The Swiss jihadist Daniel D. has been in Kurdish captivity in Syria since 2019. The 31-year-old from Geneva says his life and limb are threatened. The Federal Council doesn’t want to bring him back. Now the case is coming back to court – and to Parliament.
10.01.2026, 20:3710.01.2026, 20:37
Christoph Bernet / ch media
Daniel D. has been in captivity in Syria since 2019. The Geneva native, who grew up in a Catholic family, converted to Islam. In 2015, at the age of twenty, he traveled to the “caliphate” of the Islamic State (IS). At that time, the terrorist organization controlled large parts of Syria and Iraq.
Jihadist Daniel D. during an interview in a Syrian prison.Bild: Screenshot SRF
Daniel D. rose quickly within IS. He is said to have belonged to the department that planned attacks and fought for IS. Due to his high position in IS, he was considered the most dangerous jihadist in Switzerland. Now his fate will once again be a case for the courts – and politics. Because Daniel D. wants to return to Switzerland.
In June 2019, the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), allied with the Western anti-IS coalition, arrested him in Baghouz, the last bastion of the Islamic State. Since then he has been held under precarious conditions in Syrian prisons, according to the latest information in Derik in the Kurdish-controlled northeast of Syria.
In December 2024, Daniel D. achieved legal success. The Federal Court in Lausanne upheld his complaint. Daniel D. had demanded that a decision by the Federal Administrative Court from summer 2024 be overturned.
At risk to life and limb?
The content is about Daniel D.’s demand that the EDA Department of Foreign Affairs take all available measures within the framework of consular protection to enable him to return to Switzerland. The imprisoned jihadist argues that his life and limb are at risk due to the adverse prison conditions. He refers to a corresponding passage in the Swiss Abroad Act.
The detainee argues that his life is at risk due to the adverse prison conditions. (symbol image)Bild: keystone
The Federal Court did not substantively assess whether Daniel D. is entitled to be returned to Switzerland. But it obliged the FDFA to issue an appealable ruling – something the Foreign Ministry had previously refused to do. The judges in Lausanne ruled that the EDA must take the “current situation” into account.
The FDFA has now complied with this request from the highest court. After “well-founded clarifications”, an order was issued in September 2025, the foreign ministry confirmed to CH Media. It does not answer substantive questions due to the pending proceedings.
As Thomas Wenger, Daniel D.’s lawyer, said when asked, the Foreign Ministry rejected support in repatriation to Switzerland within the scope of consular protection. Attorney Wenger has lodged a complaint against this with the Federal Administrative Court. He expects a decision in the first quarter of 2026.
SVP National Council wants to prevent consular protection
The ongoing legal proceedings will soon also occupy Parliament. SVP National Councilor Manuel Strupler (TG) submitted a motion at the end of December. The proposal specifically refers to the Federal Court ruling on the fate of Daniel D.
SVP National Councilor Manuel Strupler.Bild: KEYSTONE
The Federal Council must take all necessary measures to ensure that terrorist-motivated travelers abroad cannot claim consular protection and are not actively repatriated to Switzerland, demands Strupler.
Strupler acknowledges that the Federal Council is not actively repatriating adult jihad travelers in accordance with the strategy for dealing with terrorist-motivated travelers, which has remained unchanged since 2019. However, in this context he considers paragraph 3 of Article 43 of the Swiss Abroad Act to be problematic, which Daniel D. also refers to in his court proceedings.
This paragraph states that if there is a risk to life and limb, grounds for exclusion from the granting of consular protection are no longer valid – such as negligent behavior by the person concerned, the danger to other people or to the foreign policy interests of the federal government.
Strupler writes that it is unacceptable that jihad travelers who trample on the fundamental values of the Federal Constitution receive consular protection, let alone be actively repatriated to Switzerland. Since his motion is still being discussed in parliament, it has no impact on the Federal Administrative Court’s decision on Daniel D.’s complaint for the time being.
The FDFA is aware of five Swiss citizens – three men and a woman with her child – who are being held in Syria by the Kurdish autonomous authorities. In total, the Kurdish armed forces are holding around 2,000 foreign IS fighters in prisons and tens of thousands of women and children in prison camps in northeast Syria. The Kurds have been calling on their countries of origin to take back their jihadists for years. (aargauerzeitung.ch)
You might also be interested in these articles:
