CAT/OP/CHE/CSPRO/1 Human Rights recently ruled, in a case concerning Switzerland, that such evaluations must be sufficiently recent, although it did not specify a period of validity.27 152. It should also be noted that, as part of the package of measures on the enforcement of penalties, on which consultations were completed in autumn 2020, the Federal Council is proposing to strengthen the role of the courts in extending, lifting or changing measures that have been imposed on offenders.28 153. Paragraphs 184 and 185: The Subcommittee considers, as a matter of principle, that, as provided in the Civil Code, medication should be administered only with explicit free consent, duly documented, other than in exceptional circumstances. 154. The Subcommittee is of the view that, in application of the principle of equivalence of care, there is no reason to waive all these conditions in the case of prisoners, including those sentenced to therapeutic measures. 155. It is indeed the case that, in accordance with the principle of equivalence, prisoners should enjoy living conditions that are as close as possible to ordinary living conditions (Criminal Code, art. 75 (1)). When it comes to forced medication, for example in cases where prisoners have severe mental disorders, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences has noted that the principles governing the use of medically indicated coercive measures in respect of prisoners are the same as those that apply to the rest of the population.29 156. Paragraph 187: The Subcommittee is of the view that the rules in the Civil Code governing treatment without consent could also apply, by analogy, to prisoners subject to therapeutic measures. The Subcommittee would be very interested in the State party’s comments in this regard. 157. The Federal Council refers to its reply to the recommendations contained in paragraphs 184 and 185. Treatment without consent, inasmuch as it constitutes a restriction on fundamental rights, must satisfy the conditions set out in article 36 of the Constitution (existence of a clear legal basis and of an overriding public interest or a need to protect the fundamental rights of others, respect for the principle of proportionality, and inviolability of the essence of fundamental rights). Article 434 (1) of the Civil Code reiterates these conditions (existence of an overriding interest, respect for the principle of proportionality) and further stipulates that the patient must be unable to exercise judgment in relation to his or her need for treatment. VII. Other issues A. Tasks delegated to private companies 158. Paragraph 190: The Subcommittee recalls that, when the supervision or transportation of prisoners under escort is contracted out or otherwise delegated to private actors, the State party remains bound by its obligations under the Optional Protocol and is responsible for any breach of the Protocol committed, at its instigation or with its consent or acquiescence, against persons deprived of their liberty. 159. The cantonal authorities delegate certain tasks relating to the transportation of prisoners to private security service providers. The transportation of prisoners by such service providers is governed by strict rules and is limited to persons who do not pose a known risk to themselves or others. The cantonal authority that contracts out the transportation is responsible for conducting a risk assessment. Persons who pose a potential risk are either accompanied by police officers as part of a special transport operation or transported by the police. 27 28 29 GE.21-03864 European Court of Human Rights, Kadusic v. Switzerland, Judgment, 9 January 2018, para. 55 ff. https://www.bj.admin.ch/bj/fr/home/sicherheit/gesetzgebung/verbesserungen-smv.html. Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical-ethical guidelines: Coercive measures in medicine (Bern, 2015), para. 4.6. 23