CAT/OP/CHE/CSPRO/1 had just one hour’s exercise per day. Those held in the area intended for criminal detention were subjected to a closed-door regime. They were offered work (packing, helping in the kitchen and carrying out various tasks within the prison). 102. For the authorities of the Canton of Bern, it is a priority to separate inmates subject to different types of detention. The Canton established the necessary coordination mechanism, in the form of the Central Office for the Coordination of Detention, in early 2019. The separation of inmates subject to different types of detention in all regional prisons in the Canton of Bern will create new options for the Bern regional prison, which will be able to extend the hours during which cells are open and consequently reduce the duration of the closed-door regime and increase the inmates’ freedom of movement. 103. Paragraph 112: In the prison at Zurich airport, administrative detainees, mainly foreign nationals awaiting removal, enjoyed an open-door regime from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, but only from 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and from 1.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. at weekends and on public holidays. On Wednesdays, the doors remained closed. Only 60 work places were available, in the laundry, and were filled in rotation. Inmates had access to a sports hall twice per week for one hour. No visitors could be received at weekends or on public holidays. 104. At the airport prison, the unit for the enforcement of coercive measures under the law on foreign nationals admits only persons subject to such measures. Persons in this unit do not mix with inmates serving sentences, pretrial detainees or persons detained for security reasons, who are held in a completely separate unit. 105. At the time of the Subcommittee’s visit, one floor of the administrative detention unit was occupied by persons serving sentences because major alteration work was being carried out in the sentence enforcement unit. However, persons subject to different forms of detention were well separated (for example, convicted inmates took their exercise in the yard of the sentence enforcement unit). The work in question was completed some time ago and there are now separate buildings for the different forms of detention, as in the past. 106. As persons subject to different forms of detention are clearly separated, persons in administrative detention under the law on foreign nationals enjoy a much more liberal regime than other inmates. However, the authorities of the Canton of Zurich recognize that there is room for further improvement and are giving serious consideration to the request to establish a special facility for administrative detention. As a result, the Zurich Cantonal Council has approved an implementation strategy that involves abolishing the sentence enforcement unit and establishing a centre reserved exclusively for administrative detention. Using the Zurich airport prison solely for administrative detention will increase the number of places available for that purpose and make it possible to further liberalize and refine the detention regime. The centre reserved exclusively for administrative detention under the law on foreign nationals is expected to be completed in the first half of 2021. 107. Paragraph 113: The Subcommittee reminds the State party that: • Detention pending removal is a last resort and should be proportionate • Persons subject to coercive measures under the law on foreign nationals should be accommodated not in prisons but in centres designed specifically for that purpose • Persons placed in administrative detention should not be subjected to restrictions that are more encompassing than those warranted by their status. Article 81 (2) of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration states that persons placed in administrative detention must not, as far as possible, be grouped with persons in pretrial detention or persons incarcerated because they have committed a crime 108. With regard to the first point, the cantons are responsible for coercive measures ordered under the law on foreign nationals. It is they who decide, on a case-by-case basis, on the suitability, necessity and enforceability of the measures in question. When such decisions are taken, detention must be considered a last resort and it must be proportionate. The competent cantonal courts for coercive measures examine the lawfulness and appropriateness of administrative detention under the law on foreign nationals, in accordance with articles 80 and 80a of the Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration. 16 GE.21-03864