Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

Forty-eighth session

Summary record of the 965th meeting

Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Thursday, 20 January 2011, at 10 a.m.

Chairperson:Ms. Pimentel

Contents

Election of officers (continued)

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention (continued)

Fourth periodic report of Liechtenstein

The meeting was called to order at 10.10 a.m.

Election of officers (continued)

The Chairperson announced that Ms. Ameline, Ms. Jahan and Ms. Popescu had been nominated as Vice-Chairpersons and Ms. Awori as Rapporteur.

M s. Ameline, Ms. Jahan and Ms. P opescu were elected Vice-Chairpersons by acclamation and Ms. Awori was elected Rapporteur by acclamation.

Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 18 of the Convention (continued)

Fourth periodic report of Liechtenstein (CEDAW/C/LIE/4; CEDAW/C/LIE/CO/3; CEDAW/C/LIE/Q/4 and Add.1)

At the invitation of the Chairperson, the delegation of Liechtenstein took places at the Committee table.

Mr. Marxer (Liechtenstein), introducing his country’s fourth periodic report (CEDAW/C/LIE/4), said that human rights were one of the priority areas of the Government’s foreign policy and were underpinned by a firm commitment to upholding the highest levels of human rights guarantees domestically. Liechtenstein was committed to strengthening the United Nations system of human rights protection and had undertaken initiatives to that end in a number of areas, including treaty body reform. In its landmark resolution 1325 (2000), the Security Council had acknowledged the negative impact of armed conflict on women, highlighting women’s decisive role in preventing conflict and consolidating peace. Liechtenstein was working to translate the resolution into action and was supporting international efforts to end impunity for the most serious crimes under international law, including gender-based crimes. As part of that commitment, it provided political support for the International Criminal Court (ICC) and financial contributions to the ICC Trust Fund for Victims, which adopted a gender-based perspective across all programmes and specifically addressed the needs of victims of all forms of sexual and gender violence.

While equality between women and men at the legislative level in Liechtenstein was almost complete, work remained to be done in order to bring about de facto equality. The Government continued to promote measures aimed at reconciling family obligations and employment and at enhancing women’s participation in political and economic decision-making. Steps were being taken to change people’s awareness and perceptions, but it would take time for society to accept and nurture such a change. Women’s organizations in Liechtenstein had done a great deal to shift people’s attitudes. They had also become more involved in the reporting process under the Convention and in the implementation of the Committee’s concluding recommendations.

In January 2010, the first status report on the human rights situation in Liechtenstein had been published. That report, which provided improved, disaggregated data, as requested by several United Nations treaty bodies and the Council of Europe, contained information on women’s rights, the representation of women in the economy and politics, education and integration of women into the job market and the situation of single-parent families, as well as on the problems of domestic violence and human trafficking. It would be updated annually on International Human Rights Day and was available on Liechtenstein’s official Internet portal, www.liechtenstein.li.

His country had been less affected by the global financial and economic crisis than many others. While the average annual unemployment rate had fallen from 3.2 per cent in 2006 to 2.3 per cent in 2008, it had increased in 2009, reaching 2.8 per cent overall and 3.3 per cent for women. The socio-economic situation of the general population was good, and low-income households received assistance according to their needs.

Several legislative developments had taken place since the fourth periodic report had been submitted to the Committee. In November 2010, parliament had given preliminary approval for the introduction of ex officio prosecution in cases of domestic violence as part of the revision of the country’s sexual criminal law. The second reading was scheduled for spring 2011. In addition, legislative amendments currently being processed with a view to implementing Directives 2006/54/EC and 2004/113/EC would introduce the principle of equal treatment between women and men in the access to and supply of goods and services, thus extending the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sex from the realm of work to many other areas. Moreover, his Government looked forward to the introduction of registered partnerships for same-sex couples, with the second reading of the Partnership Act due in spring 2011.

Civil society was active in the field of women’s rights and human rights. One recent example of civil society participation was the debate on child custody after divorce which had arisen in connection with the planned revision of the General Civil Code in 2011 and 2012. To date, the Women’s Network, the Association for Mediation and the Ombudsman’s Office for Children and Young People had supported an amendment concerning primary custody rights, while the Association for Men’s Issues had submitted a petition to parliament on joint custody.

Ms. Ameline commended the State party on its ratification of all the United Nations human rights instruments and urged it to further enhance its defence of human rights by joining the International Labour Organization and setting up an independent national human rights institution. She wished to know what criteria were used to determine which international human rights instruments had constitutional rank. She failed to understand why the Convention did not have that rank, which would strengthen the legal basis of the State party’s legislative strategy and increase the visibility of the Convention.

The Committee would welcome updated information on any progress towards withdrawal of the reservation concerning article 1 of the Convention. She asked whether parliament had the right to initiate legislation or whether that was left to the executive. It would be interesting to know whether the significant degree of consultation with civil society on the preparation of the report might lead to a new institutional and political consultative mechanism for the implementation of the Convention. Lastly, she enquired whether the emphasis that the State party placed on human rights and women’s rights in its foreign policy was fully reflected in its domestic policy and, if so, whether that was widely recognized.

Ms. Popescu recalled the Committee’s 2007 recommendation to the State party to discuss its reservation to article 1 of the Convention with the autonomous Princely House of Liechtenstein with a view to its withdrawal (CEDAW/C/LIE/CO/3, para. 12). While understanding the reasons behind the reservation, the Committee remained concerned at women’s exclusion from succession to the throne. She urged the authorities to take into account the Committee’s general recommendation No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention, which emphasized that a reservation to article 1 affected the protection of the rights enshrined in article 2 and in many other provisions of the Convention. She asked what measures the State party had taken to increase the visibility of the Optional Protocol and what training the judiciary and law enforcement officers received on the Convention and the Optional Protocol.

Ms. Schulz requested additional information on the potential effects of the general reform of the national administration on the Office of Gender Equality and the Gender Equality Commission. In particular, she asked whether it was likely that the competencies, budget and staff of the two institutions would be reduced or, worse still, that the two bodies would be shut down. Noting that the Office of Gender Equality had also been responsible for dealing with discrimination against migrants and people with disabilities since 2005, she asked whether the funds and activities of the Office that were specifically focused on gender equality had been adversely affected by that situation.

Ms. Popescu asked how many staff in the Office of Gender Equality worked exclusively on gender issues. It would be interesting to learn whether bringing several areas of discrimination under one office had enabled it to handle matters of intersectional discrimination and, if so, what examples could be provided. The Committee would appreciate clarification on how the Office of Gender Equality and the Gender Equality Commission coordinated their work. She also asked why the State party did not plan to establish an independent human rights institution that functioned in line with the Paris Principles. She requested additional data on the number of complaints concerning discrimination against women that had been brought before the Office of Equal Opportunity. The Committee would welcome the delegation’s comments on whether the Office was able to handle all of the complaints it received. Urging the State party to focus more on the specificity of women’s rights, she recommended that it should take into consideration the Committee’s general recommendations No. 27 on older women and protection of their human rights and No. 26 on women migrant workers.

Mr. Marxer (Liechtenstein) said that the Government’s Agenda 2020 included general information on its action plan, including the focus on human rights and the rights of women as a top priority. Parliament could initiate legislation and block any initiative of the executive branch that was not compatible with an international instrument to which Liechtenstein was a party. He emphasized his country’s strong commitment to human rights, particularly in its work with the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Mr. Ritter (Liechtenstein) said that the legislation governing the Constitutional Court had been amended to enable the court to hear complaints from individuals alleging violations of their rights under the Constitution or under international conventions to which Liechtenstein was a party. Individual complaints could also, of course, be heard under the Optional Protocol to the Convention. No complaints had yet been made under the Optional Protocol, mainly because the European Convention on Human Rights had been ratified by the State party for far longer, and was better known, and because Liechtenstein had such a small population. De jure discrimination having been eliminated, the State party’s efforts were now focused on doing away with de facto discrimination.

Parliament played an important role in the implementation of the Convention although it had only 25 members, all of whom held other jobs as well. It had, on its own initiative, carried out work in the area of the prevention of violence against women. Liechtenstein’s reservation to article 1 of the Convention was bound up with the law under which a woman could not accede to the throne.

Mr. Marxer (Liechtenstein) described the process of consultation on all new draft legislation and said that, in particular, the Office for Foreign Affairs reviewed all such legislation to ensure that it was in line with international instruments to which Liechtenstein was a party and with any planned measures in that regard.

Ms. Kubik-Risch (Liechtenstein) said that the Office of Equal Opportunity employed one person, full-time, who cooperated with other bodies in fields such as migration and education. The Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity sat on the Equal Opportunity Commission, and the two bodies worked on many projects together. Once a year, the Office submitted a list of measures and projects aimed at combating multiple forms of discrimination to the Government. The Government also funded private projects in that area, including projects that targeted women exclusively. No complaints had been lodged with the Office, but it had received 130 general enquiries. It would not be able to follow up on complaints, but could advise persons on how to go about filing one.

Ms. Lingg (Liechtenstein) said that NGOs and individuals could participate in the consultative process and submit comments on new draft legislation which the Government would then take on board when preparing the final version.

Mr. Ritter (Liechtenstein) recalled that, during the universal periodic review process in 2008, the State party had informed the Human Rights Council about the three national human rights institutions in Liechtenstein that complied with the Paris Principles. The State party did not intend to establish a new human rights mechanism in which women’s rights would be only one component of a more general mandate. As things stood, national administrative bodies played an important, effective role in the protection of women’s rights.

Ms. Ameline asked whether any aspects of the State party’s policy on integration focused specifically on women and said that she would appreciate information about women of foreign origin in Liechtenstein.

Ms. Popescu asked whether the State party had any plans to establish a specific mechanism in the area of women’s rights. She would appreciate clarification on the composition of the existing mechanism. Did it consist of the one person working full-time in the Office of Equal Opportunity?

The Chairperson, speaking in her capacity as an expert, drew the State party’s attention to the 28 general recommendations drawn up by the Committee, which, in clarifying various articles of the Convention, could help States parties to implement the Convention and thus eliminate de jure and de facto discrimination against women.

Mr. Marxer (Liechtenstein) said that the Government took into account the Committee’s important general recommendations on an ongoing basis. In response to an earlier question, he noted that some 33 per cent of Liechtenstein’s population consisted of foreigners; if one included the non-nationals who came over to Liechtenstein to work every day, that figure rose to 70 per cent.

Mr. Walch (Liechtenstein) said that over 100 nationalities were represented in Liechtenstein and that the country’s wealth was largely attributable to its foreign workers. It was important for foreign workers to feel happy in their jobs and lives, which was why the need for integration had been established by law. The rights of all persons who came to work in Liechtenstein were fully respected. The Immigration and Passport Office had one immigration specialist. Liechtenstein had always been dependent on migrant workers — both men and women — and discussions were held on an ongoing basis about their situation and about how to ensure that they all felt part of society.

Ms. Kubik-Risch (Liechtenstein) said that Liechtenstein’s integration programme included specific projects for migrant women which were subsidized by the Government, such as the International Women’s Cafe, run by the Association for Intercultural Education, and the Integra discussion-group project. She confirmed that one person was employed, full-time, by the Office of Equal Opportunity. The national mechanism for women’s rights was the Equal Opportunity Commission, which had eight members, both men and women. The Commission worked on various projects in cooperation with the Office of Equal Opportunity and the Liechtenstein Women’s Network.

Ms. Awori recalled the concern expressed by the Committee in 2007 (CEDAW/C/LIE/CO/3, paras. 19 and 20) at the State party’s limited application of the temporary special measures provided for in article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention, which was not in line with general recommendation No. 25. The State party did not appear to have made progress with regard to the Committee’s recommendation that it should consider expanding those measures to a variety of strategies in different areas covered by the Convention. She drew the delegation’s attention to paragraph 26 of general recommendation No. 25, in which the Committee urged States parties to “clearly distinguish between temporary special measures aimed at accelerating the achievement of a concrete goal of women’s de facto or substantive equality, and other general social policies adopted and implemented in order to improve the situation of women and the girl child”. In that regard, she expressed concern at reports from the University of Liechtenstein’s Committee for Gender Diversity that women were poorly represented in master’s and higher degree programmes and that all the professors and all current members of the University Council were men. If she had understood correctly, in 2010 two of the members had been women, but the Government, which had recently assumed responsibility for appointing members to the Council, had replaced those two women with men. She would appreciate clarification of that matter.

Ms. Bareiro-Bobadilla said it was clear from the report that the State party had taken numerous steps to combat gender stereotypes; it would be interesting to learn more about ways in which the society had evolved as a result of those measures. She asked what proportion of single-parent families were headed by women and, in view of the State party’s campaign against stereotypes, what family models it was promoting.

In connection with Liechtenstein’s reservation to article 1 of the Convention, she would like to know how the State party defined the term “discrimination against women”.

Ms. Gabr said that she disagreed with the delegation’s statement that changing stereotypes had to be a slow process. That should not be so in a rich, well-educated country like Liechtenstein. Greater efforts should be made, in particular with the help of the media.

She would like more information on the Round Table on Human Trafficking and, in particular, on who the participants were, whether meetings were held on a regular or ad hoc basis, whether the Round Table was affiliated with a particular authority, and what activities it undertook. More information would also be welcome on efforts to combat human trafficking among migrants and asylum-seekers, on relevant training for law enforcement staff, on victim protection measures and on efforts to identify trafficking rings. States, such as Liechtenstein, with a high standard of living could be either destination or transit countries. Awareness-raising measures should be taken, in particular since trafficking was a transnational crime carried out by organized criminal groups.

Ms. Rasekh said that, under the recently enacted Foreigners Act, a residency permit could be revoked or not renewed after the dissolution of a marriage. That provision could cause women to remain in abusive marriages in order to avoid deportation. It was clear that exceptions were made if a woman was the victim of domestic violence, but the burden of proof seemed to rest on her. Since proceedings could be lengthy, it would be of interest to learn where women were lodged in the interim and who paid the legal costs. There was the danger that such women could become victims of trafficking or exploitation. It would also be useful to know if women in those circumstances could pass on Liechtenstein nationality to their children and whether their children were deported with them. It would be helpful to consider whether such proceedings were discriminatory against women from minority groups and to know whether measures were being taken to prevent gender discrimination in the assessment of applications for asylum.

Ms. Kubik-Risch (Liechtenstein) said that no temporary special measures were in place to promote equality between men and women in political life. The Government did, however, conduct awareness-raising activities, such as courses in political affairs, round-table discussions and talks with female members of parliament. Liechtenstein was organizing the 5th Congress of the Small States of Europe, whose theme would be women in leadership positions, and was involved in a number of international initiatives to promote the participation of women in public affairs.

No statistics were available on the impact of the measures taken to improve education for women. It was clear, however, that more women were seeking an education, more women were educated and more women were participating in political life.

In response to an earlier question, she said that the Equal Opportunity Act, which related to all areas of work, including pension funds and access to goods and services, offered a precise definition of discrimination. The Government of Liechtenstein had enacted many measures to promote and protect the family, including birth allowances, child allowances, allowances for single parents, maternity leave, nursing support for sick children and older persons, and assistance for breastfeeding mothers. Unpaid parental leave for fathers was also provided. In addition, a credit system was in place to assist women to enter the workforce.

Mr. Marxer (Liechtenstein) said that the Round Table on Human Trafficking was a standing body, created in 2006, made up of representatives of the Victims Assistance Office, the Office of the Public Prosecutor, the Office of Economic Affairs, the Office for Foreign Affairs, the Immigration and Passport Office and the National Police. Its mandate was to monitor human trafficking and develop measures to combat it. The first such measure had been a set of guidelines on the protection of victims of trafficking; under those guidelines, victims were to be given adequate time to consider whether they wished to cooperate with the authorities in the prosecution of perpetrators. Victims who were willing to do so were given temporary residency permits, financial assistance, psychological counselling and a secure living environment. Ultimately, they would be entitled to permanent residency in Liechtenstein.

The highest-risk group was nightclub dancers. There were six nightclubs in the country, and an average of five requests for residency permits from dancers were received each month; that made a total of 300 to 360 residency permits issued to such persons yearly. Under the Magdalena Prevention Project, nightclub dancers were invited to participate in information sessions regarding their legal and residency status and other entitlements and regulations that affected them. They also met with the police officers responsible for making the rounds at nightclubs; the objective of such rounds was to prevent exploitation. Thus far, no case of human trafficking had been detected in Liechtenstein. The question had been raised as to whether other groups, such as asylum-seekers, might be at risk. The Government received approximately 100 requests for asylum yearly, and none had contained complaints or allegations involving human trafficking.

The Round Table was indeed concerned with the issue of raising awareness among members of the police force and had been providing training for that purpose. The presence on the Round Table of six high-ranking judges ensured that such issues were dealt with in depth. Liechtenstein was, of course, a potential destination country, and prevention measures must therefore be taken. The State party was working closely with Austria on an initiative on human trafficking and the exploitation of women in the workplace. In 2010, a master plan had been drawn up with the support of the Round Table.

Mr. Hoch (Liechtenstein) said that the relatively few requests for asylum that were received came mostly from men. There were currently 30 or so young male asylum-seekers from Somalia and Eritrea, who were housed together in a centre. From the point of view of the National Police, it was difficult to see how that group of men could become victims of human trafficking. As to the question of where victims of trafficking might live, he said that the State-supported Liechtenstein Women’s Home was open to all women needing protection. In addition, any person involved in legal proceedings could request assistance to cover all costs.

All persons with residency permits could be joined by their families. Since Liechtenstein had almost full employment, and income and finances did not pose a problem, family reunion depended solely on the willingness of family members to rejoin their families. He knew of no cases in which family reunion had not been possible.

Ms. Kubik-Risch (Liechtenstein) said that 16 per cent of single-parent households were headed by men and 84 per cent by women; measures to improve their economic circumstances included rental subsidies and childcare allowances.

Ms. Neubauer said that, according to alternative sources of information, 294 applications for asylum had been recorded in 2009, of which 261 had been discontinued at the admissibility stage and had not been examined on the merits. It had also been reported that the authorities had encouraged applicants to leave Liechtenstein by telling them that their applications would not be considered and by offering to pay their travel expenses. Some of the female applicants might have been victims of trafficking, since it was not clear whether the authorities had applied standard procedures to identify victims of sexual or gender-based violence, including trafficking, when assessing the admissibility of applications. She enquired whether Liechtenstein had guidelines for taking gender-sensitive issues into consideration during the asylum procedure, whether specialists were trained in interviewing women who had been victims of sexual or gender-based violence and whether female asylum-seekers could contact women’s counselling services.

When it became clear that a woman might have been the victim of gender-based violence or trafficking, she should be treated as such, arrangements should be made with NGOs to provide her with counselling, and her experience should be taken into account when deciding on the merits of her asylum application.

Mr. Walch (Liechtenstein) said that Ms. Neubauer was apparently referring to the events of autumn 2009, when, over a period of two or three months, large numbers of Somalian and Eritrean nationals had come to Liechtenstein and applied for asylum. Of those persons, around 30 were still in the country. In most cases, their asylum applications had been rejected because the authorities had learned that they had already been present in one or another safe country for some time, such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, Finland, Italy and Greece. Liechtenstein was not a signatory of the Dublin Regulation, and thus it did not have access to the European Eurodac database; the asylum-seekers had taken advantage of that circumstance to submit additional applications. Liechtenstein had an agreement on asylum procedures with Austria and Switzerland and exchanged data with them on applicants, but in very few cases had it been possible to return asylum-seekers to other countries. Following an information session conducted by the Asylum Assistance Service and the immigration authorities, many of the asylum-seekers had left Liechtenstein of their own accord. On no account could it be said that Liechtenstein had “purchased” their departure; the Government had merely offered to cover their travel expenses, since they were often unable to do so themselves.

When it appeared that the reasons which a female asylum-seeker gave were gender-related, the immigration authorities arranged for her to be interviewed by a female staff member who had special legal training and was familiar with the problems of persons in that situation. Trained female staff from the national police force also assisted in such interviews.

Ms. Murillo de la Vega said it appeared that the State party had not devoted sufficient attention to policies which actively promoted equality and equal opportunity. She noted that Liechtenstein’s application of the relevant European Union directive on equal opportunity had been very restricted, and she stressed how important it was for the directive to be extensively applied. It would be useful to learn more about Liechtenstein’s Office of Equal Opportunity.

She wondered why it was necessary to train women for public office. It would also be interesting to learn how many initiatives had been conducted to heighten awareness of Liechtenstein’s Gender Equality Act. What steps had been taken to familiarize public officials with the contents of the relevant European Union directives? She also enquired whether there had been any meetings with members of political parties to inform them about gender-equality legislation and commitments to promote gender equality at the highest levels of power. She requested disaggregated figures on the percentage of women holding senior Government posts in Liechtenstein. Had there been any campaigns to encourage women to stand for election as mayor? She asked the delegation to explain why there were so few women in public office, the courts, the diplomatic corps and the administrative councils of the country’s academic institutions, and why Liechtenstein did not take affirmative action measures to address the situation.

Ms. Belmihoub-Zerdani said that 46 per cent of university students were women, and thus it was difficult to imagine that there were not enough women capable of assuming important political posts; yet only a small minority of ministers were women, and only 25 per cent of all parliamentarians were women. It was unacceptable that Liechtenstein did not have a single female mayor. She wondered whether measures could be taken to require parity representation for women in the executive branch, where posts were filled by appointment. It would also be useful to make State subsidies for political parties contingent upon their nomination of female candidates. Similarly, at the level of parliamentarians, ambassadors and university directors, the goal must be parity representation for women. What steps were being taken to that end?

Ms. Goop (Liechtenstein) reminded the Committee that, until the second half of the twentieth century, Liechtenstein had been a very poor country, and children, especially girls, had had little education. For that reason, most women who today were older than about 45 years of age were not highly educated, which helped to explain why they were not politically active. For younger women, the triple burden of household, family and profession was often sufficient for personal fulfilment, and there was little interest in an involvement in politics. In the 26 years since women had obtained the right to vote, it was fair to say that the progress made had been considerable. Today, 2 out of 5 members of the executive, 6 out of 25 parliamentarians and 29 out of 77 members of municipal councils were women. There were more women candidates for the coming elections in February than there had been four years earlier, and it was expected that the percentage of women in office would continue to grow. A woman was standing for election as mayor for the first time in many years. The percentage of women who were members and chairpersons of regional and municipal commissions and of boards of trustees of foundations was likewise on the rise, and between one third and one half of political party officials were women.

The special course in politics for women would be conducted again, and many women had already completed it. That was one way of encouraging and empowering women to enter politics. The Government also discussed related issues with political parties to raise awareness of the need to nominate women for office and to help ensure that allowance was made for their special needs. Steps had been taken to encourage the media to provide greater coverage of female candidates during election campaigns, thereby improving their chances of success.

Mr. Ritter (Liechtenstein) said that the purpose of training courses for women was to have more female candidates. That was a temporary measure which would be pursued until parity in public office was achieved. The point was not that women were regarded as being incapable of holding public office without such training, but that it was important to help them run a successful election campaign.

Referring to the large percentage of female university students compared to the lower percentage of female parliamentarians, he reminded the Committee that Liechtenstein women had had the right to vote and to hold office for only 25 years, a short period compared to other countries, and yet the current level of female participation in politics was comparable with that of countries in which women had enjoyed those rights for a much longer time.

Mr. Marxer (Liechtenstein) said that Liechtenstein had a higher percentage of women diplomats than many other countries. The competitive examinations for such careers were open to both sexes, but many women were reluctant to go abroad for family reasons, and thus female candidates who were offered a post in another country often declined. Most women in the diplomatic service were only able to work part-time and were therefore not eligible for many posts abroad.

Ms. Neubauer said that she fully understood that the training course for women was designed to interest them in political decision-making and to increase their chances of being elected. Perhaps another reason for women’s low representation in politics, however, was that they did not wish to be involved in what they viewed as an environment shaped by male values, attitudes and behaviour. She encouraged Liechtenstein to provide training for male politicians to acquaint them with the principles of gender equality in order to change existing patterns of political life.

It was unfortunate that progress had still not been made towards achieving gender equality in Liechtenstein in some areas. It was not enough to sit back and be satisfied with the results of the measures taken to date. Article 2 of the Convention specifically required the State party to pursue a policy of eliminating discrimination against women by all appropriate means and without delay. She did not believe that that had been the case with the measures taken by the State party under articles 7 and 8.

She called on Liechtenstein to appoint more women to the advisory councils, in which the increase in female participation had been so slow that, otherwise, it would probably take 100 years to achieve parity, and she urged the Government of Liechtenstein to play a more proactive role in applying the principle of gender-balanced participation so as to give women a greater share of decision-making responsibility; in so doing, it would serve as a role model for the private sector.

The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m.