European Court Finds Switzerland Violated Pregnant Detainee’s Rights by Barring Partner from Birth
- Human Rights Research Center
- Jul 30
- 3 min read
Author: Christine Savino
July 30, 2026
A unanimous judgment faulted Swiss authorities for failing to weigh the woman’s vulnerability or examine less restrictive alternatives. The Human Rights Research Center welcomes the Court’s insistence that detention does not erase a person’s rights to private and family life. Restrictions affecting pregnant detainees must be individually justified, proportionate, and based on meaningful consideration of less restrictive alternatives.
![The courtroom of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. [Image credit: Adrian Grycuk/Wikimedia Commons]](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f05ed1_69f964d6c44742edbf6b983ef31c9de1~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_649,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/f05ed1_69f964d6c44742edbf6b983ef31c9de1~mv2.jpg)
The European Court of Human Rights ruled on July 23 that Switzerland violated a pregnant detainee’s rights to private and family life after authorities barred her partner from visiting her during the final months of her pregnancy, and from attending the birth of their child.
The European Court of Human Rights, colloquially known as Strasbourg due to its location, is an international appellate court that reviews state cases pertaining to alleged European Convention of Human Rights breaches with all 46 Council of Europe members.
The plaintiff in A.G. v. Switzerland is a Spanish national who was placed in pre-trial detention in December 2019 while suspected of a serious drug offense. At the time, she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and had resided with her new partner, the biological father of the expected child, before her arrest.
A.G. repeatedly sought permission to speak with her partner, to receive visits from him, and to have him present at the delivery. Swiss authorities refused the visits and blocked his attendance at the birth, citing a serious and concrete risk that the pair could discuss the investigation.
On March 20, 2020, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court permitted one monitored and recorded telephone call but upheld the other restrictions.
A.G. gave birth on April 1, without her partner present, after being denied visitation for three and a half months.
The Strasbourg court accepted that preventing collusion and protecting a criminal investigation were legitimate aims. The central question, however, was whether the restrictions were necessary and proportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to private and home life.
The Court found that the domestic authorities treated the collusion risk as the dominant consideration and did not genuinely balance it against A.G.’s personal circumstances. It reasoned that decisions did not adequately account for the distress caused by the absence of visits, her advanced pregnancy, or the particular vulnerability of being a pregnant woman in detention.
The judges were especially critical of the lack of reasoning given by the detention facility for barring the father from the delivery. Recalling that childbirth is a “unique and delicate moment” in a woman’s life, the Court said the Swiss decisions did not demonstrate that this restriction answered a pressing social need.
Authorities also failed to consider practical alternatives. Swiss law allowed visits to be supervised when necessary, yet a supervised visit was never meaningfully examined. The Court found it difficult to reconcile the approval of a monitored call with the rejection of a monitored, in-person visit, particularly when officials had not claimed that such a visit would be difficult, costly, or unsafe to arrange.
A.G.’s lawyer, Fabien Mingard, called the ruling a “victory,” and wrote that his client, “detained and pregnant, should have been able to receive a visit from her partner.”
The Court awarded A.G. €1,730 ($1,969) in nonpecuniary damages and €4,000 ($4,553) for costs and expenses.
The judgment was not final at the time of publication: either party may request referral to the Grand Chamber within three months, and such requests are accepted only in exceptional cases.
Glossary
Article 8 —The provision of the European Convention on Human Rights protecting private and family life, the home, and correspondence. Public interference must be lawful, pursue a permitted aim, and be necessary in a democratic society.
Chamber judgment — A decision issued by a seven-judge chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. Within three months, a party may exceptionally request referral to the Court’s 17-judge Grand Chamber.
European Court of Human Rights — The international court in Strasbourg that decides applications alleging violations of the European Convention on Human Rights by Council of Europe member states.
Pretrial detention — Custody imposed before a final determination of guilt. International standards require it to be exceptional, necessary, proportionate, and based on an individualized assessment.
Proportionality — The requirement that a rights restriction strike a fair balance and go no further than needed to achieve a legitimate aim.
Resources
