The mission of the Independent Expert Commission (IEC) on Administrative Detention is to investigate and document the use of administrative detention in Switzerland up to the year 1981. What were the social structures, processes and mechanisms that led to the treatment of juveniles and of adults – both men and women – in this way? On what laws did the cantons base their use of administrative detention, and how were those laws applied? Which groups of people were most often subject to such treatment and what was it like for them to be locked away, often for years at a time? Which public authorities and institutions were involved? How do the people who were subjected to those compulsory measures deal today with what they experienced?
This website is designed to accompany the work of the IEC and to facilitate dissemination of the Commission’s findings to a broader public.
There are today numerous research projects that address this issue. The focus of those studies is on the history of how certain compulsory measures came into use in Switzerland as instruments of social welfare and on the social norms and power structures that played a role in that history. The life stories of the individuals concerned, viewed from their own perspective, is an important element of those investigations.
The use of compulsory measures as instruments of social welfare is a reflection of certain norms and values. But how does a society define «normal»? How did society deal with behaviour that deviated from the «norm» and in what ways were people stigmatised as a result? What does (re-)establishing «normality» by the use of compulsory measures mean in such a context? The understanding of what a given society considers «normal» evolves over time. Because of that, the term «normality» must always be carefully investigated and considered from a number of different perspectives – also when studying the history of compulsory measures and foster care as instruments of social welfare.
As modern society developed, it became an established notion that the state is legitimately authorised to regulate normality and to intervene in the conduct of daily life in a wide range of areas. This is particularly the case in the domains of work, family, health and sexuality. In this connection, the role of poverty and the social order also must also be taken into consideration.
