CERD/C/84/D/50/2012 differently, as it states that permit holders may not cross the Swiss border and, if they do so, may not return to Switzerland. 5.9 As regards access to employment, contrary to the assertions by the State party, the obligation is not only to report any new job. The employer has to request authorization using form 1350 and await a reply before hiring the person, which is enough to deter employers from hiring the person. This is clearly indicated in the certificates issued by the Population Service of the Canton of Vaud. A report by the Swiss Refugee Council, of 1 April 2008 — i.e., after the entry into force of the new Foreign Nationals Act — states that these people live for many years in a situation that is limited in time and are involuntarily dependent on welfare because permission to work is still granted at the authorities’ discretion and many employers believe that persons admitted on a temporary basis will only be staying in Switzerland temporarily.13 The employer needs authorization from the authorities and the authorities need a work contract in order to grant authorization. The aim is thus to deter people from working. 5.10 As to the remedies attempted, the petitioner states that his first appeal against the Population Service of the Canton of Vaud (Asylum Division, Lausanne) was rejected by a decision of 18 November 2003. His application for a review of that decision was rejected by the Plenary of the Administrative Tribunal on 19 May 2004, without leave to apply to the Federal Supreme Court. His second appeal against the Vaud Population Service was rejected (in this case he was not represented by a lawyer), with leave to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. Unfortunately, his lawyer did not submit the brief in time and the Supreme Court found the appeal inadmissible. On 21 May 2010 the petitioner lodged a complaint against the Migrant Reception Office with the public prosecutor for breaking into his home. This complaint was rejected by an order dated 4 June 2010. On 25 June 2010 the petitioner lodged a further complaint with the justice of the peace in respect of the actions of Migrant Reception Office officials.14 This application was rejected on the grounds that the time limits had not been observed. 5.11 When the justice of the peace dismissed the case, the petitioner went to the police to report the intrusion into his home and the violation of his private correspondence. On 12 January 2011 a police inspector told the petitioner that the case would not be put to the prosecutor since the actions did not constitute a criminal offence; however he could bring it before the prosecutor himself. Accordingly, in a letter dated 17 January 2011, the petitioner lodged a complaint,15 and this was rejected by an order of 2 May 2011.16 The petitioner had 10 days to appeal this decision, and did so. In this appeal he referred directly to the Convention and claimed racial discrimination. In a decision of 11 July 2011, the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Cantonal Court rejected the appeal on the grounds that the petitioner had not used the correct remedies or observed the time limits in respect of the actions of Migrant Reception Office officials regarding his access to social assistance and medical treatment. As to the violation of his home, the court agreed that the actions did not constitute an offence. The petitioner’s appeal against this decision was rejected by the 13 14 15 16 GE.14-41526 Swiss Refugee Council (OSAR), La Suisse terre d’asile, 1 April 2008. This letter does not allege racial discrimination but complains of the actions taken by migration officials in order to exclude him or put him at risk. The complaint concerned not only the violation of his place of residence but also the actions of Migrant Reception Office officials with regard to the choice of social worker assigned to handle his case, and freedom of access to all medical treatment. This appeal alleges racial discrimination and cites the provisions of the Convention and article 261 bis of the Swiss Criminal Code, on racial discrimination. The prosecutor found that the Migrant Reception Office staff had carried out tasks that were part of their job description and were not unlawful. 13