In 2015/2016, there was nation wide criticism of pre-trial detention conditions in Switzerland. The conditions were considered too restrictive and incompatible with human rights and fundamental rights. People were confined to their cells for 23 hours a day, had virtually no activities, and almost no social contact—neither with the outside world nor within the facility. Organizations such as the National Commission for the Prevention of Torture (NCPT) issued recommendations on what needed to be improved. Following this, the Canton of Zurich began gradually improving detention conditions. The original 23/1 regime—23 hours in the cell, one hour of outdoor exercise—was progressively reformed into the now-standard eight hours outside the cell per day.

We asked ourselves how the restrictive detention setting could be adapted without losing sight of our legal mandate to ensure the criminal proceedings. Together with the cantons of Bern and Vaud, we approached the Federal Office for Justice and proposed that the changes be scientifically examined as part of a pilot program. However, the Federal Office informed us that our proposal did not qualify as a pilot program, since we were required to adapt pre-trial detention in the described manner anyway. Instead, they recommended that we focus on social services and staff training. This gave rise to what we have today: nationwide recommendations from the Conference of Cantonal Justice and Police Directors (CCJPD) on pre-trial and security detention on the one hand, and onthe other a pilot program submitted by the cantons of Zurich and Bern, the goal of which is to minimize the negative consequences of incarceration for those affected. The pilot program consists firstly of a psychological intervention (PRI§MA, Prison Stress Management), through which detained persons learn to cope better with the “custody shock” and prison-related stress. We also offer a training program for our staff, in which they reflect on and learn how to strengthen the personal resources of detained persons in daily life and engage with them in a professional, equal-footing relationship. Furthermore, social services play a central role. Social workers assess what needs to be taken care of in the detainees’ personal lives—for example, housing or employment that could be at risk. In total, the pilot program includes 6 different interventions and a range of new working tools.

It will run for three years. All persons who enter pre-trial detention during this period are asked upon admission whether they would like to participate in a scientific study. If they agree and sign a consent form, we can collect data, and the detained persons fill out questionnaires at regular intervals. The data are then analyzed by a research team from ETH and UZH. Finally, the project management prepares a report for the Federal Office of Justice. All of this will be available in the first half of 2028. The study will examine, among other things, how the interventions carried out in the pilot program affect the health and social behavior of detained persons. What does their situation looklike after release? Do they find work again? How does their family situation develop? Do they re-offend within one to two years?

ST

Withinthe first five days, several conversations take place: with someone from supervision and support, from the health service, and from the social services.

Legally speaking, there are two conditions: a strong suspicion of having committed the crime, and grounds for detention. These grounds are: risk of collusion, risk offlight, risk of reoffending, or risk of carrying out a threatened offense. Almost everyone is subject to the risk of collusion, which means that evidence could disappear or that the person could coordinate with others. Risk of flight often applies to foreign nationals without residence in Switzerland—there is a possibility they could go underground. Risk of reoffending exists when there is a danger that the person may commit further offenses. Risk of carrying out an offense applies when there is reason to believe the person might attempt to complete a planned act. 

Perhaps a word on the overall procedural process: if someone is arrested, for example on Langstrasse for an incident such as a brawl or a drug offense, the police first draw up an arrest report. If there is an initial suspicion, the person can be transferred to the new PJZ building at Zurich West Prison for provisional arrest. They may be held there for up to 96 hours. During this time, first the police and then the public prosecutor (case management) determine whether there is actually a criminally relevant suspicion. If there is, the public prosecutor applies to the Compulsory Measures Court (CMC) for pre-trial detention. If the CMC concludes that there is a strong suspicion and one or more grounds for detention, it orders pre-trial detention, and the provisionally arrested person is placed in a pre-trial detention facility and remains there—in simplified terms—until the case management has clarified the case or no grounds for detention remain. Depending on the outcome, the detained person is released, referred to the migration authority, receives a summary penalty order, or faces ordinary court proceedings with a final verdict. 

During this time, we try through our work to avoid unnecessary custodial harm and to contribute to reintegration. We do not want detained persons to be worse off after their time in pre-trial and security detention than they were at the time of their arrest. And if they leave without a safety net, we are not fulfilling our reintegration mandate. That is why the intake interview takes place right at the beginning of pre-trial detention. It also explains what rules apply in the facility and what the person can expect. Despite this, most people are still very unsettled.

There is something else to add: more than half of the people who come here have mental health problems—such as schizophrenia, psychosis, delusional thinking, orpersonality disorders. The proportion is significantly higher than in the general population. This means that many overreact very quickly: “I need acigarette—right now!” This can trigger enormous stress, and a conflict arises just like that. Or someone says: “The other person took my cigarette!” A world can collapse over something trivial.  We also pay close attention to who is housed in a single or shared cell. We cannot put two people from nationalities that do not get along in the same cell. And even something as minor as the television program can lead to arguments. That is why we always need to coordinate placements very carefully. 

What KR means is the following: there is what is known as the separation requirement. Persons under provisional arrest may not come into contact with persons in pre-trial detention. Similarly, pre-trial detainees may not have contact with persons serving sentences—due to the risk of collusion. And young people must under no circumstances come into contact with adults. For example, Limmattal Prison has a youth wing and an adult wing. There, the prison must ensure that these two groups never meet—for instance, by allowing juveniles into the exercise yard only when the adults are not there. If you run a facility that is exclusively for pre-trial detention, you can open it up much more and allow people to mix within the prison.

Those images from American prisons, where 50 or more people are in a large room, gangs form, and group fights break out regularly—that is not really something we see here.

When we told them that our group regime covers 50 to 80 people, they laughed—that would have been completely unimaginable for them.

The largest proportional category of detained persons is those charged with property offenses. This covers a broad range, including minor thefts. The second most common reason for detention is drug offenses, primarily drug trafficking. Geographically speaking, Switzerland is a gateway to the European drug market. Accordingly, drug offenses are frequent—both trafficking and consumption, though consumption carries less weight since decriminalization. Then there are offenses against physical integrity—a broad spectrum from murder to simple assault, such as brawls after a football match. For such cases, however, pre-trial detention is less common. There is also organized crime, including arms, human, and drug trafficking. Such proceedings are often complex and take longer. Offenses against sexual integrity also occur. But by far the most common are property offenses. As for the composition of those detained: around 40 percent are persons residing abroad. The remaining 60 percent live in Switzerland. Of these, roughly half are foreign nationals with residence in Switzerland; the other half are Swiss citizens—though a not insignificant proportion of these are dual nationals with a migration background.

One can also say: around 90 percent of detainees are men, and roughly 10 percent are women. In terms of age, most fall into the 25 to 35 age group.

If you come from a wealthy background, the likelihood of committing a property offense is rather low. That does not mean you cannot commit a fraud offense, such as insider trading or a breach of proper business conduct. But it is broadly true: less education and fewer opportunities to realize one self in society or professionally are more frequently associated with certain types of offenses. That said, one does not automatically follow from the other.

Exactly. And that applies to our staff as well. Our top priority is that nobody is discriminated against. We do not tolerate racism or the abuse of imbalances of power. 

I could not even say how many staff actually look at the files to see what the alleged is. Some don’t look at all. In justice theory, there is John Rawls’ concept—the veil of ignorance. If I don’t know who the person is or what they are alleged to have done, I automatically treat everyone equally. And that is how we work: resource-oriented. Our mandate is to prevent custodial harm as far as possible and to cause no additional harm to detainees. In doing so, we provide the framework for pre-trial detention so that the public prosecutors can clarify their proceedings. And within this context of compulsion, we ensure—within the bounds of our duty of care—that people here feel as well as possible. This is of course severely limited, but we ensure that they at least suffer no additional custodial harm through us. That some custodial harm may still occur—such as someone losing their job or relationships breaking down—is unavoidable. But we try, wherever possible, to strengthen their personal resources so that they are better able to cope with difficult situations.

Exactly, provided our hypotheses can be confirmed. Our goal is for what we are building here to be continued in the future and adopted by other cantons, particularly in the area of social services. If we can later demonstrate that custodial harm was minimized thanks to our intervention, it will become clear that it is economically more cost-effective to invest in social services and pre-trial detention than to provide financial support later on for unemployed people who lost their jobs because of detention. That is just one example—whether this is actually the case will only be clear once the research results are available.

We are the first link in the entire corrections chain. If you hold the expectation that people released into freedom should not re-offend, then you must invest in better detention conditions and innovative concepts. In Germany, for instance, we saw how a prison cooperates with small, skilled-trades businesses and creates apprenticeship positions. Prisoners trained accordingly within the prison are taken on directly upon release. That is what successful reintegration can look like.

Exactly. There are two decisive moments: the beginning and the end. At the beginning, we intervene with the pilot program, because around 50 percent of people are back out after about two or three months. And at the end, it is about reintegration through employment. In those few months, an enormous amount can go wrong. That is why it is important that all the bureaucracy runs quickly and efficiently from the outset. We can prevent a great deal of custodial harm if the right steps are initiated in time.