The land of neutrality and home to many human rights organisations needs to take a closer look at human rights in asylum processes.
Not all animals are born equal is not meant to be an instruction.
URGENT – MEDICAL AND LEGAL STATEMENT Matthew Geoffrey Jee | DOB: 30 July 1966 | N 893 119 BAZ Bern, Morillonstrasse 75, 3007 Bern | 25 March 2026
- Current Medical Situation
I have multiple deep abdominal and pelvic hernias, a pelvic floor that is functionally failing and now herniated, and severe wasting and failure of paraspinal, neck, and muscles of the trunk – particularly in the back of my body, abdomen and pelvis.
I also have an inverted, semi-paralysed right diaphragm and a long-standing neck-muscle imbalance that locks my head, trunk and pelvis into a single pathological pattern.
These problems are documented over more than 20 years:
Torn internal anal sphincter with scarring (2005).
Full-thickness rectal intussusception (2005).
Pelvic-floor and sphincter denervation (confirmed 2009).
Right-side diaphragm paresis confirmed by phrenic-nerve conduction studies (2005, re-confirmed by Inselspital ENMG 05.03.2026).
Progressive cervical kyphosis C2-C5 (radiologically documented 2023).
Abnormal spinal dynamics documented by multiple treating physiotherapists and physicians.
In 2015, Professor Clive Hawkins, Professor of Clinical Neurology at Keele University, reviewed my case and stated that my mechanism “makes a lot of sense” and recommended urgent inpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation with biomedical engineering and gait analysis. This was never provided. My family doctors have worked tirelessly over twenty years to secure this kind of necessary medical treatment, without success.
Since February 2025, following a cervical-distortion injury in Barcelona, I have been in acute and accelerating deterioration. Both hips are now rotated inward. Both shoulders have collapsed forward. The posterior chain and deep-stabilising muscles are disengaged. Load is now carried entirely by anterior-chain muscles – pectorals, external obliques, sternocleidomastoid, and omohyoid – which are not designed for sustained postural loading. My pelvic floor is failing rapidly and every major spinal junction articulates abnormally. I am deteriorating further each day.
The muscle loss I am currently experiencing is, in practice, irreversible. Every delay represents permanent loss of function.
- Gross Medical Negligence at Inselspital
At Inselspital Bern I was admitted for seven days (27 February to 6 March 2026), discharged with no diagnosis or treatment, re-admitted the night of the 6/7 March, and discharged again after three further days with no examination taking place in these three days and no examination of the pelvic floor at any point during either stay.
The discharge letter states there was “no muscle wasting.” This is objectively false and directly contradicted by:
- Dr B. Chamali (Royal Buckinghamshire Hospital, March 2025): on physical examination documented visible shoulder asymmetry, palpable thoracic step-off, palpable lumbosacral abnormality, kyphosis, abnormal abdominal-muscle tone, and unstable gait.
- Jess Wojak, Physiotherapist (Totnes Physio Clinic, August 2025): on hands-on assessment documented marked muscle atrophy in right pectorals, bilateral upper-back, and left gluteals; profound absence of core stability; inability to brace the trunk; poor scapular control; and a palpable sacral abnormality at L5.
- Dr Thomas Manders, Consultant Liaison Psychiatrist (Torbay Hospital, July 2025): explicitly found no psychiatric disorder, described my fear of deterioration as a rational response to documented decline, and supported inpatient rehabilitation.
- Dr Dylan Watkins, GP (Leatside Surgery, February 2024): stated that my self-reported descriptions of my condition have proven accurate and consistent over years, that the blunt-trauma origin of my injuries has been systematically marginalised, and that he cannot find a path forward within the UK system. He explicitly states this is not an NHS-capacity problem.
All four of these documents were provided to Inselspital. They were not acted upon. None of the documented findings was contradicted by Inselspital; they were simply ignored. Last Friday I replied to a letter from Professor Drohomir Aujesky correcting significant factual errors and diagnostic failings that contradict reality and the medical record. I have not received a reply.
The discharge letter also states that I “vehemently refused pelvic-floor examination,” while simultaneously stating that there was “no indication for emergency inpatient pelvic-floor examination.” These two statements are mutually contradictory within the same document. The social workers at BAZ, who sent me to hospital by taxi with a written letter requesting pelvic-floor examination, can confirm that I did not self-present. I was talked into returning to Notfall by them.
On attending outpatient follow-up and subsequently Notfall on Thursday 12 March, I was told: “What you think is happening to your body is not real. We will not examine you”. This precise wording was used during my first hospitalisation on Wednesday 4 March. The repetition of the identical phrase by different doctors on different days indicates a coordinated institutional position, not an independent clinical assessment. Whatever the reason, Inselspital has misdiagnosed my physical and psychological condition – the second being requested of the psychiatrist on 4 March during a case conference the day after he wrote that report which directly contradicts itself, noting “absolutely no sign of psychosis”. This mislabelling is familiar and dangerous to my physical health, to my survival, and to the asylum process. It is, in part, based on the fact that I am claiming asylum – an absurd circularity. It cannot stand.
I am now lying on a mattress on the floor of the BAZ, with no further medical appointments until April, having clearly suffered gross medical negligence. I am at real and immediate risk of sudden catastrophic deterioration or death whilst in the care of SEM and during asylum proceedings where my human rights ought not be compromised in any manner.
- What I Need
Inpatient admission for stabilisation and integrated assessment at Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich – a centre specialising in complex spinal, orthopaedic, and neuro-rehabilitation cases.
A Friday admission would mean nothing happening until Monday. I require a formal written response to this request by 17:00 on Wednesday 25 March 2026. If no response is received by that time I will pursue emergency legal remedies.
I am not medically fit to participate in a full meeting today and formally request that this is noted on the record.
- Legal Basis
Article 3, European Convention on Human Rights -Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
Article 3 is absolute and admits no exceptions. The European Court of Human Rights in Paposhvili v. Belgium (Grand Chamber, Application No. 41738/10, 13 December 2016) established that Article 3 is engaged where there are substantial grounds to believe a person faces a real risk of serious, rapid and irreversible decline in health in the absence of appropriate treatment. My situation meets this test precisely: I am in acute and accelerating deterioration, the harm is irreversible, and it is occurring while I am in Swiss-state care and dependent entirely on state-provided medical access.
Critically, my case is stronger than the removal-cases to which Paposhvili primarily applies. I am not facing removal to a country lacking treatment. I am already in Switzerland, the state is present, and it is the state’s own medical provider – Inselspital – that has produced a false record now being used to deny further care. The state cannot discharge its Article 3 obligations by relying on a medical assessment that is demonstrably false.
While Paposhvili concerned removal, its underlying principle of protecting seriously ill individuals from serious, rapid and irreversible decline in health applies a fortiori to persons already present on the territory and dependent on state-organised care.
Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights -Right to Bodily Integrity
The ECtHR has consistently held that Article 8 protects physical and bodily integrity. The repeated refusal to examine documented physical deterioration, combined with a discharge report that falsely states “no muscle wasting” contrary to four independent clinical assessments, constitutes an unjustified interference with that right.
Article 12, Swiss Federal Constitution -Right to Emergency Aid
Article 12 of the Swiss Federal Constitution guarantees the right to emergency aid to any person in need. My acute and accelerating physical deterioration qualifies as an emergency requiring immediate state response. Swiss authorities and the Swiss Refugee Council themselves state that access to health care must be guaranteed for asylum applicants during the entire procedure and even after rejection, at least under emergency-aid regimes.
Article 82a, Swiss Asylum Act (AsylG) -Medical Care Entitlement
Article 82a AsylG, read in conjunction with Article 92d of the Ordinance on Health Insurance and the Federal Act on Health Insurance (LAMal), guarantees asylum-seekers access to necessary medical care throughout the entire asylum procedure. Necessary care includes treatment preventing serious and irreversible physical deterioration. My situation meets that threshold.
UN Convention Against Torture, Article 16
Switzerland is a state party to the UN Convention Against Torture. Article 16 prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by state actors or those operating under state authority. The systematic denial of care for injuries originating in childhood torture, compounded by the production of a false medical record, engages this obligation directly.
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 25
Switzerland ratified the CRPD in 2014. Article 25 guarantees the right to the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination. My progressive disability arising from untreated childhood injuries, and the documented failure of the Swiss medical system to assess or treat those injuries, engages this right directly.
- SEM’s Obligation and Formal Request
The State Secretariat for Migration and its agents, including the BAZ, are state actors with a positive obligation under the above instruments. They are not passive bystanders. Observing acute deterioration while Inselspital refuses examination is not a neutral act. It is a failure of positive obligation.
SEM cannot rely on the Inselspital discharge letter to conclude that my medical needs are being met. That letter contains documented falsehoods contradicted by four independent clinicians. A false medical record being used to justify inaction by a state body is itself a violation of my rights under Articles 3 and 8 ECHR.
I formally request that SEM exercise its authority to arrange my immediate inpatient admission to Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, for integrated spinal, pelvic, and orthopaedic assessment and stabilisation, with no reference to Inselspital – their intervention must be “blind” (or a comparably specialised Swiss centre, but Balgrist/Zurich is the obvious candidate).
I require a formal written response to this request by 17:00 today, Wednesday 25 March 2026.
If no response is received by that time, I will pursue a super-provisionnelle Verfügung (emergency injunction) in the Swiss courts and, if necessary, interim measures under Rule 39 of the European Court of Human Rights.
Signed:
Matthew Geoffrey Jee
Date: 25 March 2026
CC: Legal counsel
