Committee against Torture begins examination of report of Liechtenstein

MORNING

4 May 2010

The Committee against Torture this morning began its consideration of the third periodic report of Liechtenstein on the efforts of that country to give effect to the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Introducing the report, Roland Marxer, Director of the Office of Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein, said that, since the last exchange with the Committee in May 1999, the legal foundations and practices for the implementation of the Convention against Torture in Liechtenstein had been significantly improved. A first highly relevant step had been Liechtenstein's early ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which had entered into force on 3 December 2006. On the occasion of the complete revision of the Execution of Sentences Act, a Corrections Commission to monitor the enforcement of sentences had been established. That specialized Commission had subsequently also been designated as Liechtenstein’s national preventive mechanism with respective rights and responsibilities pursuant to the Optional Protocol. Although the Commission had only started its work about two years ago, its regular reports and recommendations had already provided the basis for useful and constructive dialogue between the Commission and the Ministries responsible for corrections – i.e., the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. In its report, the Commission had found "no complaints whatsoever of mistreatment or other inhuman treatment were made by the detainees. On the country, the impression of a good atmosphere within the Prison was conveyed".

Mr. Marxer also noted Liechtenstein's contribution to the global fight against torture, including as a supporter of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the World Organization against Torture for many years. In addition, Liechtenstein also granted specific projects contributions within the area of torture prevention. Since 2009, Liechtenstein had been supporting a prevention programme in Latin America carried out by the non-governmental organization, Association for the Prevention of Torture, with donations of CHF 200,000 a year.

Serving as Rapporteur for the report of Liechtenstein, Xuexian Wang said he had to admit that if every State party to the Convention had done what Liechtenstein had done – that is, that there were no cases of torture in their territories – mankind would not be far from achieving the goals of the Convention. However, to further improve the situation in Liechtenstein, he asked about training for medical staff regarding torture issues; what plans there were to make up for the shortage of detention facilities for asylum-seekers and others; and whether minors and adults were still held in the same detention facilities and prisons.

Myrna y. Kleopas, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur, said the absence of a separate crime of torture in accordance with the Convention weakened Liechtenstein's ability to combat that scourge. She asked about safeguards for persons interned against their will in psychiatric or social welfare institutions, including whether the Corrections Commission undertook visits to such institutions; whether Liechtenstein would reconsider banning the practice of covering prisoners' heads when transporting them (i.e. blindfolding and hooding); and for comments on reports that foreigners in detention had had difficulties in obtaining access to legal assistance or to counsel. Another concern was a pre-emptory procedure to return or expel asylum-seekers, which did not fully comply with the safeguards needed to ensure that non-refoulement commitments were met.

Also representing the delegation of Liechtenstein were representatives of the National Police, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of Foreign Affairs and members of the Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The delegation will return to the Committee at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 May, to provide its responses to the questions raised today.

Liechtenstein is among the 146 States parties to the Convention and as such it must present periodic reports to the Committee on how it is implementing the provisions of the Convention.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it will hear the responses of Syria to questions put by Experts on Monday, 3 May.

Report of Liechtenstein

The third periodic report of Liechtenstein (CAT/C/LIE/3) notes that, in the reporting period from September 1998 to August 2008, no cases of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment have been recorded in Liechtenstein. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, which entered into force on 1 January 2008, every arrested person must be informed upon arrest or immediately thereafter of the suspected offence and the reason for arrest, as well as of the person’s right to designate defence counsel and the right to remain silent. The detained accused may consult with defence counsel without surveillance. The Code of Civil Procedure requires the appointment of defence counsel for the duration of the suspect’s pre-trial detention and if the accused does not choose defence counsel himself or herself, the court appoints one. Pre-trial detention may only be imposed on application of the Office of the Public Prosecutor and only for a specific duration determined by decision of the competent court. The initial pre-trial detention period is 14 days; the first review of pre-trial detention may extend this period by one month; further review may extend it by two months.

At the level of prevention, Liechtenstein has ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which entered into force for Liechtenstein on 3 December 2006. For purposes of implementing the Optional Protocol, a Corrections Commission was established to monitor the enforcement of sentences and to “satisfy itself that provisions governing the execution of sentences are precisely observed, especially with respect to the treatment of prisoners”. Each quarter, the Commission must visit the National Prison once without notice. The activities of the Corrections Commission are not limited to convicted prisoners, but also extend to remand prisoners and other persons detained in the National Prison.

Presentation of Report

ROLAND MARXER, Ambassador and Director of the Office of Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein, observed that Liechtenstein had shown its strong support for the fight against torture and its unwavering commitment to the absolute prohibition of torture in several ways. Those included advocacy on behalf of the international standards within the framework of multilateral bodies and negotiations, such as the negotiations on the resolutions concerning torture and other ill-treatment which were regularly adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. Another area of engagement was the International Criminal Court; Liechtenstein had been active in the establishment as well as in the development of that institution, which played an important role in strengthening the protection against torture in all situations. Indeed, Liechtenstein was honoured to chair the Assembly of States parties to the Rome Statute and would endeavour to ensure a successful outcome of the first review conference, to be held in Kampala (Uganda), which would begin at the end of this month.

Turning to the national situation, Mr. Marxer noted that, since the last exchange with the Committee in May 1999, the legal foundations and practices for the implementation of the Convention against Torture in Liechtenstein had been significantly improved. A first highly relevant step in that regard had been Liechtenstein's early ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention in November 2006. With the entry into force of that Protocol on 3 December 2006, a new important instrument with a focus on prevention had been added to the domestic legal framework for the protection against torture and other ill-treatment. After its active participation in the development of that Protocol, Liechtenstein had initiated the necessary steps towards the practical implementation of the Optional Protocol. In particular, on the occasion of the complete revision of the Execution of Sentences Act, a Corrections Commission to monitor the enforcement of sentences had been established. That specialized Commission had subsequently also been designated as Liechtenstein’s national preventive mechanism with respective rights and responsibilities pursuant to the Optional Protocol.

Mr. Marxer emphasized that the establishment of the Corrections Commission with its dual function had added an important instrument for the continuous review of the implementation of Liechtenstein's obligations under the Convention against Torture. Although the Commission had only started its work about two years ago, its regular reports and recommendations had already provided the basis for useful and constructive dialogue between the Commission and the Ministries responsible for corrections – that is, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Justice.

As for the overall findings of the Commission, Mr. Marxer was pleased to cite the following two statements in the 2009 annual report of the national preventive mechanism. First, it was noted that over all, the collaboration of the Liechtenstein authorities with the national preventive mechanism during its visits was "very good". In addition, "no complaints whatsoever of mistreatment or other inhuman treatment were made by the detainees. On the country, the impression of a good atmosphere within the Prison was conveyed".

The revision of the Execution of Sentences Act, which had entered into force at the beginning of 2008, incorporated several improvements which reflected relevant recommendations issued by the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture, such as on the frequency of visits carried out by the Corrections Commission and on the Commission's reporting to the Government. The new Execution of Sentences Act was additionally complemented by amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which contained new provisions on the protection of witnesses, as well as improved provisions on the treatment of pre-trial detainees.

As to further improvements, the partial revision of the Juvenile Court Act and the New Victims Assistance Act had also both entered into force in 2008. With regard to the latter, Mr. Marxer highlighted that the Victims Assistance Office, an independent body that had been newly created by the Act, made a specific contribution to the fulfilment of obligations with regard to the right to obtain adequate compensation and rehabilitation under article 14 of the Convention against Torture.

In addition to the foregoing developments at the national level, Mr. Marxer drew attention to Liechtenstein's interaction with international experts during the reporting period. In 1999 and 2007, Liechtenstein had been visited by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, and the dialogue with that body – which had visited Liechtenstein for the first time already in 1993 – had been a useful source of inspiration for further legislative and practical improvements regarding the implementation of both the United Nations and the European Conventions against Torture. The best example of the fruitfulness of that dialogue had been, as already mentioned, the revision of the Execution of Sentences Act. Also worth mentioning were the visit of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, in 2004, whose report on the visit, which included police facilities and Vaduz National prison, noted that Liechtenstein was committed to "guaranteeing a high level of respect for human rights", and confirmed that there had been no cases of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Liechtenstein.

Finally, Mr. Marxer noted Liechtenstein's contribution to the global fight against torture as part of its international humanitarian cooperation and development activities. Liechtenstein had been a supporter of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the World Organization against Torture for many years. In addition, Liechtenstein also granted specific projects contributions within the area of torture prevention. For instance, since 2009, Liechtenstein had been supporting a prevention programme in Latin America carried out by the non-governmental organization, Association for the Prevention of Torture, with donations of CHF 200,000 a year.

Questions Raised by Committee Experts

MYRNA Y. KLEOPAS, the Committee Expert serving as Co-Rapporteur for the Report of Liechtenstein, welcomed a number of developments in Liechtenstein with regard to the fight against torture, in particular its adoption of the Optional Protocol to the Convention and the designation of a national preventive mechanism, as well as the establishment, in 2009, of a children's ombudsman.

Ms. Kleopas cited the relevant domestic legal provisions in place under which crimes of torture would be prosecuted in Liechtenstein. While acknowledging that that might be sufficient from a strictly legal point of view, in the opinion of the Committee, the absence of a separate crime of torture in accordance with the Convention weakened Liechtenstein's ability to combat that scourge. By defining torture, among others, the power of officials to identify and track instances of that crime would be enhanced. She was further concerned that, under national legislation, the crime of torture was subject to the statute of limitations, whereas, according to accepted international legal norms, the right not to be tortured was a non-derogable right and prosecutions for such crimes should not be subject to time limits.

With regard to detentions, Ms. Kleopas pointed to the provision whereby the National Police could detain a person on a temporary basis for up to 24 hours. The detained person had to be given the opportunity to notify a confidant "unless this would endanger the purpose of the measure". She felt that that exception might lead to detentions that fell outside of due process of law.

Ms. Kleopas also asked about safeguards for persons interned against their will in psychiatric or social welfare institutions, including whether the Corrections Commission undertook visits to such institutions; whether Liechtenstein would reconsider banning the practice of covering prisoners' heads when transporting them (i.e. blindfolding and hooding); and reports that foreigners in detention had had difficulties in obtaining access to legal assistance or to counsel.

Specifically with regard to asylum-seekers, Ms. Kleopas observed that a lack of statistics on asylum-seekers for 2009 made it impossible for the Committee to assess the application of article 3 obligations (non-refoulement or prohibition of return of individuals to places where they were under threat of torture or ill-treatment) in the State party. Moreover, according to outside reports, the number of those seeking asylum in Liechtenstein had increased considerably in 2009, from something like two dozen in 2008 to over 220 persons in 2009. There was also a pre-emptory procedure to return or expel such asylum-seekers in Liechtenstein which did not fully comply with the safeguards needed to ensure that non-refoulement commitments were met. There were also reports that, owing to a lack of accommodations for asylum-seekers, for a number of months, asylum-seekers were housed in underground nuclear shelters, without access to daylight, and families were separated.

XUEXIAN WANG, the Committee Expert serving as Rapporteur for the Report of Liechtenstein, said he had to admit that if every State party to the Convention had done what Liechtenstein had done, that is, that there were no cases of torture in their territories, mankind would not be far from achieving the goals of the Convention.

Nevertheless, Mr. Wang had some comments to further improve the situation in Liechtenstein. For example, what programmes were there in place to train medical staff regarding torture issues? Moreover, were there plans to make up for the shortage of detention facilities for asylum-seekers and others? What were the regulations that defined the conditions that had to be obtained in those facilities?

Mr. Wang also knew that minors and adults had in the past been held in the same detention facilities and prisons and wanted to know if that was still the case or what plans there were to correct that situation.

On domestic violence, Mr. Wang noted that Liechtenstein was planning to incorporate a crime of domestic violence as part of a revision of its Criminal Code and he asked for an update on progress. There was also a contradiction in the report, which seemed to say in one part that crimes of domestic violence were automatically registered and in another that they were not.

Other Committee Experts then raised a number of issues and asked questions, including what was meant by the "preventive expulsion measure" used in the context of asylum-seekers, and which could be carried out immediately; training for medical staff on the Istanbul Protocol; further information on prisoners sentenced for more than two years' imprisonment, who were routinely transferred to Austria to serve their sentences; information on a study on the root causes of extremism in Liechtenstein, that was to have been completed in 2009; details on the members of the Victims Assistance Office, and whether that body also provided services for foreigners and refugees; and the need for special protections for victims of trafficking, including the right to stay in the country.

Experts also asked what mechanism was in place to ensure investigations were carried out into all complaints of torture or ill-treatment by the authorities; and how many times the police had used head coverings on detainees or prisoners.

___________

For use of the information media; not an official record