifically recognises in its Handbook that domestic violence, forced marriage and sexual violence are forms of gender-based persecution that may be relevant to an asylum application, there are very few concrete cases where applications based on this type of violence have actually been accepted. The biggest problem is always the credibility of the applicants, but both the SEM and the FAC also have great difficulty in recognising that women victims of these types of violence could also qualify as members of a particular social group[33]. Assessment of the availability of State protection in case of persecution coming from third parties can also be quite problematic.

In recent years, asylum has often been granted to applicants coming from the Middle East (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria) when falling under the listed categories above.[34] Much more controversial is the assessment of claims of ‘honour’ killings, domestic violence, or forced marriage, lodged by ‘western’ women, especially the ones coming from the Balkan area and Turkey. In these cases, most of the times, applications are rejected, on the basis of the fact that these States have been designated as ‘safe countries of origin’ (or, in the case of Turkey, on the basis of settled case-law),[35] and that State authorities would be willing and able to offer adequate protection to women/girls targeted by these types of gender-based persecution[36]

Practice concerning victims of sexual violence was also problematic. Despite noting, in its Handbook, that persecutions inflicted for one of the Convention grounds could take the form of sexual violence, the Administration sometimes failed, in the practice, to properly link this form of mistreatment to the appropriate Convention ground. In such cases, allegations of rape were then dismissed as ‘common misadventures’ that took place because of the general situation of instability/ war existing in the country of origin, thus neglecting the fact that this very typical form of gender-specific persecution can be used to assess or perpetuate political, racial or religious structures of power.[37] The SEM finally changed its approach, as evidenced by Handbook which now devotes a new paragraph to “Women in Conflict Situations”.[38] In this new section, the SEM explicitly admits that «it cannot be ignored that women, solely because of their sex, are particularly and specifically affected by sexual violence in the context of conflicts», that «the examination of asylum applications from persons coming from countries facing war or conflict will therefore have to determine whether the person concerned has been personally targeted because of his or her characteristics, including his or her sex». These are certainly positive changes, which incorporate the TAF case law as well as international recommendations on the subject. It will be important to continue to monitor the case law in the coming months to see if it will be effectively implemented in daily practice.

The Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) entered into force in Switzerland in April 2018. The country reports of its monitoring body, the GREVIO, will certainly shed more light on women’s specific conditions in the member states. Yet, it is to be noted that so far reference to such reports is seldom done both by the administration and by the Federal Administrative Court.[39] A group of NGOs, the Network Istanbul Convention, has been created to monitor the implementation of the Convention in the Swiss practice.

According to information provided by the SEM in 2021, gender-based persecution is the topic of one basic training (2 hour) and one specialisation training (3 hours) offered to caseworkers.[40] The content of the training or the number of caseworkers having followed such course are not known.

The SEM does not produce disaggregated statistics on the asylum grounds and therefore also not on gender-specific persecution, which would be necessary to better grasp the problematic and the protection rate for asylum applications based on gender-specific persecution. It is not planned to introduce this kind of statistics according to the SEM.[41]

Victims/possible victims of human trafficking

Contrary to practice in other European countries, the SEM and the Federal Administrative Court deny that victims of trafficking can be considered as ‘members of a defined social group.’[42]

While decisions and judgments on the merits are rare, there are more cases concerning victims of trafficking in the Dublin procedure, with, in some cases at least, positive decisions. In one case the Federal Administrative Court considered the case of a Nigerian mother-of-two, PVOT, whom the SEM wanted to transfer to Italy under the Dublin procedure.[43] While denying the existence of structural deficiencies in the Italian reception and accommodation system, the Federal Administrative Court found that, after the entry into force of the Salvini Law (L132/2018), the SEM should conduct additional inquiries on the real possibility for the Italian authorities to take charge of the applicant and her children. Hence, the Court referred the case to the SEM for further instruction.

In another case, concerning France, the Court reminded the administrative authorities that in possible cases of trafficking they need to initiate investigations ex officio without the need for the victim to report it.[44] Furthermore, the Court found that the general presumption of safety in human trafficking cases is not justified in the case of France, given that there are concrete indications that the vulnerability of potential victims of human trafficking in France cannot always be adequately taken into account”.

Despite these isolated judgements, it remains hard for VOT to access asylum procedures in Switzerland, because of the very strict way the country applies the Dublin regulation. This, coupled with the jurisprudence on the merits mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph, makes the Swiss decision-practice concerning VOT quite problematic.

Switzerland is currently in the 6th round of monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women CEDAW. As part of the monitoring cycle, the Confederation published a national report in November 2020,[45] to which NGOs responded in 2021.[46] Another, detailed report on the specific issues concerning VOT in Switzerland, including VOT in the asylum procedure, is due for publication in 2022.


Exemption from special procedures

It is possible, on an individual basis, to exempt an applicant from the airport procedure if stay in the transit zone is deemed not appropriate on the basis of medical reports and/or vulnerability. In practice, however, also vulnerable applicants including unaccompanied minors spend the initial phase of the procedure at the airport. In some cases, their entry can be authorised just after the first summary interview.

The number of vulnerable applicants who were authorised to enter Swiss territory in 2021 was 16.[47]




[1] Information provided by the SEM, 3 August 2017. In April 2021, the SEM was not able to provide data for 2020. The information on 2021 was provided by the SEM on 1 April 2022.

[2] UN Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Switzerland, 22 August 2017, available in several languages at: https://bit.ly/2Q0ZdQb.

[3] The UN General Assembly adopted the Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, known as the Istanbul Protocol, almost 20 years ago, available in several languages at: https://bit.ly/39Cyl0P. The Istanbul Protocol contains internationally recognised standards and procedures on how to recognise and document symptoms of torture, so that the documentation may be used as evidence in Court. Although non-binding as such, it does have a quasi-binding legal nature, because every State signatory to the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment must adhere to the standards set out there, if it wants to fulfil the obligation to carefully and effectively examine evidence of torture. As a result, the Istanbul Protocol has established itself internationally as the instrument for documenting torture and inhumane treatment.

[4] An NGO ‘working group’ is dedicated to the implementation of the Istanbul Protocol into the Swiss practice, information available in German (and French) at: https://bit.ly/2TNahBH.

[5] See for instance: Federal Administrative Court, Decision D-4802/2020, 30 December 2020, para 4.1 – 4.3 available in German at: https://bit.ly/3aTOvVk.

[6] National Commission for the prevention of torture, NCPT, Report on federal asylum centres 2017-2018, available at: https://bit.ly/331LlKQ, §84.

[7] Report is only available in German and in French: https://bit.ly/3GfHPPW

[8] UN Committee against Torture, CAT/C/64/D/742/2016, 3 September 2018, available in English at: https://bit.ly/2Gy8FXA, §8.6.

[9] SEM, Handbook on Asylum and Return, chapter D2, available in French at: https://bit.ly/2wCi2SZ,.

[10] Federal Administrative Court, Decision E-4306/2018, 21 September 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2VXp3IP; E-4422/2017, 2 April 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3cLvrsk; E-3422/2018, 27 June 2018, https://bit.ly/2xoO19F; E-1490/2015, 13 March 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2xoO19F. On these challenges, please also refer to Anis Keiser, Requérant.e.x.s d’asile LGBTIQ+ : Les enjeux principaux des demandes d’asile pour motifs d’OSIEGCS, ASYL 4/2020, p. 16.

[11] The Guidelines of the Swiss Refugee Council are available in French (and German) at: https://bit.ly/3q7imCu. Also, the Swiss Refugee Council developed a detailed report on the decision-making and jurisprudence related to LGBTQI* asylum seekers.

[12] Article 3, para 2 AsylA.

[13] Article 5 AO1.

[14] Article 6 AO1.

[15] SEM, Handbook on Asylum and Return, chapter D2, available in French at: https://bit.ly/2TRQv7Y, p. 18.

[16] Federal Administrative Court, Decision D-7431/2018, 22 January 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3aCQSdo; E-1805/2017, 26 September 2019, available in French at: https://bit.ly/38uay1G; D-2849/2017, 18 October 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2PXGyom. In all these Decisions, the Federal Administrative Court sent the case back to the SEM for a new assessment.

[17] Commission suisse de recours en matière d’asile (CRA), 16/1996, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2TNPj5K.

[18] Federal Administrative Court, Decisions E- 5954/2016, 12 June 2018, E-3953/2016, 22 August 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2xqOaJT; D-6998/2017, 8 July 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2IxFBit; E-6865/2017, 17 April 2019, available in French at: https://bit.ly/2v62HJY. In all these cases the SEM decisions were quashed by the Federal Administrative Court. In other cases, though, while the sexual violence was uncontested, the claimant was not able to prove that it was in connection with the flight, and the FAC dismissed the claim. For example, see E-5299/2019, 5 March 2020, available in German at: https://tinyurl.com/y5xupmeo.

[19] SEM, Handbook on Asylum and Return, chapter D2, available in French at: https://bit.ly/2TRQv7Y, p. 21. See, for instance Federal Administrative Court, E-2245/2017, 26 November 2019.

[20] Federal Administrative Court, Decision D-6806/2013, 18 July 2016, available in German at: https://bit.ly/38ACZuL.

[21] Article 7(5) AO1.

[22] Federal Administrative Court, Decision E-1928/2014, 24 July 2014, available in French (main parts also in German and Italian) at: https://bit.ly/2PXidze

[23] Federal Administrative Court, Decision E-7447/2015, 5 November 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/337u2Z0. See also: Federal Administrative Court, Decision D-6508/2019, 18 December 2019, and D-6229/2017, 7 February 2020.

[24] Federal Administrative Court, Decisions D-6508/2019, 18 December 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/38zH8z9; E-573/2016, 12 December 2018, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2TE2Yxn; E-6636/2017, 21 June 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/2TBnnTK; D-1520/2017, 5 April 2017, available in Französisch at: https://bit.ly/38ytuwk.

[25] Committee for the Rights of the Child, V.A. v. Switzerland, 28 September 2020.

[26] Information provided by the SEM, 1 April 2022.

[27] UNHCR, Guidance Note on Refugee Claims relating to Female Genital Mutilation, May 2009, available in English at: https://bit.ly/2TOHpcd.

[28] Federal Administrative Court, Decision E-6456/2015, 29 June 2018.

[29] Federal Administrative Court, Decision E- 3512/2019, 27 July 2020.

[30] Federal Administrative Court, Decision D-2314/2018, on Congo, para. 5.2.2; E-2497/2016 19 April 2018, on Azerbaïdjan, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2Q0UBcW, para. 5.3.1; D-4923/2009, 1 May 2012 on Algeria, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2TElS7n, para. 4.2.3; D-7041/2013, 14 May 2014 on Morocco, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3cJ9E4D, para. 5.2; E-7217/2014, 18 December 2014 on Tunisia, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3qWm8xP, para. 5.2.4; D-891/2013, 17 January 2014 on Iran, available at: https://bit.ly/3aDNtLq, para. 5.2. and 5.3; E-3952/2017, 21 February 2018 on Afghanistan, available in French at: https://bit.ly/2IvGWGq, para. 3.3. On the specific situation of bisexual persons in Morocco, D-5585/2017, 12 September 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2VYOAkS. On the situation in Ethiopia, see: E-2109/2019, 28 August 2020, available in German at: https://bit.ly/3tJySe9. On the one in Syria, see: D-6722/2017, 12 August 2020. On the one in Uganda see: E-4133/2020, 20 November 2020. For a different approach, on Iraq, see D-6539/2018, 2 April 2019, available in German at: https://bit.ly/2Q0NOzN, para. 7.5.

[31] The CJEU case in point is X, Y and Z v. Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel (consid. 70 et 71). The SEM in its Handbook on Asylum and Return states officially that the discretion requirement is no longer applied in LGBTQI cases, but practice is not always correct. When it comes to the jurisprudence of the Federal Administrative Court, recent examples are the following: E-1842/2019, available at: https://bit.ly/2IxSCZC; E-3952/ 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/3cJJjU8; E-1490/2015, available at: https://bit.ly/2PZAWdk; D-7342/2017, available at: https://bit.ly/3cKSBz6; D-6635/2017, available at: https://bit.ly/2Ix5Q8P; D-5961/2017, available at: https://bit.ly/2Iz5KO4; D-6447/2017, available at: https://bit.ly/2Q0eaCh. See also, again and unfortunately, E-2109/2019 and E-4133/2020, already mentioned in the previous footnote.

[32] ECtHR, B and C v. Switzerland, Application nos. 43987/16 and 889/19, 17 November 2020.

[33] Federal Administrative Court, E-2883/2019, 28 June 2019, D-3064/2019, 11 July 2019. See also, more positive, D-3501/2019, 21 August 2019, and E-2461-2462/2019, 12 November 2019.

[34] Federal Administrative Court, E-4962/2019, 2 December 2019. For Afghanistan, see Federal Administrative Court, D-3501/2019, 21 August 2019 and E-2245/2017, 26 November 2019.

[35] E-1948/2018, 12 June 2018, E-6626/2019, 23.12.2019, E-1175/2020, 16 March 2020, E-5920/2019, 21 November 2019.

[36] For Albania, see Federal Administrative Court D-1960/2019, 7 May 2019, for Macedonia, see Federal Administrative Court E-2883/2019, 28 June 2019; for Kosovo, see E-4677/2018, 27 May 2020 and E-3437/2020, 13 July 2020.

[37] See for instance: Federal Administrative Court D-2290/2017, 8 February 2019, D-6021/2017, 15. April 2019 and E-2657/2015, 4 April 2017.

[38] SEM Handbook on Asylum and Return, chapter D2, available in French at: https://bit.ly/2TRQv7Y, p. 13, para 2.3.6.

[39] On the questionable practice concerning Turkey, for instance, especially in light of the already available GREVIO Report on this country, see Federal Administrative Court, E-1948/2018, 12 June 2018, E-6626/2019, 23 December 2019, E-1175/2020, 16 March 2020; E-5920/2019, 21 November 2019.

[40] Information provided by the SEM, 27 April 2021.

[41] Information provided by the SEM, 27 April 2021.

[42] It is, unfortunately, constant practice. See: Federal Administrative Court, D-2759/2018, 2 July 2018,; D-2341/2019, 22 October 2019,; D-2759/2018, 2 July 2018,; E-4273/2018, 4 February 2020, D-1547/2017, 04 December 2019, mostly focuses on the availability of State protection for VOT in Benin, and concludes that the State is willing and able to assist them.

[43] Federal Administrative Court, D-3471/2019, 23 July 2019.

[44] Federal Administrative Court, D-3292/2019, 1 October 2019.

[45] Available at: https://bit.ly/3Kes4v3.

[46] NGO-Coordination post Beijing Switzerland, The Implementation of the Women‘s Rights Convention in Switzerland – CEDAW Shadow Report, May 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3KiEtOr.

[47] Information provided by the SEM, 1 April 2022.

Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection