61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

espect of these civil rights cases and transferred them to the Federal
Department of Justice and Police (Eidgenössisches Justiz- und Polizeidepartement,
EJPD). 30 With this incursion on the separation of powers, the Federal Council
intended to curb the «humane practice» 31 of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
With the Decree of 11 November 1941 amending the provisions on the acquisition
and loss of citizenship rights, 32 the Federal Council ordered that a Swiss
woman who married a foreign national «would only retain Swiss citizenship in
exceptional cases, i.e., if she would otherwise unavoidably become stateless». 33
The authorities wanted to prevent large numbers of such Swiss women from
claiming diplomatic and consular protection or, indeed, being able to return to
Switzerland without impediment. The EJPD acknowledged that the Swiss
women who had «married out» «often had a very tough time under current
wartime conditions», 34 but emphasised that it would be «quite inappropriate
to consider retaining or re-conferring Swiss citizenship» in such cases. 35 The
Swiss women concerned were therefore subject, on principle, to the same conditions
of entry as every other foreign national. 36
Even refugees who were admitted to Switzerland generally enjoyed little
protection under contemporary law. At international level, human rights
guarantees simply did not exist. Although it was a general provision of international
law that interned military and civilian refugees should be treated
humanely as regards the provision of accommodation, food and care, this
obligation and other principles regarding the «minimum standard under the
legislation relating to foreigners» were no substitute for the human rights
perspective, for they were rudimentary and granted rights and obligations solely
to states, not to individuals. In domestic law, too, the protection of refugees’
basic rights was poorly developed. For example, personal freedom and the
property guarantee were not yet recognised as unwritten fundamental rights;
little real protection was therefore afforded by the legal equality which was
enshrined explicitly in Article 4 of the Federal Constitution, and was reduced
to a mere ban on arbitrary treatment. The protection afforded to refugees’
fundamental rights was also restricted as a result of government by emergency
plenary powers and the concept of the so-called special legal status. This meant
that refugees’ fundamental rights were breached only in instances when the
authorities resorted to harassment measures (schikanöse Massnahmen). It was
harassment, for example, if interned refugees were permitted to use any
European language in their correspondence yet Hebrew script was banned.
Other indignities in some camps which also violated the law included an
absolute ban on contact with the local population, a make-up ban for women,
the enforcement of orders at the point of a gun, or severe disciplinary penalties
for minor infractions of discipline. 37 Due to the great hardship it entailed for
397