CERD/C/84/D/50/2012 2.12 Turning to interference by the authorities in his private life, the petitioner claims that officials of the Migrant Reception Office of the Canton of Vaud have entered his home on many occasions since July 2009, opened his letterbox and looked at his correspondence, even going so far as to break open the letterbox when they could not find the key. In addition the petitioner has had several letters asking him to attend courses where he would be taught “Swiss life and customs”, for example, or “Living in an apartment”, even though he had already been in Switzerland for many years.4 When he objected to this request, which he considered to be disrespectful to his origins and his sociocultural identity and background, the equivalent of two days’ benefit was withheld from his monthly welfare payment. In addition, between 6 June 2001 and 29 June 2004 the petitioner made several requests to leave the country to visit his sick mother in Ethiopia, to no avail. 2.13 On 6 December 2006 the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Federal Commission against Racism in respect of the refusal to issue a residence permit and the discriminatory effects of the “F” permit on the petitioner. On 27 December 2006 the Commission replied that it did not deal with matters relating to residence status at the individual level. It forwarded his complaint to the Federal Commission on Refugees, which on 22 January 2007 rejected it on the grounds that only the cantonal authorities were competent to issue residence permits and to determine whether there had been an error of judgement in a particular case. On 8 September 2009 the petitioner contacted the mediator of the Evangelical Reformed Church of the Canton of Vaud on the same subject and on 3 October 2011 he wrote to the Federal Department of Justice and Police asking them to approach the Federal Office for Migration. These actions came to nothing. 2.14 The petitioner also appealed to the national courts. One of his applications, regarding his request for an identity certificate incorporating a return entry visa, submitted on 1 February 2008 to the Federal Administrative Court, was rejected on 19 February 2008. 2.15 On 26 August 2010, the petitioner lodged a complaint against persons unknown for, among other things, damage to property, after his letterbox was broken into, and on 3 and 17 January 2011 against the Migrant Reception Office of the Canton of Vaud. He accused members of staff of that Office of violation of his privacy insofar as they had wanted to come into his home to obtain technical data, of registering him on courses, of failing to grant his request for a change of social worker and of failing to give him a timely reply in respect of dental treatment. In an order of 2 May 2011, the district prosecutor of Lausanne dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the allegations against the Migrant Reception Office did not amount to a criminal offence and that the complaint for damage to property was time-barred. The prosecutor also rejected his application for legal aid and for free legal counsel. 2.16 On 19 May 2011 the petitioner appealed against the prosecutor’s order in the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court. In his appeal he complained of invasion of privacy by the Migrant Reception Office, obstruction of access to health and obstruction of career development. He claimed that these actions and abuse of authority were the result of racial discrimination and explicitly cited article 261 of the Swiss Criminal Code, and the Convention.5 In a ruling of 27 May 2011 the Cantonal Court upheld the prosecutor’s order on the grounds that the complaint for damage to property was time- 4 5 GE.14-41526 The course is compulsory for all holders of an “F” (temporary admission) permit, whether newly arrived or not. In his appeal, the author states: “These actions and abuse of authority are the result of racial discrimination. The fact that I hold an ‘F’ permit, which itself derives from my national origin and my reasons for being in Switzerland, puts me in a category to which the law on racial discrimination and respect for privacy and private life appear not to apply.” 5