On this page, you will find information on our International Litigation work, and specifically on:
If you are working on similar issues, have questions about our work, or would like to collaborate, get in touch at internationallitigation@asylex.ch.
UN Treaty Body Litigation
Since late 2020, AsyLex has been engaging with international human rights mechanisms recognizing realizing that Switzerland often fails at the national level to adequately address human rights violations suffered or risks faces by asylum seekers. In many cases, the Swiss authorities when wrongfully decide to return individuals to countries where they had previously been victims of severe abuse.
Since our first individual complaint to a UN treaty body, we have successfully obtained over 50 interim measures from the Human Rights Committee as well as the following UN human rights treaty bodies (all the ones available in Switzerland).
Interim Measures
What are interim measures and how do we use them
Interim measures are urgent protective orders that can be requested from all UN treaty bodies in the context of individual complaints. They are granted when there is a credible and imminent risk that a person may suffer irreparable harm, such as torture, inhumane treatment, or serious health risks – before the committee has had a chance to decide the case.
AsyLex frequently requests interim measures in non-refoulement cases, where individuals are at risk of being deported to countries where their life, health, or physical integritycould be gravely threatened . These measures request the State – in our case, Switzerland – to immediately suspend the deportation until the committee has reviewed the complaint.
Thanks to these interventions, we have successfully prevented removals in numerous cases involving individuals who had previously suffered severe human rights violations or were at imminent risk of suffering renewed human rights violations in the countries to which they were to be returned.
Examples of contexts where we prevented returns
Safe Third Country Returns
- Bulgaria; CRC
- Greece; CEDAW, CRC, CAT
Dublin Returns
- Croatia; CRC, CEDAW
- Italy; CAT
- Lithuania; CRC
- Romania; CAT
- Slovenia; CEDAW
Returns to Countries of Origin
- Burundi; CED, CEDAW
- Democratic Republic of Congo; CEDAW
- Eritrea; CAT
- Ethiopia; CEDAW, CERD, CAT
- Georgia; CRC
- Montenegro; CEDAW
- Sri Lanka; CAT
- Türkiye; CRC
- Zimbabwe; CEDAW
Main litigation themes & Issues
Although each case is unique, recurring themes and strategic issues we tackled with these submissions have emerged.
Many of our clients suffer from severe medical conditions that cannot be treated in the country to which they face return. Others have endured serious past trauma, including sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), racial discrimination, torture, or other forms of degrading treatment. Often, they risk being returned to situations where they would face homelessness, lack access to essential services and remain without any form of protection. In many, resp. all instances, the states concerned are either unwilling or unable to provide adequate safeguards. Swiss authorities have frequently failed to properly assess these risks in an individualized manner, thereby exposing individuals to serious harm. These failings often constitute arguably violations of the principle of non-refoulement under international human rights law.
These factors often amount to violations of the principle of non-refoulement under international law.
Should you be litigating on a similar issue, and wish to exchange on these topics, please do not hesitate to contact us at: internationallitigation@asylex.ch
Precedent rulings before CEDAW
Read about our landmark cases
Together with the fantastic human rights expert and lawyer, Stephanie Motz, AsyLex successfully brought two landmark cases before the CEDAW Committee, in which Switzerland was found to have violated several provisions of the Convention, specifically Articles 2(c) to (f), 3, and 12. These decisions set important legal precedents in the field of asylum and gender-based violence.
The rulings emphasized that states are obliged to carry out trauma-informed and gender-sensitive risk assessments before removing individuals from their territory. Notably, this was the first time Article 12 CEDAW, which relates to access to health, was applied in the context of deportation. The Committee clarified that failing to assess whether a survivor of sexual violence will have access to medical and psychological treatment, as well as recovery services in the country of return, may constitute a violation under Art. 12 CEDAW. Lastly, the decisions established that late disclosure of sexual violence – often a result of trauma – should not automatically undermine the credibility of the applicant.
This is an important decision highlighting States obligations under CEDAW, particularly in regard to individualized assessments before removal.
International Human Rights Litigation Beyond Switzerland
Project info
The challenges surrounding individualized risk assessments before deportation are, unfortunately, not unique to the Swiss context. Thus, in 2022, AsyLex launched an international project to explore how legal professionals around the world make use of UN treaty body mechanisms to ensure access to justice for refugees and asylum seekers whose human rights have not been adequately assessed at the national level.
As part of this initiative, we reviewed over 80 asylum systems and engaged with legal advisors in a wide range of countries. Through these exchanges, we identified a significant gap in the use of UN treaty body mechanisms worldwide. To help bridge this gap, we developed an interactive global map outlining which international human rights mechanisms are accessible to individuals in each country: www.asylex.org. Our findings revealed that these mechanisms remain underutilized in many jurisdictions, despite their potential to exert pressure on states and provide legal remedies when domestic systems fall short.
With this project, our goal is to raise awareness among legal practitioners globally about the existence and practical use of these mechanisms. We aim to learn from each other, better understand local contexts, and assess where engagement at the international level may be most effective. Through these efforts, we hope to foster collaboration and ultimately inspire the development of further international human rights litigation initiatives led by local actors.
South Africa pilot case
Although South Africa’s Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most progressive and rights-based in the world, in practice, asylum seekers and refugees continue to face significant obstacles in accessing those rights. Many struggle to register their asylum claims, enroll their children in school, access healthcare or employment, or even obtain basic civil documentation. Xenophobic, violence and the constant threat of detention or deportation further deepen their vulnerability.
In response to this disconnect between legal guarantees and lived realities, AsyLex partnered with the local organisation Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) to launch a strategic international litigation project. Together, we identified and brought forward a pilot case before a UN treaty body – the first such collaboration of its kind between our organizations, and notably, the first time AsyLex submitted a complaint to the Human Rights Committee, a mechanism not accessible from within Switzerland.
The case involves a young man who arrived in South Africa as an unaccompanied minor at the age of six. Despite having a relative with recognized refugee status and a court order mandating his inclusion in the asylum procedure, the authorities failed to take action for over twelve years. When he turned eighteen, his application was rejected on the basis that it was submitted “too late.” He was forced to start the asylum process from scratch as an adult, but his claim was dismissed without proper explanation and with no meaningful right of appeal. As a result, he became de facto stateless – left undocumented, at constant risk of deportation, and excluded from healthcare, education, and the labor market. Daily police harassment and the denial of his most basic rights defined his existence.
We were encouraged that the Human Rights Committee registered the case and granted interim measures, effectively halting his deportation. This represents a significant step forward and offers hope that other legal professionals in South Africa will increasingly turn to UN mechanisms when national remedies fail. It also shows how international mechanisms can help apply pressure on states to uphold their human rights obligations.
Collaboration with Rule 39
AsyLex has also partnered with the Rule 39 Initiative from Pro Iura, an organization that supports NGOs and legal actors in submitting communications to international human rights mechanisms, particularly the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Given our shared mission, we have co-hosted multiple workshops on how to effectively access these mechanisms and use them to protect the rights of asylum seekers and vulnerable individuals.
Recently, in collaboration with local lawyers, we jointly submitted a case to the Human Rights Committee to prevent the deportation of two individuals belonging to a religious minority from Türkiye to Iran. Interim measures were granted, and the deportation was successfully halted. This case demonstrates that even in complex geopolitical contexts, local lawyers can and should rely on international avenues when national protections are insufficient.
Systemic complaint to the Committee Against Torture (CAT)
Beyond individual cases, AsyLex has also taken steps to address systemic violations. Together with the Centre for Peace Studies in Croatia, we submitted a comprehensive complaint to the Committee Against Torture, documenting widespread, ongoing abuses by Croatian authorities against migrants and asylum seekers. The submission requests the Committee to launch a formal inquiry into these practices. We are currently developing accompanying advocacy strategies to support the complaint and raise awareness of the broader human rights crisis at Croatia’s borders.
See our press-release here.
Exploring New Mechanisms: Submission to UN Working Group on Administrative Detention
In addition to UN treaty bodies, individuals and NGOs can also address Charter-based mechanisms within the UN system. AsyLex, in partnership with the Human Rights Legal Project (Samos), submitted a case to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), challenging the de facto detention of minors in Greece. The Working Group registered the communication, and an opinion is expected later in 2025. This initiative reflects our continued efforts to explore underutilized international mechanisms and expand access to justice beyond traditional avenues.
Get Involved
If you are working on similar issues, have questions about our work, or would like to collaborate, contact us at internationallitigation@asylex.ch.
