Experts of the Committee against Torture Welcome Absence of Allegations on Torture in Liechtenstein, Ask Questions about Counterterrorism Measures and the State’s Prison Agreement with Austria

The Committee against Torture this afternoon concluded its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Liechtenstein, with Committee Experts noting with satisfaction that there had been no allegations involving torture and ill treatment in the State, while asking questions about counterterrorism measures and Liechtenstein’s prison agreement with Austria.

Erdogan Iscan, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee noted with satisfaction that there had been no allegations involving torture and ill treatment. Had any methodologies been adopted for assessing the efficiency and impact of the training programmes?

Mr. Iscan said the Committee welcomed that the State party had acceded to further international instruments in the field of counterterrorism and terrorist financing, and enhanced its national legislation in this regard. Did the State party have a national strategy for combatting radicalisation leading to terrorism, and a counterterrorism strategy? What was Liechtenstein’s position on the Riga Protocol?

Peter Vedel Kessing, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said that the report stated that the national prison in Vaduz was used for short duration remand prisoners and for extradition and deportation of foreigners. How many prisoners from Liechtenstein had served their sentence in Austria over the last five years? Which State was legally responsible to ensure fundamental legal safeguards, including access to a lawyer, family visits, and medical examination for the inmates who were convicted in Liechtenstein and were serving their sentences abroad? Did Liechtenstein systematically monitor how prisoners transferred from Liechtenstein to Austria were treated?

Responding to questions, the delegation said the danger of terrorist attacks in Liechtenstein was very low, but the State monitored this danger. Liechtenstein did not have a classic intelligence system but had a law which allowed the treatment of security in regards with the State. No investigations of persons concerning terrorism had been opened in recent years and no one had been sanctioned. There was no national action plan on combatting terrorism, but there were documents pertaining to the training of staff members. Technically the Riga Protocol was implemented in Liechtenstein, but the State was awaiting the final review in this regard.

The delegation said that in 2022, 22 prisoners had been sent to Austria after sentencing. When Liechtenstein sent prisoners to Austria, it was Austria that was responsible for the prisoners, including in cases of abuse or torture. While Austria was responsible, a corresponding investigation would also be launched in Liechtenstein. The Austrian State regulated the visiting rights of inmates. After the reform, all inmates were transferred to Austria after conviction, independently from the length of their sentence.

Karin Lingg, Head of the Security and Human Rights Division of the Office for Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein and head of the delegation, presenting the report, said Liechtenstein had an extremely low crime rate. There was a single prison: it was a pre-trial detention centre with a maximum capacity of 25 places. To date, no cases of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had been detected in Liechtenstein. The most recent report of the national prevention mechanism of 2023 gave Liechtenstein a very good report. Liechtenstein had strategically realigned its prison system in 2018, meaning that only pre-trial detention, extradition and deportation detention, alternative custodial sentences and preventive detention were carried out in the country. This meant that since 2018, the entire prison system had been carried out in Austrian institutions.

In closing remarks, Claude Heller, Committee Chairperson, thanked Liechtenstein for its willingness to address all the matters raised by the Committee. The Committee was keen to continue to hold ongoing dialogue with the State party to foster a better relationship and see how the Committee’s recommendations were being taken on board.

Ms. Lingg said the constructive dialogue in Geneva had been an important exercise for Liechtenstein to review the implementation of the Convention. The State looked forward to receiving the Committee’s concluding recommendations, which Liechtenstein took very seriously. The fight against torture and ill treatment was highly important, and Liechtenstein would continue with its zero-tolerance strategy against torture.

The delegation of Liechtenstein consisted of representatives from the Office of Foreign Affairs; the Office of Social Services; the Office of Justice; the National Police; the Migration and Passport Office; and the Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee will issue concluding observations on the report of Honduras at the end of its seventy-ninth session on 10 May. Those, and other documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, will be available on the session’s webpage. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, and webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.

The Committee will next meet at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 May to begin its consideration of the fourth periodic report of North Macedonia (CAT/C/MKD/4).

Report

The Committee has before it the fifth periodic report of Liechtenstein (CAT/C/LIE/QPR/5).

Presentation of Report

KARIN LINGG, Head of the Security and Human Rights Division, Office for Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein and head of the delegation, said Liechtenstein had around 40,000 inhabitants and about a third of them were foreign citizens. Liechtenstein was about half the size of the canton of Geneva and the country had an extremely low crime rate. There was a single prison: it was a pre-trial detention centre with a maximum capacity of 25 places. To date, no cases of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had been detected in Liechtenstein. The most recent report of the national prevention mechanism of 2023 gave Liechtenstein a very good report. Liechtenstein had ratified several international instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2023. It had a national human rights institution, the Association for Human Rights, since 2016. Liechtenstein was a proud State party to the Convention and the Optional Protocol and the offence of torture was explicitly included in the Criminal Code, based on the definition outlined in the Convention.

Liechtenstein had strategically realigned its prison system in 2018, meaning that only pre-trial detention, extradition and deportation detention, alternative custodial sentences and preventive detention were carried out in Liechtenstein. This meant that since 2018, the entire prison system had been carried out in Austrian institutions. The Innsbruck prison, the third largest judicial prison in Austria, now functioned as an entrance facility for Liechtenstein prisoners. As a result, the exchange of information and cooperation between the state prison and the probation service had also been greatly improved. Inmates who were prison in Austria or Switzerland could now use the social care service of the Liechtenstein probation service.

In accordance with the Optional Protocol, the national prevention mechanism had visited the national prison several times in 2023. The annual report of the Liechtenstein prevention mechanism stated that it was granted full access during all visits and did not record any criticism or significant shortcomings. The report also emphasised that all the institutions visited in which freedom was deprived in Liechtenstein were managed professionally and were very clean. People deprived of their liberty were treated very respectfully.

Liechtenstein's total expenditure on international humanitarian cooperation and development reached around chf 35 million in 2023, an increase of 12 per cent. In the area of combatting torture, Liechtenstein had been supporting the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Fund for the Support of Victims of Torture with chf 525,000 since 2008, which benefited around 50,000 victims of torture every year. Liechtenstein was also donating chf 100,000 to a project of the World Organization against Torture to build capacity to combat impunity for torture and related crimes in Ukraine. The Organization worked to strengthen the capacity of Ukrainian civil society to document, prosecute, represent and support victims of torture.

In the face of Russia's heinous and ongoing war of aggression, Liechtenstein stood firmly by Ukraine's side. The State would continue its political and financial support for Ukraine and would continue to welcome Ukrainian refugees. Currently, over 1 per cent of inhabitants were Ukrainian refugees. The Public Prosecutor's Office had asked the state police to investigate possible crimes committed by unknown perpetrators under international criminal law. Ukrainian applicants were asked to report to the state police if they have been a victim or witness of one or more such crimes, in their registration form. In 2022 and 2023, one trial each was conducted on suspicion of possible war crimes. Liechtenstein looked forward to a constructive dialogue with the Committee.

Questions by Committee Experts

ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, commended Liechtenstein for co-sponsoring the recent resolution on the peremptory norm of the prohibition torture adopted at the fifty-fifth session of the Human Rights Council. Mr. Iscan also praised the State party for maintaining its position as a significant contributor to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture. Would the State consider increasing its contribution?

The Committee was aware that the State party pursued a positive policy in regard to international human rights instruments. What was the current status on the ratification of the remaining United Nations human rights conventions? Was the constitutionality of an international instrument verified prior to ratification? In case the Constitutional Court ruled that a ratified international treaty was incompatible or unconstitutional, what would be the next step? In the event of incompatibility between the national law and an international treaty, would the international treaty overrule the national law?

Regarding the 1982 agreement between Liechtenstein and Austria on the placement of convicts, the Committee was informed that only sentences up to two years were carried out in the national prison in Vaduz. Persons who were sentenced to more than two years imprisonment in Liechtenstein were transferred to Austria to serve their sentences, due to the limited prison capacity in Liechtenstein. The report suggested that the State party’s authorities and the national preventive mechanism did not have access and were not able to oversee the living conditions of the inmates convicted in Liechtenstein and serving sentences in Austria. Could the delegation comment on this?

The 1982 agreement preceded the adoption of the Convention in 1984. Was the agreement compliant with the Convention obligations? Could the delegation clarify any legal uncertainties regarding the obligations under the Convention? Did the State party envisage any plan to enlarge the prison capacity and improve its penitentiary capabilities to accommodate inmates convicted by the Liechtenstein judiciary?

The Committee noted with satisfaction that there had been no allegations involving torture and ill treatment. Had any methodologies been adopted for assessing the efficiency and impact of the training programmes? Was the Istanbul Protocol, as revised in 2022, an essential part of training for all medical professionals and law enforcement personnel and other relevant public officials? Could information be provided on current information on interrogation rules, instructions, methods, practices or arrangements for custody? Were all complaints of torture and ill treatment promptly investigated in an impartial manner by an independent body?

The information in the report revealed that there had been no disciplinary proceeding or sanctions. Had there been any new legislation or legislative amendments? Did the Office of the Public Prosecutor have competence to initiate an ex officio investigation in case acts of torture or ill treatment had been committed and to instruct that alleged victims undergo forensic medical examination? Were the alleged perpetrators automatically relieved of their duties and prohibited from making any further contact with alleged victims?

The report contained information on the efforts to conclude an agreement with Switzerland on the involuntary placement of patients in psychiatric or social welfare institutions. Similar concerns, as in the case of placing inmates in prisons of neighbouring countries, needed to be judiciously considered with respect to the potential agreement with Switzerland to ensure full compliance with the obligations under the Convention. Had there been any further development under this topic? Could the State party clarify the legal uncertainties regarding the placement of patients in psychiatric or social welfare institutions abroad?

Gender inequality constituted a fundamental source of gender-based violence. It was crucial to address this issue in a wider context.

Mr. Iscan said the Committee welcomed that the State party had acceded to further international instruments in the field of counterterrorism and terrorist financing and enhanced its national legislation in this regard. Did the State party have a national strategy for combatting radicalisation leading to terrorism, and a counterterrorism strategy? What was Liechtenstein’s position on the Riga Protocol? Had operational training for all law enforcement officials been organised and had a method been developed to assess the impact of such training procedures?

PETER VEDEL KESSING, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, congratulated Liechtenstein on its human rights record. It was mentioned in the report that torture was subject to a limitation period of three years. Was this correct? Would the State party consider abolishing the limitation period? Were there any examples where courts in Liechtenstein had used universal jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of torture? Why was there no legal obligation to record all interrogations?

To what extent was the Public Prosecutor completely independent from the police, both in law and in practice? Were there any independent police investigators? Could statistical information be provided on how many torture complaints and investigations the Public Prosecutor had conducted within the last five years? Had the State party taken the Mendez Principles into consideration? Would the State party consider amending its legislation to ensure that juveniles must be provided with a defence counsel in criminal cases? The Committee was glad to learn that the protection of vulnerable persons was a priority for Liechtenstein, also in the asylum procedure. Were possible asylum seekers, including juveniles between 15 and 18 years, detained during the asylum process?

It was mentioned in the report that the national prison in Vaduz was used for short duration remand prisoners and for extradition and deportation of foreigners. Could statistical information be provided on the number of prisoners held in the Vaduz prison over the last five years? Could a prisoner who claimed to have been exposed to torture or ill treatment make a complaint to an independent and impartial complaints mechanism? How many prisoners from Liechtenstein had served their sentence in Austria over the last five years? Which State was legally responsible to ensure fundamental legal safeguards, including access to a lawyer, family visits and medical examination for the inmates who were convicted in Liechtenstein and were serving their sentences abroad?

In cases of alleged violations of the Convention obligations, which State carried out investigations, convicted perpetrators, and provided redress to victims? How did Liechtenstein ensure that prisoners transferred to Austria could maintain contact with close family in Liechtenstein? Did Liechtenstein systematically monitor how prisoners transferred from Liechtenstein to Austria were treated? Did national human rights institutions or the national preventive mechanism from Liechtenstein or from Austria have the authority to visit prisoners from Liechtenstein serving their sentence in Austria? Which State would be the respondent in the case of an individual complaint lodged with the Committee?

Liechtenstein ratified the Optional Protocol in 2006 and the following year the Corrections Commission was designated as the national preventative mechanism through a revision of the Enforcement of Sentences Act. Was this body independent from the Government? How many visits to places of detention had been carried out? Were the findings and views of the Commission published and implemented? What financial assistance was provided to the Liechtenstein Human Rights Association? Had it been accredited as a status “A” national human rights institution? Had the Association dealt with complaints related to the Convention, for example on the treatment of detainees or the use of force by public officials?

A Committee Expert asked, with reference to allegations of acts of torture committed by one party to the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine, whether the State availed itself of evidence of acts of torture attributable to the other party.

Another Expert commended the State on support to Ukraine during the conflict, and for taking the interests of the Global South very seriously. What concrete steps would Liechtenstein consider taking to bring perpetrators of criminal law to justice?

A Committee Expert said it was important to include the new definition of human trafficking in criminal law, and to empower officials and public actors with this new definition. Would the State party consider adopting a new strategy against trafficking?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the prison in Vaduz had 18 beds with five cells. There were no current plans to increase the capacity of the prison. Police officers in Liechtenstein were trained at the police academy in eastern Switzerland, and torture was a subject matter of basic training. Internal training courses were also organised and guests from Austria attended to explain more about the legal system in Austria. During the last training, interrogation techniques were one of the topics on the agenda. Prisoners had the possibility to talk to a legal counsel, who should be present at their first hearing. If these persons were juveniles, they had the right to also have a trusted person present during their interrogations. There was an interrogation room in Liechtenstein where it was possible to record interrogations, but this was not mandatory. If children or youth who were victims of sexual abuse were interrogated, a recording was always made.

Liechtenstein had no evidence regarding the presence of radicalised persons from Iraq or Syria. The danger of terrorist attacks in Liechtenstein was very low, but the State monitored this danger. Liechtenstein did not have a classic intelligence system but had a law which allowed the treatment of security in regards with the State. No investigations of persons concerning terrorism had been opened in recent years and no one had been sanctioned. There was no national action plan on combatting terrorism, but there were documents pertaining to the training of staff members.

Fifty-eight persons were in the prison in Vaduz over the past year. In 2022, 22 prisoners had been sent to Austria after sentencing. No women from Liechtenstein had been sent to an Austrian prison. When Liechtenstein sent prisoners to Austria, it was Austria that was responsible for the prisoners, including in cases of abuse or torture. While Austria was responsible, a corresponding investigation would also be launched in Liechtenstein. The Austrian State regulated the visiting rights of inmates. After the reform, all inmates were transferred to Austria after conviction, independently from the length of their sentence. A doctor visited Vaduz around once per week. Inmates received 159 visits from legal counsels, and 65 visits from psychiatric personnel.

There were zero cases of torture on record in places of detention, and there had therefore been zero investigations. There had been two complaints during COVID-19, about an inmate’s lack of access to a laptop, and about a lack of visiting rights during the pandemic.

There had been no complaints in the field of migration. Training had been conducted on human trafficking, including identifying victims. The majority of those requesting asylum were Ukrainians requesting temporary protection. Liechtenstein was party to the Dublin agreement; most applications that filed for asylum in Liechtenstein had another State that was responsible due to the border situation and the fact that there was no direct access to the country. There had been 16 cases of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum, most of them from Ukraine. Unaccompanied minors were not stopped by the State, and during asylum proceedings they were free to move around the country.

Liechtenstein was the highest contributor per capita to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In January already, there had been exchanges with the High Commissioner, and funding was discussed. The State had been a contributor since 2008, and planned to continue this funding. Liechtenstein had a fund which allowed victims of human trafficking to receive support. Liechtenstein would continue to support these initiatives in the context of a public, private partnership.

In past years, Liechtenstein had followed up on the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Istanbul Convention, and the implementation actions necessary. The State took the ratification of conventions seriously, and ensured legal frameworks were established prior to ratification. Liechtenstein was currently chairing the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and had organised several events and conferences in this regard. It was important to make sure treaties were implemented and were not just a piece of paper. The Convention on Enforced Disappearance had been signed by Liechtenstein, but had not yet been ratified, due to the ratification of other Conventions. Now that some resources had been liberated, the State would turn attention to this Convention. The State had reviewed the Convention on Migrant Workers last year and concluded they would not be able to ratify it. Liechtenstein had not signed or ratified the Riga Protocol yet. Elements like jihadist travel were already covered in national law.

No prisoner was ever held in isolation for more than a week in the prison in Vaduz. The State police had a specialised investigatory group for corruption that was entirely independent and had a special whistle-blower system. People could anonymously report on cases pertaining to human trafficking.

Follow-up Questions by a Committee Expert

ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked if there had been any cases of evidence obtained as a result of torture since the submission of the report in December 2019? If there were such allegations, what were their outcomes?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said since the last report, no cases of violence or torture had been investigated. There were no cases of evidence obtained under torture.

The delegation said Liechtenstein only had basic mental health care facilities in the country, which was why services were provided in Switzerland and Austria. Persons were sent to specific institutions with which the principality had agreement, and those institutions needed to ensure that the patients from Liechtenstein were cared for appropriately. All necessary dispositions were in place in the law on social security for people who needed to be put in institutions against their will. To protect the interests of these people, the Act on Social Security was reviewed in 2021 to ensure the proceedings were standardised further. If a person was suffering from severe mental health issues and no solution could be found, this person needed to be taken into care, in accordance with specific provisions in the law. The necessary medical services needed to be guaranteed to this person.

There were two different types of proceedings: ordinary and urgent. Medical personnel were required to give medical check-ups to decide whether a person needed to be detained or not. The decision by the physician had to be communicated to the person and a tribunal. A detention period was limited to six weeks. In any proceedings, the fundamental rights of the person in question were respected, and it was ensured that they had legal counsel. These proceedings usually involved neighbouring countries such as Switzerland. The cooperation with Switzerland worked well, and Liechtenstein was able to ensure that there were no legal loopholes.

Legal measures had been taken to ensure legal equality between men and women. The political participation of women had increased, especially following the general election in 2017. Sixty per cent of the members of Government were women. Liechtenstein was working on a national strategy for equality, following up on recommendations from the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Domestic violence was linked with structural inequality, and only by fighting this could legal and material equality be achieved. The State had ratified the Istanbul Convention in June 2021. The fight against violence against women was a priority of the State. Several offices were responsible for ensuring the Istanbul Convention was put into practice.

Liechtenstein had been working to ensure the punishment of crimes violating international law and supported the budget of the International Criminal Court. A contribution had also been made to ensure the prosecution of claims of torture in Syria. The international, impartial and independent mechanism for Syria was an autonomous mechanism for accountability and was a role model for the Myanmar mechanism. The mechanism had contributed to convictions of torture.

The agreement between Austria and Liechtenstein predated the Convention. Neither State saw the necessity to adapt the bilateral agreement when ratifying the Convention. Austria and Liechtenstein were both parties to the Convention, and therefore their national laws had to fulfil the rights of the Convention and the Optional Protocol.

Torture was included in Liechtenstein’s Penal Code. The national preventive mechanism produced an annual report with annual visits and recommendations. The mechanism was totally independent. There were four unannounced visits carried out to the prison. Legal measures taken to implement a national agreement needed to be considered against the dispositions which were part of the Constitution. This ensured Liechtenstein could fully implement such an agreement, and that the legal framework was fully in accordance. There was a pre-review phase before the ratification of any Convention. International conventions were considered above national law.

The Riga Protocol completed the legislation on terrorism. The dispositions within the Protocol were reflected in Liechtenstein’s legislation. Technically the Riga Protocol was implemented in Liechtenstein, but the State was awaiting the final review in this regard. The fight against terrorism was the highest priority in the country. In 2023, the Commission against Violence organised an awareness raising campaign on discrimination and tolerance as a right. The State did not feel that a specific law on discrimination was necessary at this point. The Mendes Principles would be reviewed.

The Foreign Office had a yearly exchange with the human rights mechanism, while still respecting the independence of the mechanism. The Association for Human Rights had signalled its willingness to become accredited. Since 2017, the Association for Human Rights had recorded no complaints from prisoners or those in mental institutions.

Questions by Committee Experts

ERDOGAN ISCAN, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, reiterated the Committee’s growing concerns in connection with the continuing practice of outsourcing the implementation of obligations under international law, including the Convention. Despite the recommendations of the Committee, the State party had reaffirmed that it would not reconsider this practice. This policy of outsourcing created legal uncertainties with respect to commitments under the Convention. Would the State party in due course consider alternatives to outsourcing, including expanding its penitentiary system?

PETER VEDEL KESSING, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, thanked Liechtenstein for its sincere attitude towards human rights and the Convention. There should be no statute of limitations for torture at all. Would the State consider reviewing the current limitation period of three years if there were no aggravating circumstances? It was possible to make audio and video recordings of interrogations and this was an important legal safeguard for the person being interrogated and the police officers. When a prisoner from Liechtenstein was transferred to Austria, was that person then the responsibility of Austria? In that case, did Liechtenstein continue assessing the prison system and the individual being transferred to Austria? Was there a risk of ill treatment if a prisoner was transferred to Austria? Did the national preventative mechanism have jurisdiction to visit prisons in Austria?

An Expert asked about the challenges for guaranteeing public security and safety in Liechtenstein? What crimes had been committed by those sentenced to prison?

A Committee Expert asked what prompted Liechtenstein to intervene in some proceedings, but not others?

Responses by the Delegation

The delegation said the recording of interrogations was used in cases of abuse and for those who were particularly vulnerable. Financial and white-collar crimes were the main types of crimes committed in the State. There was also an increasing trend of crimes being committed in the digital world, such as fraud. While there was also a degree of violence, most crimes taking place in Liechtenstein were financial crimes. A lot of inspiration was taken from the dialogue with international bodies, and the State took the recommendations of the treaty bodies very seriously. They would look at the things the Committee had recommended. Inmates referred to Austria often received better treatment because the Austrian facilities had highly specialised experts who were qualified to address different issues of all the inmates.

Closing Remarks

CLAUDE HELLER, Committee Chairperson, thanked Liechtenstein for its willingness to address all the matters raised by the Committee. The Committee was keen to continue to hold an ongoing dialogue with the State party to foster a better relationship and see how the Committee’s recommendations were being taken on board.

KARIN LINGG, Head of the Security and Human Rights Division of the Office for Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein and head of the delegation, said the constructive dialogue in Geneva had been an important exercise for Liechtenstein to review the implementation of the Convention. The State looked forward to receiving the Committee’s concluding recommendations, which Liechtenstein took very seriously. The fight against torture and ill treatment was highly important, and Liechtenstein would continue with its zero-tolerance strategy against torture. 

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the information media; not an official record.
English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.