A/HRC/4/19/Add.2 page 24 towards such persons. Reports and official documents38 clearly indicate a reduction of social assistance for such persons. According to an official report, the measure excluding social assistance, which has been in force since 1 April 2004, has a twofold objective: “reduce by 10,000 persons staff involved in asylum matters in order to realize savings on the order 117 million over three years, and create a better basis for asylum policy by refusing access to social assistance to persons who clearly have no need to be protected by the Swiss authorities”.39 These “negative incentives” aimed at decisions not to consider requests for formal reasons will take the form of “a reduction to a minimum of the conditions of housing, food and health care provided, an obligation to renew on a regular basis requests for social benefits with the institutions stipulated by the authorities”.40 The Special Rapporteur would like to mention here his satisfaction with the decision of the Federal Tribunal of 18 March 2005, in which the Tribunal ruled that Solothurn canton’s withholding of all material assistance, including emergency assistance, from persons whose requests had not been considered and who refused to cooperate in their return, was unconstitutional (Federal Tribunal ruling 131 166). 83. The Special Rapporteur regrets that such measures are used by a democratic State in contravention of Switzerland’s international human rights obligations, and that they damage the dignity of the persons affected. In this regard, he wishes to remind the Swiss authorities of article 12 of the Federal Constitution, which states: “Persons in distress and incapable of looking after themselves have the right to be helped and assisted, and to receive the means that are indispensable for leading a life in human dignity.” It is in this spirit that the obligations contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments applicable to Switzerland must also be understood. Moreover, the publication of certain documents by the authorities, such as the report referred to in the previous paragraph, reflects a premise of suspicion: the asylum-seeker is a priori a false applicant whose only aim is to take advantage of Switzerland’s wealth. 84. Lastly, the Special Rapporteur questions, in this regard, the real meaning of the statement following his visit, made by the spokesman of the Swiss People’s Party/Centre Democratic Union, which is represented in the Government, who said: “I can accept that a United Nations representative can criticize us since we are now members of the United Nations, but it is a bit much when these comments are made by a Senegalese.” The Special Rapporteur welcomed the 38 Such as the report entitled “Incitations individuelles et institutionnelles dans le domaine de l’asile, Rapport final du groupe de travail sur le financement du domaine de l’asile à l’attention du Département fédéral de justice et police” - the “Fuhrer-Gerber report” - of 9 March 2000, and other documents provided by the Swiss authorities to the Special Rapporteur during his visit. 39 Federal Office for Migration, Rapport de monitoring NEM, 1er trimestre 2005, Bern-Wabern, July 2005, p. II. 40 “Incitations individuelles et institutionnelles dans le domaine de l’asile, Rapport final du groupe de travail sur le financement du domaine de l’asile à l’attention du Département fédérale de justice et police” - the “Fuhrer-Gerber report” - of 9 March 2000, p. 10.