Human Rights Committee discusses the report of Liechtenstein

Human Rights Committee  

5 July2017

The Human Rights Committee today concluded its consideration of the second periodic report of Liechtenstein on its implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Presenting the report, Peter Matt, Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the United Nations Office at Geneva, indicated five specific areas where Liechtenstein had strengthened the implementation of the Covenant since its previous report.  First was the adoption of a law creating the Liechtenstein Human Rights Association in November 2016.  The second area was the protection of victims of domestic violence, whereas the third area was a far-reaching revision of legal acts concerning the rights of persons deprived of their liberty.  Fourthly, Liechtenstein had strengthened its preventive work against racism and the promotion of tolerance and mutual understanding.  Finally, it had implemented measures to further the integration of foreigners in the society. 

In the ensuing discussion, Experts thanked Liechtenstein for having taken the lead in organizing meetings of international experts regarding the treaty body reform.  Some questions focused on the issue of the State party’s reservations to certain articles of the Covenant, noting that the Government should periodically review its position toward those reservations. 

Experts underlined that Liechtenstein should consider adopting a broader equality legal framework and in particular consider adopting the individual complaints procedure under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in addition to the same procedure which it had adopted under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Experts also inquired about the possibility to invoke the Covenant outside the Constitutional Court, the funding and status of the national human rights institution, compatibility of the national Constitution and the Covenant regarding declaring the state of emergency, integration of persons with disabilities into the labour market, termination of pregnancy under the new Abortion Law, and the relationship between the State and religious communities, among others.

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Matt thanked the Committee Experts for a unique opportunity to discuss challenges and ways to improve the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Liechtenstein.  He highly appreciated the criticism provided and looked forward to receiving the Committee’s concluding observations.  Finally, he reiterated strong support for the Committee’s work.

Yuji Iwasawa, Chairman of the Committee, welcomed the constructive dialogue with the delegation.   He noted that the list of issues was shorter than usual, but that nonetheless Experts posed many questions.  He reminded that the Committee would issue its concluding observations, whereas the delegation could further respond to questions in writing within 48 hours. 

The delegation of Liechtenstein consisted of representatives from the Office for Foreign Affairs, the Office of Social Services, the Migration and Passport Office, and the National Police.

The Committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 5 July, at 3 p.m. to consider the second periodic report of Honduras (CCPR/C/HND/2).

Report

The second periodic report of Liechtenstein can be read here: CCPR/C/LIE/2.

Presentation of the Report

PETER MATT, Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that the Government of Liechtenstein valued the input of human rights bodies within the United Nations system, adding that the Covenant was generally well implemented in the country.  The maintenance of a high level of implementation was supported by an independent and impartial judiciary, as well as by a system of representative and direct democracy.  Since 2005, Liechtenstein’s electorate had been asked to vote on 13 issues in initiatives or referenda, ranging from such diverse topics as the constitutional powers of the prince or civil partnerships for homosexual couples to school reform, mobile phone antennae and the system of health insurance.  The average of one vote per year on factual issues was accompanied by elections of the Parliament and municipal councils every four years.  The country’s political framework was rooted in a vibrant civil society, as exemplified by the recently founded association Hoi Quote, which had been established in the aftermath of the parliamentary elections in February 2017 that had resulted in the decline of female parliamentarians from 20 to 12 per cent.  While the introduction of a gender quota was controversial, there appeared to be consent on the fact that stronger efforts had to be undertaken in the next years in order to support the role of women in politics.

Mr. Matt indicated five specific areas where Liechtenstein had strengthened the implementation of the Covenant since its previous report.  First, Parliament had adopted a law creating the Liechtenstein Human Rights Association in November 2016.  It served as the independent national human rights institution according to the Paris Principles, and it was assigned to give advice to the authorities and the general public on human rights issues.  The Association had been founded on 10 December 2016 when a board of national and international human rights experts had been elected.  The second area was the protection of victims of domestic violence.  With the Victims Assistance Act, Parliament had laid the foundation for a comprehensive protection of victims.  The Victims Assistance Office supplied immediate assistance and long-term support.  Additionally, the law governing sexual offences had been revised in 2011 with the aim of expanding the legal protection of victims and practical measures to combat violence against women and children.  The catalogue of offences that were prosecuted “ex officio” had been expanded to dangerous threats against close family members, stalking, rape or sexual assault in marriages and partnerships, and forced marriages. 

Thirdly, Liechtenstein had implemented a far-reaching revision of legal acts concerning the rights of persons deprived of their liberty.  The revised Execution of Sentences Act, which had entered into force in 2008, included a formalised complaints procedure for detained persons, as well as any conduct of corrections personnel affecting their rights.  Additionally, it had established an independent Corrections Commission that monitored compliance with relevant provisions and treatment of convicts.  The new Code of Criminal Procedure, which had also entered into force in 2008, had introduced several new rights.  Each arrested person had to be immediately informed of the suspected offence and the reason for arrest, of their right to contact a person of trust and a defence counsel, and their right to remain silent.  Fourthly, Liechtenstein had strengthened its preventive work against racism and in promotion of tolerance and mutual understanding.  A Violence Protection Commission had successfully implemented a plan to combat right-wing extremism between 2010 and 2015. 

Lastly, Liechtenstein had implemented measures to further the integration of foreigners in society.  It had implemented an integration concept entitled “Strength through diversity” in 2007 which comprised not only support for immigrants, but also requested them to take certain active steps towards integration, such as acquirement of sufficient German language skills, and knowledge of the legal order, structure of the State, the history and the culture of Liechtenstein.  The Government considered education and successful integration into the labour market as an important cornerstone for the integration of foreign nationals. 

Questions by Committee Experts

The Committee raised the question of the case law that directly invoked the Covenant, noting that no specific measures had been taken to spread awareness of the Covenant.  What were the plans to offer training programmes to lawyers and not just to judges and prosecutors? 

The Committee welcomed the fact that the Government had established a national human rights institution.  How did the law guarantee the independence of its members and pluralism of the representation of social forces?  What was its budget and to whom would it report on the national situation of human rights?  What was the institution’s relationship with non-governmental organizations? 

As for the State party’s reservations to the Covenant, namely to the articles on the right of children to require nationality, the respect for the family life of aliens, communication on certain legal cases, and the equal enjoyment of all rights by foreigners and nationals, the position of Liechtenstein had not changed since the last report.  The State party should explain which legislative texts were at odds with the Covenant and it should also periodically review its position towards reservations.  Did the State party contemplate changes to domestic law in order to uphold its international human rights obligations? 

Speaking of the compatibility of the national Constitution and the provisions of the Covenant on a state of emergency, Experts expressed concern that the constitutional framework was too flexible in that respect.  The Constitution could trump the international treaties to which Liechtenstein was party to in a state of emergency. 

The Committee welcomed the efforts by Liechtenstein to integrate persons with disabilities in the labour market.  Did the State party monitor those efforts and did persons with disabilities have diverse employment options?  Did employers receive incentives to hire persons with disabilities?  What pilot projects had been introduced?  To what extent was the issue of intersectional discrimination of persons with disabilities on the Government’s agenda?  Were employers placed under positive legal obligations? 
Employment practices based on special attributes could delegate persons with disabilities to low-paid jobs. 

There had been constant criticism in various reports of human rights bodies of the lack of independence of Liechtenstein’s Office for Equal Opportunity.  What steps had been taken to improve the situation?  The delegation was asked to elaborate on direct, indirect and multiple discrimination and to provide concrete information on anti-discrimination training?  

With respect to the public and political participation of women, had adequate participation of women in the Government been established since the parliamentary elections of February 2017.  Wage equality between men and women, and between foreigners and nationals, still remained a challenge.  An Expert drew attention to the fact that the authorities could withhold the residence permit to foreigners and their dependents who relied too heavily on social welfare benefits.     

Replies by the Delegation

PETER MATT, Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the United Nations Office at Geneva, explained that the Covenant had been cited only in the case law of the Constitutional Court because it was primarily the Constitutional Court that dealt with the violations of the Covenant rights.  The dissemination of information about the Covenant was regular, as well as the discussion of the Covenant.  There were two female members in the five-member Government, whereas an equal number of women and men served in the diplomatic corps.

The delegation clarified that Liechtenstein’s reservations to certain Covenant articles were due to the fact that the Government was not willing to go beyond Covenant rights.  A number of rights depended on the citizenship of Liechtenstein, such as housing and education.  Thus, the maintenance of certain reservations also depended on the country’s membership in the European Union.  As a rule, communication on the court of civil procedures was public.  The Government applied a cautious approach and whenever it had any doubts, it kept reservations.  Restrictions on family reunification would be kept as long as the country was faced with very strong immigration pressure. 

State of emergency decrees had to be taken in the framework of the Constitution, which meant that decrees had to be proportionate.  Emergency decrees did not limit the constitutional rights of citizens in any way.  The Prime Minister had to approve the entering into force of a state of emergency through counter signature.    

The Liechtenstein Human Rights Association received funding from Parliament.  Additional to the means received from the State, it was free to generate further funds and income.  Its members could be individuals, non-governmental organizations, or institutions.  The Association advised the authorities and individuals on human rights issues, informed the public on the situation of human rights in the country, and it reported to the general public.  It carried out investigations and recommended measures to the authorities and individuals, and it made comments on laws.  The Ombudsman for children and youth had also become part of the Association. 

As for the better representation of women in the political sphere, several panel discussions and events to highlight gender stereotypes, gender role models and career choices had been held.  The plan of measures for the Equal Opportunities Unit foresaw new projects to promote gender equality.  As for the municipal elections 2019, events were planned to raise the visibility of women.   A better balance of family and work was in the Government’s focus in order to further the participation of women in the economy.  The number of day care institutions had been extended. 

Speaking on the issue of foreigners who relied heavily on social welfare benefits, the delegation explained that the residence permit for a person who had continuously resided in Liechtenstein for more than 15 years could not be revoked even if that person heavily depended on social welfare.  

The State party did not have general statistics on the integration of persons with disabilities into the labour market.  In 2017 there was a roundtable discussion on that topic.  All relevant stakeholders took part in the roundtable discussion, which had been organized to address difficulties facing persons with disabilities in integrating into the labour market.  Integration of persons with disabilities into the labour market could only be achieved with good coaching and on a case-by-case basis.  There were programmes that simulated the workplace environment for persons with disabilities.  There was a negative definition of disproportionate burden for employers hiring persons with disabilities.   Liechtenstein was looking into the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

Follow-up Questions by Experts

The issue of invoking the Covenant still remained problematic.  Only the Constitutional Court could invoke the Covenant, nobody else could invoke its provisions.   

What was self-generated funding for the Liechtenstein Human Rights Association, and how did it report to the public?

What was the status of the European Convention on Human Rights within the country’s constitutional structure, and how different was it from the status of the Covenant? 
What was the State party’s precise concern regarding the reservation to Article 26 of the Covenant?

What were the concrete provisions to amend anti-discrimination legislation by stipulating indirect, direct and multiple discrimination?

Second Round of Questions by Experts

With respect to domestic violence, what was the status of the ratification process of the Istanbul Convention?  How many prosecutors and judges had been trained to provide assistance to victims?  What was the selection procedure for judges?  The verdicts of the Disciplinary Tribunal for Judges should be made public.

The new Abortion Law of 2014 stipulated that abortion was not punishable in cases of serious danger to the life of the mother.  Did that stipulation also include danger to the mental health of the mother?  The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women had previously commented on the non-availability of contraceptives in the country.  What was the prosecutorial policy on abortions procured outside the country?      

How would the relationship between the State and religious communities be reorganized?  What had been done to respect and guarantee the rights of religious groups other than Roman Catholic?  What measures were being taken to promote tolerance?  How were public funds distributed to religious communities? 

What was the mandate of the Violence Protection Commission? 

As for persons deprived of liberty, the Vaduz prison was the only facility for prisoners in the country.  The continuing problem seemed to be the lack of strict separation of prisoners on remand, those convicted and those detained under immigration laws.  What was the status of the Working Group that re-evaluated detention facilities?  Were there any plans for enlarging places of detention?  Were asylum seekers kept in the same premises as all other prisoners? 

The 1982 agreement between Liechtenstein and Austria on the placement of convicts seemed to be still in force and it did not have any specific provisions on prisoners under the age of 18.  Did Liechtenstein have access to prisoners in Austrian facilities?  Was there a similar treaty enforced with Switzerland?  Were the rights of prisoners transferred to Austrian prisons fully respected?

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation clarified that the ratified international treaties immediately became part of the domestic legal order.  The rank of constitutional treaties was determined by the content of the provisions in questions.  International treaties could be ranked lower than the Constitution of Liechtenstein. 

The Constitutional Court was in charge of enforcing fundamental rights and freedoms.  Various international human rights instruments were considered as substantive constitutional law.  It was not forbidden to refer to the Covenant in the courts of first instance.  However, the Constitutional Court was the body that in practice determined whether laws were in line with the Covenant. 

As for the reservation to Article 26 of the Covenant, it had to do with the overlap of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  With respect to the Istanbul Convention, Liechtenstein had signed it and laws on forced marriages needed to be implemented before the ratification. 

The self-generation of finance for the Liechtenstein Human Rights Association was in place to generate money for projects.  The Association could present its report through the media and at public events.

Training on violence was an important part of police training.  Current case studies of violence were discussed.  All officers of the national police received a one-day training session on domestic violence, as well as on legal and organizational aspects of police work. 

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation explained that Liechtenstein had special forms of cooperation with neighbouring police forces and judiciary systems due to the small size of its own police and penitentiary systems.  Many different types of departments, institutions and programmes were necessary for different types of criminal offenders, which was why Liechtenstein made penitentiary agreements such as the one with Austria.  Liechtenstein’s legal tradition was very much interrelated with the Austrian tradition, and it was modelled after the Austrian legal system.  In addition, many law students studied in Austria.  The 1982 agreement with Austria on the placement of convicts regulated procedural matters between ministries when convicts served their sentence in Austria, the pricing and the competence of Austrian authorities vis-à-vis convicts from Liechtenstein.  As for Liechtenstein’s authorities monitoring its prisoners in Austria, exchange of information was taking place on a regular basis.   Due to the similarity of laws, Liechtenstein prisoners could complain in a similar way in Austrian prisons.  The delegation clarified that there were no minors from Liechtenstein serving sentences in Austrian prisons. 

There were no asylum seekers in detention in Liechtenstein.  They were taken to special homes instead.  They were either acknowledged as asylum seekers on provisional residence permits, or they were not acknowledged as asylum seekers and were awaiting expulsion.  Turning to the issue of separation of prisoners, the Government’s position was that it was always better not to separate inmates and to allow them to have social contact.  That being said, there were separate cells for men and women.  The Working Group on the Vaduz prison considered questions, such as the small size of the Vaduz prison, and the possibility of different kinds of work for prisoners.  With respect to the social integration of prisoners serving long sentences in Austria, the Government was thinking of extending penitentiary cooperation with Switzerland and transferring the prisoners serving long sentences in Austria to Switzerland to serve the last part of their sentence in an “open” type of prison without fences.  The idea of enlarging the capacities of the Vaduz prison was, therefore, not being considered. 

As for the integration of migrants, there were different information events organized in cooperation with civil society, for example, on the Labour Law and residence permits.  An information portal was being set up for migrants.  Some non-governmental organizations offered counsel to migrants, as well as social integration activities.  Employers’ organizations also offered relevant information services to migrants, whereas the Government organized language courses.   The Liechtenstein Languages Project emphasized verbal communication and promoted learning a second language in the same way as the native language.  The project was designed to help migrants and refugees to learn German not only in Liechtenstein but also in Austria and Germany.  It was an example of a service that Liechtenstein exported to other countries. 

There was no concept of multiple forms of discrimination in Liechtenstein’s law, but there was a distinction between direct and indirect discrimination in gender equality legislation.  Any violence threatening public order, including hate speech motivated by racism and homophobia, was under the mandate of the Violence Protection Commission.  The Commission had conducted a large campaign against right-wing extremism, which had decreased to a great extent. 

As for the relationship between the State and religious communities, there was a strong traditional tie between the State and the Roman Catholic Church.  In 2015, some 73 per cent of the country’s population was Roman Catholic.  Due to historical developments, the Catholic religion had a status of State religion.  But in light of the decreasing number of Roman Catholics in the country, there were views that the State should take a more neutral approach to religion.  However, disentanglement from the Roman Catholic Church was difficult due to the strong ties of the Church at the municipal level, involving among other things the lack of delineation of property rights.  With respect to allocating public funds to other religious denominations, religious communities other than Roman Catholic were usually registered as public associations and they had successfully applied for public funds.  Funds given to Muslim communities were part of integration measures. 

Termination of pregnancy in the case of fatal foetal damage was not mentioned in the law.  As for the mental health of the woman, it was part of the reasons for legal termination of pregnancy.  Abortions outside Liechtenstein were now permitted under law and there was no prosecutorial policy on illegal termination of pregnancy.   The State had a supervisory role in general health policy, but it exercised no particular measures in the field of abortion. 

Turning to the question on the selection of judges, the delegation clarified that the inclusion in the three-year judicial traineeship was decided by the State.  The traineeship had to be organized in such a way that equipped judges to be able to independently conduct trials and make sentences.  Judges were supposed to conduct themselves appropriately in and outside the court in order to instil confidence in the judiciary system.  

Follow-up Questions by Experts

How did physicians and the Government interpret the concept of “serious threat to life” under the new Abortion Law? 

YUJI IWASAWA, Chairman of the Committee, thanked Liechtenstein for having taken the lead in organizing meetings of international experts regarding the treaty body reform.  He reminded that the Committee considered the second periodic report of Liechtenstein under the standard reporting procedure.  The list of issues for Liechtenstein was the same thing as the simplified reporting procedure.  Did the State party accept the Committee’s list under the simplified reporting procedure?

An Expert highlighted the exclusion of women from succession to the throne in Liechtenstein.  Did the State party consider that a true reservation to article 3 of the Covenant?  In addition, it appeared that the Law on Princely House was outside the scope of the State party’s international obligations.

As for the definition of torture in the Criminal Code, the Ministry of Justice was currently working on the revision of the Criminal Code to include the notion of infliction of serious physical or psychological suffering.  What were the results of that process?  What was the substance of the definition of torture and what were the various elements of the draft definition?  Did the State party consider the usage of audio-visual recording in all police interrogations? 

Turning to freedom of media and of expression, Experts asked for details of the substance of relevant provisions of the Media Act of 2005 and the Media Promotion Act of 2006.  Were offences of defamation and libel always prosecuted upon the request of the persons concerned?

Experts highlighted many overlaps between the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was why a broader equality legal framework would make the overall protection of human rights easier.  The fact that Liechtenstein did not accept the individual complaint procedure under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights meant that persons who were discriminated against in the field of economic, social and cultural rights had no possibility to seek remedy.  Experts, therefore, urged the Government of Liechtenstein to accept the individual complaint procedure under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 

Replies by the Delegation

PETER MATT, Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the United Nations Office at Geneva, explained that the Government had decided to use the standard reporting procedure due to the fact that it did not report frequently.  The exclusion of women from the succession of the throne in Liechtenstein was a matter of the State party’s interpretation of the law.  The Prince was considered as the second sovereign, in addition to the people, which was why the Prince was not considered as part of the executive branch. 

The delegation said that it was not foreseen to extend the audio-visual recording to all police interrogations for the moment.  Relevant discussions of experts in neighbouring legislations was being monitored, so if changes in that respect were made in neighbouring countries, they could also be introduced in Liechtenstein. 

The delegation explained that it preferred to wait and see how the practice of the individual complaint procedure developed internationally before adopting it under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  The delegation reminded that the complaint procedure under the European Convention on Human Rights was available to individuals.

There was no established case law under the new Abortion Law since it had entered into force only recently.  As for the definition of torture, the reform of the Criminal Code was expected to be identical to the Austrian Criminal Code, so the definition of torture was also expected to be identical to the one under Austrian law.  In addition to request the person concerned, the prosecution of defamation and libel offences could also be done “ex officio,” the delegation clarified. 

Follow-up Questions by Experts

One Expert commented that the Committee was not looking at the issue of justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights, but at the equality framework.  That was the issue that the Government of Liechtenstein should focus on. 

Concluding Remarks

PETER MATT, Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein to the United Nations Office at Geneva, thanked the Committee Experts for a unique opportunity to discuss challenges and ways to improve human rights in Liechtenstein.  He highly appreciated criticism aimed at further improving the implementation of the Covenant.  He looked forward to receiving the Committee’s concluding observations and reiterated strong support for the Committee’s work.

YUJI IWASAWA, Chairman of the Committee, welcomed the constructive dialogue with the delegation.   He noted that the list of issues was shorter than usual, but that nonetheless the Experts had posed many questions.  He reminded that the Committee would issue its concluding observations, whereas the delegation could further respond to questions in writing within 48 hours. 

 __________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr