COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS REVIEWS THE REPORT OF LIECHTENSTEIN

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights today concluded its consideration of the second and third periodic report of Liechtenstein on its implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Martin Frick, Ambassador and Director of the Office for Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein, introduced the report and said that Liechtenstein had undergone major changes since the presentation of the last report in 2006. Mr. Frick reassured the Committee that the implementation of the rights under the Covenant was on a very high level, including through the establishment of an independent national human rights institution; the establishment of new rules and institutions in the areas of victims assistance and domestic violence; the continuous expansion of collective agreements for various branches of the economy; efforts to further the success of migrant children in the education system; the adoption of a new Children and Youth Law in 2009; the amendment of the Asylum Act in 2016; and planned revision of parts of the immigration law in line with the recommendations by the Committee.

In the ensuing dialogue, Committee Experts welcomed the establishment of the Liechtenstein Human Rights Association, but were concerned about its modest annual budget. They were concerned about the official development assistance, which continued to fall short of the 0.7 per cent commitment and which had been decreased since 2012. Noting the positive policies on exchange of information and on double taxation which were now mandatory for banks, Experts still were concerned about the extent to which these policies were implemented. They also raised a serious of questions regarding the education system in Liechtenstein, and asked about the integration of the large migrant population within the society, migrant children and in particular Muslim migrant children and their right to education, and the German language requirement for spouses prior to family reunification.

In his concluding remarks, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Liechtenstein, commended Liechtenstein on the continuous work in implementing the dispositions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and urged the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant which could be done with a very limited cost to the country.

Mr. Frick, in concluding remarks, thanked the Committee Members for their positive words and for highlighting areas where Liechtenstein had room for improvement. He hoped that the delegation had been able to shed light on issues raised and paint a correct picture of the situation in his country.

In her concluding remarks, Maria Virginia Bras Gomes, Committee Chairperson, commended Liechtenstein for fully taking into account the recommendations from the previous review, which meant that it understood the importance of the monitoring mechanisms and would take the present concluding observations in the same spirt.

The delegation of Liechtenstein consisted of representatives of the Office for Foreign Affairs, Office of Social Services, Migration and Passport Office, Office of Economic Affairs, Office of Education, and the Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights will meet at 3 p.m. today, 8 June, to start the consideration of the fifth periodic report of Sri Lanka (E/C.12/LKA/5).

Report

The combined second and third periodic report of Liechtenstein can be accessed via this link: E/C.12/LIE/2-3.

Presentation of the Report

MARTIN FRICK, Ambassador, Director of the Office for Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein, introduced the report, stating that Liechtenstein had undergone some major changes since the presentation of the last report in 2006. With a population of 38,000 people, around one third of which were foreigners, Liechtenstein had some unique features that had to be borne in mind when considering the situation of the country. Additional to the domestic work force, over half of the employees in Liechtenstein - about 20,000 people - crossed the borders every day to get to their places of work. This high number of commuters was accompanied by a remarkably low unemployment rate that was constantly under 2.5 percent in recent years despite the financial crisis. This did not mean however, that the financial crisis had no effect on Liechtenstein’s economy. To the contrary, between 2008 and 2009 the country’s gross domestic product had dropped by more than ten percent, an unprecedented decrease in the history of Liechtenstein in the past decades. As a result, the State had to cut spending. Although there were adjustments with regard to the social security system, there had been no significant cuts in benefits.

The implementation of the rights under the Covenant was on a very high level. Recent measures included the establishment of an independent National Human Rights Institution; the establishment of new rules and institutions in the areas of victim assistance and domestic violence; the continuous expansion of collective agreements for various branches of the economy; efforts to further the success of migrant children in the education system; the adoption of a new Children and Youth Law in 2009; the amendment of the Asylum Act in 2016; and planned revision of parts of the immigration law in line with recommendations by the Committee. These revision plans foresaw the amendment to the Foreigners Act in such a way that persons residing in Liechtenstein for a continuous period of more than 15 years could not have their permanent residence permit revoked even if they were permanently and substantially dependent on social assistance. With this adaptation, Liechtenstein ensured that foreigners could apply for the social benefits they needed to enjoy their social security rights.

Questions by the Committee Experts

CHANDRASHEKHAR DASGUPTA, Committee Expert and the Rapporteur for Liechtenstein, noted the establishment on 1 January of the Liechtenstein Human Rights Association, and asked about the functions of this body, and the guarantees of its autonomy. Who elected its members and how could its modest annual budget be explained?

Regarding official development assistance, the Country Rapporteur lamented that it continued to fall short of the 0.7 per cent commitment and that there had been a regression since 2012. He encouraged the State Party to remedy the situation.

Mr. Dasgupta noted that Liechtenstein had in the past been frequently charged with following financial practices which were not conducive to investigations into tax evasion by persons resident in other countries and that it had recently adopted a number of measures to promote greater transparency in this matter, including the exchange on tax data with some 60 countries, since January 2017. What was the scope, extent and the conditions of these data exchanges?

There was no comprehensive anti-discrimination provision in the Constitution or in the legislation. While the Criminal Code had been amended to prohibit discrimination on some bases, discrimination on the grounds of property, birth or other social status had not been included. Why were those grounds excluded from the recent legislation? What was the outcome of the National Action Plan against racism and xenophobia?

In spite of the steps taken to promote equal rights of women, only 22 per cent of the parliamentarians were women. Could the delegation provide figures on the representation of women in the senior levels of the bureaucracy?

Response by the Delegation

In response to questions raised about the participation of women in political bodies and higher levels of the administration, the delegation said that women represented 12 per cent of members of parliament and 40 per cent of the Government members; at the Court of Justice, the share of women was 43 per cent. As of 31 December 2016, 17 of 74 judges were women, corresponding to a women's share of 23 per cent. In total, 213 persons worked in a teaching capacity at the Liechtenstein institutions of higher education as of 31 December 2015; of those, 97 were women, corresponding to a share of 45.5 per cent. There were no legal provisions for increasing the share of women in politics at the municipal level.

Measures were in place to promote tolerance and combat violence and all forms of extremism in the public sphere. A campaign had been conducted to this effect and, under the integration concept, measures had been taken to promote understanding between communities, including two conferences in 2011 and 2012. Promoting understanding between different religions and cultures, and combatting xenophobia was an integral part of the school curricula. Schools played an important role in the promotion of tolerance, in particular religious tolerance; every year, schools organized diverse projects, for example the Holocaust memorial day and an international language day. Workshops were organized for teachers to prevent bullying.

There was no information regarding cases of women with head-scarfs that could not come to the work place, and the delegation explained that such cases could be brought before the courts.

The equality of all citizens was ensured by the Constitution since 1921. In a recent judgment, the Court had also established that the equality principle under Article 31 of the Constitution was also applicable to foreigners. Furthermore, Liechtenstein was a party to many international human rights conventions which also ensured the equality principle.

Follow-Up Questions

MARIA VIRGINIA BRAS GOMES, Committee Chairperson, inquired about a study on men and women entering into political life. What was the reason for women not entering into political life? What were the obstacles that women indicated in this regard?

An Expert inquired about the large number of foundations, which raised many questions as they facilitated large companies bringing a lot of money to Liechtenstein. How could this foundation model be understood in the context of the tax evasion?

Tax evasion meant less tax revenues, and less tax revenues meant the reduction in the expenditures for many of the rights under the Covenant. To what extent were the agreements referred to in the report mandatory for the banks? To what extent were banks compliant with these agreements?

An Expert, in reference to persons with disabilities, inquired whether the State was required to accommodate persons with disabilities, or not. He also lamented that there was no disaggregated data based on persons with disabilities.

Another Expert asked how much the primary responsibility of women in terms of family and child care affected the underrepresentation of women in political decision making. What was the social perception of the balance between family and work responsibilities?

Responses by the Delegation

Regarding tax evasion, the delegation explained that double exchange agreements and information exchange agreements were very close to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development model agreements. Those were ordinary agreements that every country concluded; they were mandatory for all the banks and applicable to all persons and institutions in Liechtenstein.

On foundations, it was totally legal to have them as they were instruments of civil law. Having a foundation did not mean an attempt to evade paying taxes. By law, the beneficial owner of a foundation had to be known. Thus it was possible to check whether this person was involved in money laundering. In addition, since 2014, Liechtenstein had been assessed by the International Monetary Fund on whether it met the international standards to this effect, and it had been concluded that Liechtenstein had high standards for the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing.

The delegation confirmed that there had been cuts in the budget spending on overseas development aid, and said that additional funding had been provided for climate change. It was up to the Parliament to increase the official development assistance budget.

Liechtenstein tried to ratify most optional protocols to international conventions. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was one of the few not to be ratified, and this had partly to do with the financial crisis.

The study on the low percentage of women participating in political life had found that the reasons that women had provided were different from men. Women had a negative opinion of politics, and associated political life with power politics. They also cited not wanting to participate in public life as one of the reasons. The Government was sensitive to the problem of low participation of women in the political life and had recently strengthened its focus on tackling it, including through the financing of day care services for children.

Persons with disabilities were given additional resources, said the delegation and added that the lack of data did not automatically mean that the Government was unaware of what was going on. A Counselling Centre was available for persons with disabilities, which was also the first point of contact and served as an information provider.

Questions by the Committee Experts

MARIA VIRGINIA BRAS GOMES, Committee Chairperson, lamented that resources should be so important a factor in the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights considering that Liechtenstein was such a rich country.

Regarding the high percentage of women working part-time, how did Liechtenstein monitor the equal opportunities policy and the possibility for full-time employment. How did it relate to family responsibilities?

An Expert was worried that data on persons with disabilities and on ethnic origin was lacking. What types of problems did those groups face in the work place, what measures were being undertaken to tackle those problems, and what were there plans concerning the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?
Noting the decrease in the gender pay gap thanks to measures such as the equal pay day and gender equity gap, an Expert asked about the source of the ongoing problems in this regard? In particular, could the delegation elaborate on the “object defenders?” What were the findings of the tripartite commission on the labour market? What was the basis of the difference of the salaries between citizens and foreigners?

The Expert noted that the prohibition of the right to strike had been removed and also noted that foreigners who had to go on social assistance could have their residency permit revoked. The Expert stressed that social assistance should be accessible to everyone and, referring to the Committee’s General Comment Number 19, asked Liechtenstein to have it in mind when discussing the policy to this effect.

What was a low-income household in Liechtenstein?

Responses by the Delegation

Regarding the higher number of women working part time then men, a member of the delegation explained that Liechtenstein was a rural country with a traditional culture and that one of the explanations could thus be that women felt more responsible for the family. Another factor could be that normal working time was very high. A working group had issued a proposal on conciliation of family and work which had resulted in the steady increase of day care centres and the number of children in day care.

Foreigners and citizens alike were eligible for social aid. The Foreigners Act was currently being revised, ensuring that the permanent residence status of a person could not be revoked on the grounds of social assistance if the person had already been residing in Liechtenstein for more than 15 years.

In order to keep persons with disabilities in the work place, insurance was provided through a case manager who ensured the variety of options, including subsidies, occupational retraining and career counselling.

Follow-Up Questions and Answers

An Expert asked what, if any, were the reasons for a withdrawal of residency status under the Foreigners Act. Was the recognition of foreigners assistance contingent to language knowledge?

Were there any circumstances under which residency status could be revoked, for example if a person was on social security?

The delegation explained that the grounds for the refusal of the renewal of residency status included losing refugee status, not willing to fit into the legal and public order, self-inflicted reliance on social assistance, and non-fulfilment of the integration agreement, as well as other factors, all of which were laid down under Article 48.

CHANDRASHEKHAR DASGUPTA, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Liechtenstein, asked whether the State Party explored opportunities other than day care centres, in order to increase the participation of women in the work place and to reduce the wage gap that started from age 30. For example, had the option of working from home been explored in the banking sector?

The delegation said that a working group initiated by the Government was currently examining possibilities of increasing the participation of women in the work force. There was also a legal entitlement to equal pay for equal work. Concerning the possibility of working from home, the delegation pointed out that this was possible if considered in the light of Liechtenstein labour law, but was in the decision-making powers of enterprises.

Questions by the Committee Experts
In the next round of questions, Committee Experts asked what were the reasons for the decision not to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Could data on perpetrators of domestic violence be provided? Why did investigations stop at the police level? Were those cases brought before the courts and if so, how many cases had been handed down?

There was no absolute poverty, however there were individuals that had a low income. What was the State Party doing to support those without access to family benefits to overcome poverty?

Under what conditions did the State Party provide social housing for foreigners?

Tobacco and drug abuse remained a problem. Were there measures to continue actions to counter these practices? Could the delegation provide information on measures to avoid recurrence, such as decreasing doses?

What was being done to ensure access to health care for all?

Regarding high risk diseases, such as cancer and pulmonary vascular diseases, did patients enjoy follow-up? Were there specialists available to deal with these specific diseases?

Responses by the Delegation

Responding to questions raised by the Experts, the delegation said that Liechtenstein was working with the Council of Europe on combatting domestic violence. In 2015, the National Police intervened in 19 cases of domestic violence; all cases had been reported to the Office of the Public Prosecutor. The police were obliged to report every suspicion of a violent crime to the Office of the Public Prosecutor. Currently in Liechtenstein, only the National Police compiled specific statistics on criminal offences relating to domestic violence. However, work was underway at the Office of the Public Prosecutor to compile statistics on such cases in the future. As for the general numbers, in 2015, the Office of the Public Prosecutor had registered 203 violent crimes against 183 persons. Among the victims, 76 were female, corresponding to a share of 41.5 per cent. The Office of the Public Prosecutor investigated independently and, where appropriate, initiated criminal prosecution.

In 2015, a total of 21 investigative/preliminary proceedings were conducted at the Court of Justice pertaining to physical violence, of which eight were discontinued. Twenty criminal proceedings had been conducted before the sentencing court. In addition, eight investigative/preliminary proceedings had been conducted at the Court of Justice pertaining to offences against sexual self-determination, of which five had been discontinued. Three criminal proceedings had been conducted before the sentencing court. There were no statistics on the outcome of the proceedings.

Knowledge of the German language and the passing of a civic exam were necessary in order to receive a permanent residence permit. Every foreigner had the right to family reunification, which included the spouse and children under the age of 18, including adopted children. The spouse had to demonstrate the beginner’s level of German.

The housing market was private and the delegation was unaware of the existence of persons who had not been able to find housing. There were subsidies for persons with lower income who did not have enough money to pay the rent. There were additional subsidies for persons with disabilities, and for the elderly. The Social Help Office could also provide aid in terms of finding housing, especially to drug addicts.

Various campaigns were in place to counter drug and tobacco abuse, including prizes for those who stopped smoking.

There were subsidies for individuals living in poverty and jobless persons.

Regarding the access to health care, Liechtenstein was a small country so all hospitals were reachable within 20 minutes. The life expectancy was 81 years for men and 83.2 for women, which was a proof of the good healthcare system.

Questions by the Committee Experts

An Expert noted that while the Constitution had laid down the principle of equality, it did not lay down the principle of non-discrimination.

What was the main reason why the country was not a member of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation?

What reforms had been undertaken with regard to early and parent education for persons whose mother language was not German?

Could the delegation comment on the over-representation of migrant children in low-level and special needs schools?

What were the reasons explaining the lack of adequate premises for religious and cultural activities for the Muslim groups in the population? Who could get enrolled in the organized schools and what were the procedures for this? How many academic hours did these courses include? What were the completion rates?

Responses by the Delegation

Regarding early and child education in language skills, an early-learning language programme had been launched for children under the age of four to create easy accessible offers for parents before the children entered kindergarten. In these programmes, parents were taught how language could be learned through games. The Government highlighted the importance of early childhood development. Another early education measure was therapeutic education and early identification of learning difficulties as well as talents in kindergarten.

There were many programmes that supported children with disabilities in special schools, and there was the possibility for integration when parents wished to do so.

The intensive German course for foreign language pupils was being offered for the past twenty five years. It was 34 hours a week for at most twelve people and was designed for pupils from the age of eighteen and it lasted one year; currently, 28 persons were enrolled in the programme. Foreign language children were offered intensive training as well, in small groups of four to six pupils. If needed, the children could attend instruction over a period of seven years. Currently, 540 children were enrolled in those classes.

Muslim religious instruction was offered in primary schools. Racial discrimination and intolerance did not currently present a problem in Liechtenstein society. Native language and culture was a programme in school which provided the opportunity to study mother tongue classes. Students were offered the possibility to transfer and change their track.

The delegation explained that Liechtenstein was a small country with limited resources, and was currently not considering new membership in international organisations, including in the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. It was also not a member of the Food and Agriculture Organisation or the World Health Organisation.

Regarding the religious freedom for the Muslim community, the Government policy was that Liechtenstein was an immigrant country and it had established a working group on the integration of Muslims to create a climate of tolerance and respect. A full-time imam worked in the community, and Muslim religious instruction was offered to pupils at the primary school level.

Article 16 of the Constitution stated that education was universal and compulsory. Thus, there were no fees in public schools which had a very high standard. This ensured the right to education. Almost all children in Liechtenstein went to public schools.

Follow-up Questions

An Expert asked the delegation to clarify whether the goal of the State Party with regard to its policies on early and childhood education was to educate children on mainstream values or to nurture their own cultural values. Was the education policy not planting the seeds for further turmoil?

Another Expert wished for the delegation to clarify the problem of housing and to confirm whether there really were no problems in that regard.

An Expert, referring to the German language requirement for a spouse before joining their spouse in Liechtenstein, asked how this worked in practice.

MARIA VIRGINIA BRAS GOMES, Committee Chairperson, asked about the responsibilities of the Equal Opportunities Unit. Would the State Party review its anti-discrimination policy in order to make it more cohesive and comprehensive in terms of grounds of discrimination?

Another Expert, referring to the strength of diversity, noted that a person had many identities, including national, ethnic, and religious and that social or political integration was strengthened by recognition of cultural diversity. Did the education system in Liechtenstein educate the children in world civilization and did history textbooks include contributions to world civilization from areas other than Europe?

Regarding the Liechtenstein Human Rights Association, was it true that this institution did not have a constitutional status but was a non-official association of human rights experts?

Another Expert inquired about the compliance of banks with the new mandatory policies on exchange of information and on double taxation.

An Expert, referring to the response by the delegation that it was difficult for a small country to have disaggregated data on discrimination, noted that this was not enough. A neutral policy may be discriminatory without intent, which could not be monitored without disaggregate data.

Concerning reasonable accommodation, Committee Expert clarified that the concept did not just refer to housing but was cross-cutting and included health, education and all rights needed to achieve substantive equality for persons with disabilities. In that respect, what was the State Party doing to accommodate those rights?

Responses by the Delegation

Responding to the comment that on the one hand, migrant children were being integrated in the mainstream education while on the other there was too much support for cultural rights, the delegation said that the mainstream education part was 30 hours a week, while the native speaking and culture part were one to two hours a week. There were no foreign fighters and jihadists in the country and Liechtenstein was able to integrate migrants from the very beginning.

Regarding housing, the problem was linked to people who were unable to pay, said the delegation and explained that such individuals received social assistance and were supported by an office which assisted them in renting a flat.

On the language requirements for spouses in the context of family reunification, the Government did provide support in the country of origin or departure before the spouse arrived, including by finding a school that proposed German classes.

Asylum seekers were allowed to work from day one of their arrival to Liechtenstein and in such cases, the labour laws applied.

The Human Rights Association Board was a diverse group of members which included former Ambassadors, Muslims, and so forth.

Concluding Observations

CHANDRASHEKHAR DASGUPTA, Committee Expert and Rapporteur for Liechtenstein, thanked the delegation for the detailed responses and underlined that all questions had been answered. Noting that the dialogue had been constructive, he commended Liechtenstein on the continuous work in implementing the dispositions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for all persons residing in the country. Among other achievements, he saluted the establishment of the national human rights institution and the information exchange system. Finally, the Country Rapporteur recommended to Liechtenstein to accede to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, which represented a very limited cost to the country.

MARTIN FRICK, Ambassador, Director of the Office for Foreign Affairs of Liechtenstein, thanked the Committee Members for their positive words and for highlighting areas where Liechtenstein had room for improvement. He hoped that the delegation had been able to shed light on issues raised and paint a correct picture of the situation in his country. Mr. Frick agreed that the dialogue had been conducted in a fair manner and was conducive to a mutual understanding. Noting there was room for improvement he thanked the Committee for the dialogue.

MARIA VIRGINIA BRAS GOMES, Committee Chairperson said that she had been heartened that the State Party had fully taken into account the recommendations of the previous review. This meant that Liechtenstein understood the importance of the monitoring mechanisms, and that it would take the present concluding observations in the same spirt. Ms. Bras Gomes was convinced that the delegation knew that their task was important for the future of Liechtenstein, and she wished them safe travels home.


For use of the information media; not an official record

ESC17/012E