Found an error?
Report nowThere were apparently several warning signs - but he was still not stopped. After the knife attack in Winterthur, the Federal Council must explain who is responsible for radicalized high-risk individuals and why it is hardly ever possible to expel them quickly, even in cases of suspected terrorism.
At the end of May, there was a knife attack in Winterthur that had political reverberations as far away as Bern. A 31-year-old Swiss man with dual Turkish citizenship attacked three people at the train station, injuring some of them seriously. The man grew up in Switzerland and had previously come to the attention of the authorities due to mental illness and suspected jihadist activities.
Since then, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland has been investigating on suspicion of multiple attempted murders and involvement in or support of a terrorist organization. The President of the Swiss Confederation, Guy Parmelin (SVP), and Zurich's Director of Security, Mario Fehr (independent), classified the crime as terrorist even before the investigation was completed. Under criminal law, the accused is presumed innocent until a final conviction.
Politically, the attack was taken up on the same day. Political parties and politicians used the attack to reiterate existing demands. The first statements quickly died away. But less than a week later, a series of motions followed in the National Council. Representatives from the left to the right demanded answers from Justice Minister Beat Jans (SP).
The focus was on several questions: What lessons can the federal government learn from the case? How are contacts and decisions between authorities documented? What measures are available against radicalized individuals and terrorist risk persons? And why is it so difficult to revoke the Swiss passport of a naturalized offender?
The Federal Council as a whole, under the leadership of Jans' Department of Justice, initially responded with a reference to responsibilities. In principle, the cantonal and municipal police forces are responsible for averting danger and prosecuting offenders. The federal government only has limited legal powers - for example, when cantonal options have been exhausted or internal or external security is endangered by terrorism and violent extremism.
The federal government is not completely powerless. So-called preventive police measures are possible. These include obligations to report and participate in conversations, contact bans, restrictions and exclusions, bans on leaving the country, confinement to a property, mobile phone localization or electronic monitoring by means of an ankle bracelet. However, such measures must be applied for by the cantons.
Jans also commented on the demanded denaturalization of the accused. Revocation of Swiss citizenship is only an option in the event of a final conviction for a serious crime - for example in connection with terrorist activities, violent extremism or organized crime. The Federal Council did not comment on the specific case for data protection reasons.
The fact is that the Winterthur suspect has not yet been convicted of a serious crime.
The fact that naturalization in Switzerland has high hurdles is not only due to the practice of the authorities, but also to the laws passed by Parliament itself. The State Secretariat for Migration provided specific figures on this: To date, a total of ten proceedings have been initiated to revoke Swiss citizenship. Withdrawal has been ordered in seven cases. Only three decisions are legally binding.
While the questions in the National Council have so far only led to answers, the Council of States has already shown itself capable of taking action. Last week, it adopted a motion by Centre Councillor Heidi Z'graggen calling for radicalization and extremism monitoring in Switzerland.
Marianne Binder-Keller, a member of the Council of States from the center of Aargau, argued in favour of the motion and said: "Radicalization doesn't happen overnight, but over a period of years. And if, as in Winterthur, we are once again shaken by a case, then we indulge in all kinds of explanations about the perpetrator's background. But ultimately, the important thing is control, which must happen in advance, and more investment in internal security."
During the debate, Jans said: "The case in Winterthur shows how important threat management in the cantons and efficient coordination of all the agencies and authorities involved are." During the debate, he thanked the emergency services on the ground "who acted quickly and professionally and thus prevented even worse things from happening".
