Subject Area
Source
Type
Location
Year Published
Summary
K.J. v. Switzerland, CEDAW/C/91/D/169/2021, UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 4 July 2025
Summary (with thanks to ECRE)
CEDAW: Switzerland’s Dublin transfer of a survivor of sexual and gender-based violence to Greece without individualised, gender-sensitive risk assessment violates the Convention (Communication no. 169/2021)
On 4 July 2025, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) adopted its views on Communication no. 169/2021, related to the case of K.J. v. Switzerland. The case concerns the removal of an Afghan national, survivor of sexual and gender-based violence, to Greece, under Regulation (EU) no. 604/2013 (Dublin III), with the author claiming a violation of her rights under Articles 2(c)-(f), 3 and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (the “Convention”).
The author was forcibly married at 17 in Iran and suffered years of domestic and sexual violence. After fleeing, she was raped at the Turkish border and twice in Greece, where she also underwent an illegal abortion. Although granted refugee status in Greece, she lacked adequate support and alleged threats from her husband. The applicant later sought asylum in Switzerland, but her claim was rejected on the grounds that Greece was a safe third country. Under Articles 2(c)-(f), 3 and 12 of the Convention and General Recommendation no. 32, the author submitted that Switzerland failed to conduct a gender-sensitive assessment of her asylum applications and that her removal to Greece would expose her to a real risk of torture, ill-treatment, and renewed gender-based violence.
CEDAW declared the communication admissible, given the lack of an effective remedy, and found that Switzerland failed to properly assess the author’s allegations and personal circumstances when rejecting her asylum claim. It noted that the Swiss authorities dismissed as late in proceedings her reports of sexual violence in Greece, instead of examining whether she faced a serious risk of irreparable harm. CEDAW stressed that it was Switzerland’s duty to carry out an individualised and gender-sensitive assessment of the real and foreseeable risks of gender-based violence, particularly given the author’s situation as a single woman survivor of severe abuse.
Although four dissenting CEDAW members considered the communication inadmissible under Article 4(2)(c) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, it concluded that Switzerland violated Articles 2(c)-(f), 3 and 12 of the Convention. It recommended that Switzerland reopen the author’s asylum claim, refrain from returning the author to Greece, and provide specialised medical support. Finally, CEDAW stated that States must ensure gender-sensitive risk assessments in Dublin transfers.
