CAT/OP/CHE/CSPRO/1 160. Private security service providers transport only persons whose liberty has already been restricted by the authorities. They are also prohibited from using violence. In this regard, the State security services continue to exercise the exclusive powers conferred on them; these powers cannot be delegated to a transport service provider. 161. The accommodation of asylum seekers in federal asylum centres and the management of security in those centres are the responsibility of the State Secretariat for Migration. The companies that deal with supervision and security are commissioned by the State Secretariat for Migration and operate under its oversight. In the event that damage occurs, the law on liability applies (causal liability). Third parties (for example, asylum seekers) who have been harmed by employees of the companies providing these services are therefore not disadvantaged by the fact that the State Secretariat for Migration uses such companies, whose employees have the same duties as federal employees. 162. The employees of the companies responsible for supervision and security are trained, supervised and monitored by the State Secretariat for Migration. The use of such companies relies on their staff having the necessary vocational training and experience and attending further in-service training. Furthermore, employees responsible for security cannot be hired without the approval of the State Secretariat for Migration. 163. Lastly, the companies that deal with supervision and security at federal asylum centres (especially the provision of caretaking and surveillance services) do not exercise any State functions. They are authorized to use restraint only in self-defence or in an emergency and in accordance with the internal regulations. The employees of these companies have no more rights than the average person. B. Health-care costs of prisoners 164. Paragraph 196: The Subcommittee wishes to receive additional information on this issue from the State party and calls on it to guarantee to the prison population throughout the territory access to the necessary health care and services free of charge. 165. Both the Swiss Centre of Expertise in Human Rights and the National Commission for the Prevention of Torture have addressed this issue. 30 Requiring prisoners to make a moderate contribution to their health-care costs is not precluded by the obligations of Switzerland under international law or the Constitution. The required contribution must be reasonable and access to adequate care must not be delayed or rendered impossible. A contribution to health-care costs that is appropriate to the individual’s financial circumstances, is not prohibitive and therefore has no bearing on events seems admissible. At the political level, a discussion is currently under way on the advisability of making health insurance compulsory for prisoners and on the way in which their contribution to health-care costs could be defined, with due regard for the principles of standardization and equal treatment. 30 24 Jörg Künzli and Florian Weber, Gesundheit im Freiheitsentzug Rechtsgutachten zur Gesundheitsversorgung von inhaftierten Personen ohne Krankenversicherung (Bern, 2018), p. 39 (https://www.skmr.ch/de/themenbereiche/justiz/publikationen/gesundheitsversorgung_freiheitsentzug _menschenrechtliche_vorgaben.html); National Commission for the Prevention of Torture, Gesamtbericht über die schweizweite Überprüfung der Gesundheitsversorgung im Freiheitsentzug durch die Nationale Kommission zur Verhütung von Folter (2018–2019), p. 40, para. 122 – a summary is also available in French (https://www.nkvf.admin.ch/nkvf/fr/home/publikationen/newsarchiv/2019/2019-11-14.html). GE.21-03864