Subject Area
Source
Type
Location
Year Published
Summary
Z.E. and A.E. v. Switzerland, CEDAW/C/91/D/171/2021, 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. 171/2021)
On 4 July 2025, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) adopted its views on Communication no. 171/2021, in the case of Z.E. and A.E. v. Switzerland. The case concerns the removal of two Afghan nationals to Greece under Regulation (EU) no. 604/2013 (Dublin III): Z.E., survivor of sexual and gender-based violence in Iran, and her brother A.E. The authors claim a violation of their rights under Articles 2(c)-(f), 3 and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (the “Convention”) and request interim measures to prevent their removal under Article 5(1) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (the “Optional Protocol”).
The authors fled Iran after the sister endured lifelong sexual and gender-based violence, including rape in childhood and forced marriage with abuse. Already in Greece, she suffered again from rape in a refugee camp. Granted refugee status, they faced homelessness, lack of support, and threats from the abusive husband without police protection. They sought asylum in Switzerland, but the authorities ordered their return to Greece under Dublin III, a decision upheld by the Federal Administrative Court. The authors argued that Switzerland failed to conduct an individualised and gender-sensitive assessment, as Z.E.’s interview was held with a male interpreter, and claimed that, if returned, she would face renewed sexual violence, lack of treatment, and inadequate protection and services in Greece.
CEDAW declared A.E. lacked victim status but found Z.E.’s application admissible. It noted the uncontested fact that Z.E. had been a survivor of sexual and gender-based violence since childhood, and that she was recognised as a refugee in Greece, where the violence she endured caused severe mental health deterioration – including suicidal ideation. Recalling that such violence constitutes discrimination under Article 1 of the Convention and engages States’ non-refoulement obligations, CEDAW stressed that it was to determine whether Switzerland’s procedures were arbitrary, discriminatory or amounted to a denial of justice.
Although three dissenting CEDAW members considered the communication inadmissible under Article 4(2)(c) of the Optional Protocol, CEDAW concluded that Z.E.’s removal to Greece would violate Articles 2(c)-(f), 3 and 12 of the Convention. It recommended that Switzerland reopen her asylum request and refrain from returning her to Greece while the reassessment of her case is pending. CEDAW also urged States to take all necessary measures to ensure that refugees who are victims of gender-based violence are not returned to their first country of entry under Dublin III without an individualised, trauma-informed and gender-sensitive assessment of the real risk of irreparable harm.
