CEDAW, C.O.E. v. Switzerland, Communication No. 172/2021, 2 July 2025

Facts:

The author, C.O.E., is a lesbian woman from Nigeria born in 1987. After her family threatened to bury her alive upon discovering her sexual orientation, she fled to Benin City. There, a woman named A offered to arrange domestic work for her in Italy.  Upon arriving in Italy in November 2009, her identification papers were confiscated, and she was informed by A’s sister that she would have to repay 60,000 euros through forced prostitution. She was then subjected to physical violence, including cuts with razor blades and pepper spray applied to her face and genitals. In 2015, she escaped and continued to move around Italy in hiding. After encountering A again in Milan, she received threatening calls, was followed by men, and raped.

She fled to Switzerland and applied for asylum there on 4 June 2020. The Swiss authorities identified her as a potential victim of trafficking and granted her a recovery and reflection period. However, on 8 December 2020, the State Secretariat for Migration ordered her transfer to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation. Medical reports confirmed she suffered from acute stress reaction, moderate depressive episodes, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychiatrists warned that returning her to Italy would likely cause retraumatization and exacerbate her suicidal tendencies. Her appeal to the Swiss Federal Administrative Court was dismissed on 12 February 2021, after which she became suicidal and was hospitalized in a psychiatric clinic.

Decision & reasoning:

On the one hand, the author argued that transferring her to Italy would violate her rights under Articles 2(d) and 6 of the Convention. Article 2(d) of the Convention requires that States Parties must not act in ways that cause or enable discrimination against women. Article 6 of the Convention requires that States must actively fight human trafficking and protect survivors from being sent back into harm’s way. She contended that the Swiss authorities failed to conduct an individualized, gender-sensitive assessment, relying instead on general assumptions about Italy's reception conditions. She provided proof that the Salvini decree had eliminated the two-level protection system. Then, even though Decree No. 130/2020 gave trafficking victims priority for better-quality shelters, only 2% of those shelter spaces could accommodate people with psychological needs. She further noted that access to medical care in Italy requires registration taking weeks or months, and that foreign medical reports are often not accepted. Given her severe PTSD and suicidal tendencies, she argued these shortcomings would expose her to retraumatization and irreparable harm.

On the other hand, Switzerland argued that Italy is a safe third country with adequate reception conditions and a robust legal framework. It noted that under Decree No. 130/2020, trafficking victims are prioritized for second level facilities, which are specialized shelters designed for vulnerable individual who require more than basic housing, and contended that her mental health condition was not severe enough to require individual guarantees prior to transfer.

The Committee decided in favor of the author, concluding that her removal would violate Articles 2(d) and 6 of CEDAW. It reaffirmed that the Convention imposes a non-refoulement obligation meaning that States must refrain from returning a woman to a jurisdiction where she faces a real, personal, and foreseeable risk of serious gender-based violence, including by non-State actors. It found that Switzerland failed to conduct an individualized, trauma-informed assessment, relying instead on general assumptions about Italy's reception system. The Committee took into account evidence that only 2% of second-level spaces were equipped for psychological needs, and that medical access was delayed. It recognized that returning a trafficking survivor to the country of original trauma constitutes a foreseeable risk of retraumatization and irreparable harm, which medical evidence confirmed.

Outcome:

Accordingly, acting under Article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, the Committee concludes that the removal of the author would amount to a breach of Articles 2 (d) and 6 of the Convention.

The Committee makes the following recommendations to the State Party:

(a) Concerning the author of the communication:

(i) Reopen her asylum request, taking into account the Committee’s views;

(ii) Refrain from returning her to Italy while the reassessment of her case is still pending;

(iii) Provide continued specialized medical support.

(b) General: Take all measures necessary to ensure that victims of trafficking in persons, exploitation of prostitution and gender-based violence, who are in need of protection, are not returned to the country of their first entry under the Dublin III Regulation without an individualized, trauma informed and gender-sensitive assessment of the real risk of retraumatization.

In accordance with Article 7 (4) of the Optional Protocol, the State Party shall give due consideration to the views of the Committee, together with its recommendations, and shall submit to the Committee, within six months, a written response, including information on any action taken in the light of those views and recommendations. The State Party is also requested to publish the Committee’s views and recommendations and to have them widely disseminated in order to reach all relevant sectors of society.

Observations/comments:

This summary was written by Luna Declerck during her participation in the Migration Law Clinic of Gent University.

Other sources:

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – Articles 4(1), 4(2), 5(1), 7(1), 7(3) and 7(4).

-        M.N.N. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011)

-        R.S.A.A. et al. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015)

-        A. v. Denmark (CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013)

-        R.P.B. v. Philippines (CEDAW/C/57/D/34/2011)

-        Harun v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/758/2016)

-        A.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/64/D/742/2016)

-        Jasin v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2360/2014)

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women.

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 19 (1992) on violence against women.

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 35 (2017) on gender-based violence against women, updating General Recommendation No. 19.

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation No. 38 (2020) on trafficking in women and girls in the context of global migration.

Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women – Rules 64 and 72(4).