Moestafa K.* (27) shows Switzerland the borders. Since 2016, the Moroccan asylum-seekers would have left the country. Since you granted him asylum. Nevertheless, K. remained here – and mutated to a real problem case.

a number of thefts to his account, in addition, assaults against officers, and in December of 2018, a failed robbery at the store owner-Couple, Rudolf Naef (69) and Brigitte Peyer (61) in woman field. The two victims are injured at all.

However, K. could dive in may of this year, again, a complaint for simple assault the public Prosecutor’s office in Schaffhausen, fall. Topsy-turvy world: Instead, it pushes the Victims, to blame in the shoes.

prosecutors don’t want to have the wrong rating

The Prosecutor’s office specifically: That Rudolf Naef when trying to robber Moestafa K. noted, he was hurt, could have knowledge of the 69-Year-old. Therefore, it was not a simple assault. And That both of them had developed after the night-time robbery attempt, an adjustment disorder, could not have been the intention of the perpetrator. Possible that a psychological bias would have existed. Evil words, for the victims, another blow.

To VIEW Peter Sticher, the first state’s attorney in Schaffhausen defended, the justification of the Ruling. “The Prosecutor has checked very properly and legally well-founded in the facts of the case, and legally recognised,” he says to VIEW. And what is the rib injury concern, “stated the Prosecutor, in Essence, that the accused is not legally genüglich it could be proved that he had caused such an injury intentionally or negligently”.

in Addition, the Prosecutor did not say that the Couple have had a psychological bias, “but has merely stated that a continued explain that the end of the disturbance according to the General experience in such an event only when other potential causes – such as, for example, a pre-existing mental imbalance – this would occur,” said Sticher. He sees therefore no reason to criticize the judgment.

A judgment, but no arrest

After all, K. for the attempted Entreiss theft was sentenced. The grumbled sentence (160 days to 30 francs), he could not pay as expected. Also, a so-called “administrative detention” has not been arranged for him.

No wonder, because in the example Moestafa K. shows an example of how difficult such decisions are to be enforced against a rejected asylum seeker. In particular, if you do not come from countries that cooperate in the repatriation of Switzerland. About Morocco – as in the current case.

Because in Switzerland, can not be imprisoned for K. just like that for an indefinite period of time – despite numerous offences. The reason for this lies in the European Convention on human rights, which has also been ratified by Switzerland.

No real cooperation with Morocco

As the Instrument of such a detention would be only referred to administrative detention. This, after the normal penalty is served or paid. The administrative detention for rejected asylum seekers must leave the country and their departure is in sight. To prevent the submersion of such persons.

a prerequisite for the administrative detention is, however, that the removal order can actually be carried out. “The impossibility of the removal order, is not fulfilled the purpose of the detention, and must not be disposed”, the state Secretariat for Migration (SEM).

Here’s the Problem. Morocco is not cooperating with Switzerland for the return of rejected asylum-seekers who have as Moestafa K. no travel documents. He needs to be identified in Rabat yet. This is according to the SEM but is disproportionately long. An administrative detention would be with him, therefore, inadmissible, because it would take forever.

And: A “coercive detention” to force to leave the country still does not know Switzerland.

* the Name has been changed

The law is the same for all. It must also apply to failed asylum seekers as Moestafa K.. He has repeatedly stolen. With the store owners, Rudolf Naef and Brigitte Peyer he has injured two people and in fear and terror-stricken. This must have consequences! Instead, they let him dive under. The justice puts the victims as the perpetrators. Incredible!

The shocking case is an example of the failure of the system, when it comes to failed asylum seekers whose home countries cross.

What to do? “Foreigners out!” scream, and the right to choose? Crude slogans to use at the most low feelings, simple recipes do not work.

It sounds tedious and boring – Switzerland, there is little choice other than to rely on politics and diplomacy. Morocco way denied in the shock of the cooperation. But we obviously have enough in Hand to take the North African state in the duty.

Switzerland is in need of a major weight in the negotiations. Therefore, we work together with the EU-Schengen States are also interested in a solution. Together we are stronger, can make more stringent conditions. With such a cooperation, Switzerland, in turn, needs a sensible relationship with the EU.

diplomacy is the one. On the other, we could think about corrections to our asylum system. For example, about whether or not it is really good, a rejected asylum-seekers to prohibit the Work and you just 21 Swiss francs of emergency per week to pay off.

Would it not be better to require such people to work and to cook for you in return? Even “politicians” could argue that a daily structure and the provision of basic necessities could help to reduce the incentive to crime. Of the illegal stay would remain for the Affected uncomfortable, but he would be better controlled and with less risks for the local population.

Flavio Razzino