In Dialogue with Andorra, Experts of the Human Rights Committee Commend Broadening of the Ombudsman’s Mandate, Ask About Laws Prohibiting Overt Religious Symbols in Schools and Abortion
The Human Rights Committee today concluded its consideration of the initial report of Andorra on how it implements the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with Committee Experts commending the broadening of the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman, and raising issues concerning laws prohibiting the use of overt religious symbols in educational institutions and abortion.
A Committee Expert welcomed 2024 legislative amendments that broadened and strengthened the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman in an independent and inclusive manner. Did the State party intend to establish the Office or another institution as the national human rights institution?
Another Committee Expert addressed the State’s 2022 law prohibiting the use of overt religious symbols in educational institutions, asking about the objectives of this measure and its compatibility with the State party's obligations under the Covenant.
One Expert asked how Andorra’s prohibition of voluntary termination of pregnancy was compatible with the Covenant. Health professionals were still subject to criminal sanctions for the termination of pregnancy. How was this compatible with the State’s Covenant obligations? What plans were in place to reform abortion law?
Ferran Costa Marimon, Permanent Representative of Andorra in Geneva and head of the delegation, presenting the report, said Andorra was a small country of approximately 90,000 inhabitants which acquired full international sovereignty in 1993. Since the ratification of the Covenant, considerable progress had been made in implementing the main international human rights instruments.
The delegation said the Government was not considering establishing a national human rights institution independent to the Ombudsperson, as it believed that the Ombudsperson had sufficient powers.
On the 2022 law that regulated religious neutrality, the delegation said it did not aim to prevent religious expression but sought to promote coexistence. School governing boards decided on rules to be implemented regarding displaying religious symbols, taking the community’s views into consideration. Any punishment for displaying such symbols was a last resort.
The delegation said the issue of abortion remained particularly sensitive in Andorra due to the institutional and constitutional characteristics of the country. The Government was actively working to remove the criminalisation of women who voluntarily terminated their pregnancy in the Criminal Code. It sought to place women’s interests, rights, and well-being at the centre of public policies.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Marimon said the dialogue had reflected Andorra’s commitment to multilateralism. Once the concluding observations were adopted, Andorra would examine them carefully and in a constructive spirit. The State remained fully committed to the good-faith implementation of the Covenant and to continued cooperation with the Committee.
Changrok Soh, Committee Chairperson, in concluding remarks, commended the State party on progress in several areas, including laws on equality and gender-based violence and efforts to promote inclusive education. However, he said discussions also highlighted the need for a comprehensive asylum framework, low conviction rates in cases of gender-based violence, and the continued criminalisation of abortion. The Committee welcomed the State party’s engagement with the treaty body system and encouraged its continued cooperation.
The delegation of Andorra was made up of representatives of the Ministry of Social Affairs; Ministry of Institutional Relations, Education and Universities; Secretary of State for Energy Transition, Transport and Mobility; Secretary of State for Equality and Citizen Participation; Ministry of Justice and the Interior; Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and the Permanent Mission of Andorra to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-fifth session is being held from 2 to 19 March 2026. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage. Meeting summary releases can be found here. The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. today, Tuesday 3 March to begin its consideration of the seventh periodic report of Canada (CCPR/C/CAN/7).
Report
The Committee has before it the initial report of Andorra (CCPR/C/AND/1).
Presentation of the Report
FERRAN COSTA MARIMON, Permanent Representative of Andorra in Geneva and head of the delegation, said Andorra was a small country of approximately 90,000 inhabitants which acquired full international sovereignty in 1993 with the adoption of its Constitution. Since then, it had endeavoured to accede to most international legal instruments relating to human rights, while ensuring their proper implementation at the national level. This entailed a significant investment of human and institutional resources and represented a substantial legislative effort for a Parliament composed of 28 members. Since the ratification of the Covenant, considerable progress had been made in implementing the main international human rights instruments.
One of the most recent international legal commitments was the signature by the Head of Government last September of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which would be adopted this year ¨. Andorra had also acceded to the three Protocols to the 1977 Geneva Conventions last year, and was now also party to the Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption was now awaiting Parliament’s approval, and before the end of 2027, Andorra would also ratifythe Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.
Andorra took pride in the quality, diversity and inclusiveness of its education system. Families were free to choose between three high-quality public education systems — Andorran, French and Spanish — all of which were publicly funded. Two private systems, including one in English, were also available. In addition, the Andorran education system was particularly inclusive, with 98.8 per cent of children with disabilities integrated into the public education system.
A National Plan for Children and Adolescents was established for the period 2022-2026 through the 2019 Law on the Rights of Children and Adolescents. This law placed the prevention and protection of children's rights at the heart of the legal system and provided a cross-cutting response to current issues, includingthrough the National Commission for Children and Adolescents. In addition, the Personal and Family Law Act adopted in 2022 prohibited marriage before the age of 18 and forced marriages.
Andorra now had a comprehensive legislative framework covering effective equality between women and men and the prevention of violence against women and domestic violence. This ramework enabled the strengthening of institutional capacity, notably through the establishment of a State Secretariat for Equality and Citizen Participation. The team responsible for caring for women victims of gender-based violence had been strengthened; it organised numerous training courses and awareness-raising activities for the various administrations and civil society. On 9 October 2025, Parliament approved a legal amendment that required the State to financially compensate victims of violence in the event of the perpetrator's insolvency.
The State Secretariat for Equality and Citizen Participation was responsible for putting in place the necessary safeguards to prevent and combat various forms of discrimination, and for training and awareness-raising activities against discrimination. The Ombudsman's mandate also included combating discrimination; it could denounce discrimination committed by both the administration and the private sector.
Andorra was firmly committed to ensuring that all citizens could exercise their right to vote on an equal basis, regardless of disability. To this end, the Government had adopted a specific regulatory framework aimed at strengthening the guarantee of autonomous voting for persons with disabilities. The measures removed physical, communicational and procedural barriers, while fully respecting the freedom, dignity and confidentiality of the vote.
In 2020, the Ministry of Health set up a Comprehensive Women's Care Service, “SIAD,” to create a public space for information, guidance and professional advice on sexual and reproductive health, including family planning. This service provided individualised assistance throughout the country, including comprehensive information on voluntary pregnancy interventions. The issue of abortion remained particularly sensitive in Andorra, due to the institutional and constitutional characteristics of the country. The Bishop of La Seu d'Urgell in Spain, a High-Representative of the Catholic Church, was one of the Heads of State of Andorra, and article eight of the Constitution recognised the right to life and fully protected it in its various stages. It was therefore very difficult to strike a balance between this right of women and the institutional system of the Principality.
Although Andorra had not ratified the 1951 Geneva Convention, many refugees had found refuge in the State throughout contemporary history. In 2018, Andorra adopted its first legislative framework for receiving refugees and providing them with the necessary protection and services. This enabled the reception of 26 Syrian refugees, the last of whom arrived in Andorra last month, and, from 2022, more than 300 Ukrainians. For a country of Andorra’s size, welcoming more than 300 refugees within a few months required significant logistical and financial efforts. The Government had set up an interministerial working group to coordinate the integration of new arrivals, benefiting from the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert noted legislative measures in the field of human rights adopted by Andorra in recent years and welcomed the fact that the State was a party to most international human rights treaties. Did the State party intend to ratify the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and its Optional Protocol; the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture; the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance? What measures were in place to implement the Committee’s Views and make the public, members of the judiciary and State officials aware of the Committee’s communications procedure, its Covenant and international human rights law? The Committee welcomed that the Covenant and all ratified international treaties were directly incorporated into Andorran law. Did these treaties have supra-Constitutional value? If there were discrepancies between the Covenant and domestic law, which prevailed?
Another Committee Expert welcomed 2024 legislative amendments that broadened and strengthened the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman in an independent and inclusive manner. Did these allow the Office to refer cases to courts or intervene before the courts, challenge the constitutionality of laws, issue policy recommendations, and propose ratification to international human rights treaties? Did they ensure transparency in the procedure for appointing the Ombudsperson? Had the Office been provided with adequate resources to effectively discharge its mandates? How many complaints had been received by the Office related to the provisions of the Covenant during the reporting period? Did the State party intend to establish the Office or another institution as the national human rights institution?
The State party had taken very positive and sincere steps to tackle corruption. However, it did not currently have a public policy on anti-corruption measures or a whistleblower protection system. What measures were in place to adopt such a policy; provide the Anti-Corruption Unit and the Public Prosecutor’s Office with sufficient resources and powers to tackle corruption; and put in place a follow-up mechanism to effectively implement the 2023 Code of Conduct for members of Government? When would the State party adopt a whistleblower protection law? Did the State party intend to take further measures to adopt rules requiring integrity checks for Government officials? Could it provide the number of investigations, prosecutions and convictions of those found responsible for corruption and the sentences handed down in such cases?
One Committee Expert asked how the 2019 Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination Act ensured that Covenant rights were protected. How was compliance with this law monitored in the private sector? What sanctions were imposed for acts of discrimination, and by which authorities? Had any guidance been issued for judges or labour inspectors on how to apply the Act, and had there been any jurisprudence clarifying the Act’s scope?
The Government had created the Department of Equality Policies in 2017, which reportedly dealt with an average of five cases per year. Could the Department formally refer cases to judicial bodies, and did its decisions have any legal effect? What were the main grounds of discrimination alleged in complaints received by the Department, the profile of victims, and the outcomes of cases? How were cases involving intersectional forms of discrimination identified? Were there specific protocols for addressing such cases? Had the State party evaluated the impact of its awareness raising campaigns on discrimination?
Could the State provide information on the number of hate crime and hate speech cases recorded since the Department of Equality Policies and the Social and Equality Observatory were established? For such cases, how many investigations, prosecutions, convictions and sanctions had there been? Had protection or reparation measures been granted to victims? Which institutions were responsible for proactively monitoring and detecting hate speech, including in the media and online?
One Committee Expert noted policy developments adopted by the State party, including the Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination Act, equal access to civil marriage for same-sex couples, as well as public coverage of gender-affirming health care and the possibility of gender modification in official documents. What requirements were there for the legal recognition of gender identity and for access to relevant health care for transgender people? How did the State ensure that these procedures were accessible and compatible with the principles of non-discrimination and respect for privacy?
The Committee noted the law prohibiting the use of overt religious symbols in educational institutions. What were the objectives of this measure and how was it compatible with the State party's obligations under the Covenant? Did the State evaluate the impact of the measures on students belonging to religious minorities? What mechanisms were in place to receive and investigate complaints of discrimination, including from migrant workers? How many such complaints had been received and how many investigations were carried out?
Did the Penal Code include provisions relating to hate crimes or aggravating circumstances when offences were motivated by racism, xenophobia, sexual orientation, gender identity or other discriminatory grounds? Could the State party provide information on the number of complaints received, investigations initiated, and decisions taken in recent years, as well as on protection measures granted to victims? Which bodies were competent to receive and consider complaints concerning incitement to discrimination or violence, including in the digital environment, and how were these mechanisms coordinated?
A Committee Expert said it was surprising that the State party had no national human rights institution. The Expert called for disaggregated data on the impact of measures to reduce structural inequalities between women and men. What measures were in place to address documented inequalities in the areas of employment, remuneration, political representation and decision-making, and to tackle gender stereotypes embedded in Andorran society? How did the competencies of the Secretariat of State for Equality, the Equality Observatory and the Andorran Women's Institute differ? There was no State programme promoting equality between men and women. Was one being developed?
The Expert called for disaggregated data on the gender wage gap and women’s lack of representation in decision-making posts, and information on efforts to address these issues. How was the State party promoting substantive equality between women and men in the labour market? How many workplace inspections had been carried out and what remedies had been granted to workers who had submitted complaints? How did the State party ensure that seasonal and domestic workers enjoyed the same level of protection and benefits as other workers?
Had rates of violence against women in Andorra fallen over the reporting period? How did the State party ensure that complaints of gender-based violence and domestic violence resulted in prompt and unbiased investigations? Could information be provided on prosecution rates, convictions and penalties imposed? How had the State worked to remove obstacles to reporting gender-based violence and ensure that protection services for victims had sufficient resources? How did it assess the effectiveness of its awareness-raising actions related to gender-based violence? What measures had been taken to change socio-cultural patterns that perpetuated violence against women?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the State party was in the process of ratifying the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and its Optional Protocol. It was not planning on ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers due to the lack of specific cases in the State, as well as of technical resources and manpower. However, the Government was working on a timeline to ratify the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and planned to submit the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture for ratification. International instruments ratified by Andorra had supra-legal status; they were ranked higher than the Constitution and took presence over domestic laws in cases of discrepancies. There had not been proactive campaigns to disseminate the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights yet, but the State was planning such a campaign.
The 2024 law on the Ombudsperson gave the Ombudsperson the rank of a public authority and extended the scope of their interventions in the private and public sectors, taking on board almost all the recommendations of the Venice Commission. The Ombudsperson could act on complaints and could refer cases for consideration by the courts through the Parliament. They could not demand that the State party ratified an international treaty but could refer such treaties to the Government or Parliament for consideration. In 2025, the Ombudsperson received 421 complaints and opened 19 cases ex officio. The Ombudsperson’s Office had four full-time employees and two part-time employees.
In 2026 the Government would ratify the United Nations Convention against Corruption and adopt new rules in line with this Convention, including regarding background checks for elected officials. One member of Parliament had taken advantage of his position to propose legislative changes that benefited a private individual. He had been convicted of aggravated corruption, sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment, and fined 20,000 euros.
The 2022 law that regulated religious neutrality did not aim to prevent religious expression but sough to avoid conspicuous showing of religious symbols during the teaching period. The State party sought to promote the right to a neutral educational setting and ensure that the education system was flexible.
Act 13 of 2019 was a framework law on equality and non-discrimination. The law was cross-cutting and protected specific groups, including women, children, older persons, migrants and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community. It included measures for inspections and reporting of discrimination. The Department for Equality Policies was part of the investigative process and provided support for victims of discrimination. In 2025, the Department addressed 15 cases, half of which related to sexual harassment in the workplace. It provided training for public officials, including on hate speech and hate crimes, and conducted awareness raising campaigns on discrimination.
The Andorran Women’s Institute was an independent institution that undertook campaigns on equality and oversaw the implementation of 2022 gender equality legislation. It worked with the Department for Equality Policies to train relevant officials on laws, protocols and services related to gender-based violence. The Observatory for Equality, meanwhile, conducted sociological studies and collected disaggregated data on women and other socially vulnerable groups.
The Labour Inspectorate was making random checks to ensure that the law on gender equality was being implemented. Over the past two years, equality plans had been implemented in companies with over 50 employees. All companies were required to record gender wage gaps and were fined if they did not follow up on complaints of workplace harassment by women. The 2022 gender equality legislation also regulated women’s political participation.
Various entities were implementing a four-year awareness raising campaign on services related to the prevention of gender-based violence and domestic violence. The Department of Equality Policies trained professionals to identify cases of gender-based violence; provided shelters, psychological services and legal aid for victims; and in 2025 had activated security buttons that allowed at-risk women to call the police for help. A free-of-charge, 24-hour hotline and email service had been set up for reporting cases of gender-based violence. When cases of domestic violence or divorce occurred, the family visitation service provided support to affected children.
Andorra had a significant budget for social benefits for victims of gender-based violence and discrimination, which was overseen by the Department of Social Affairs. The State was implementing an awareness raising campaign on gender equality in its education system, which included measures for training teachers and informing pupils on the subject.
Andorra was part of the Group of the Council of Europe against Corruption since 2025, and thus had obligations related to preventing corruption. The State party was developing a strategy to prevent corruption and had adopted various codes of ethics for Government officials, the police and prison staff. The Unit for the Prevention of Corruption was created in 2008 and would be made independent upon ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions on obstacles to establishing a formal national human rights institution; plans to establish a whistle-blower protection system and an independent oversight body for identifying hate speech; progress in collecting data on hate speech, judicial rulings on hate crimes; the outcomes of the State’s various projects and policies promoting gender equality; the legal weight of the Committee’s Views and concluding observations in Andorra; judicial decisions interpreting the 2019 law on equal treatment; sanctions issued to private sector companies related to discrimination against women; and measures to enhance women’s representation in Andorran society.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Government was not considering establishing a national human rights institution independent to the Ombudsperson, as it believed that the Ombudsperson had sufficient powers.
The State party provided protection against coercion of whistle-blowers.
Andorra’s law did not establish that recommendations from international human rights treaty bodies were legally binding. However, the State party’s participation in dialogues with treaty bodies showed its political commitment to the international human rights system.
The Department for Equality Policies, the police and competent legal authorities were tasked with following up on cases of hatred. The State party had yet to come across cases that were specifically labelled as hate speech, but there had been cases of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and cases of sexual harassment. The Observatory for Equality was defining indicators and collecting data on hate speech and training officials on detecting and reporting cases of hate speech. The State had collected data on victims of gender-based violence since 2006 and had improved detection of such cases. It had also developed tools that made it easier for victims to report cases.
Sectoral inspectorates were responsible for conducting inspections under 2019 legislation on equality. The Department for Equality Policies worked with the occupation service to address gender imbalances in recruitment procedures. The State party had recently conducted a survey of 2,400 companies to obtain more accurate data on the gender pay gap.
Questions by Committee Experts
A Committee Expert asked whether the offence of torture was subject to a statute of limitations and whether the State party would amend the Criminal Code to make the offence imprescriptible. Any official who subjected a person to degrading treatment was punished with three months to three years' imprisonment. Did the State party plan to extend this? Had the State party amended legislation that allowed people with psychosocial disabilities to be subjected to forced treatment, coercive measures and forced medication in the framework of psychiatric interventions and institutions? What legal mechanisms were in place to ensure a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation into allegations of torture or ill-treatment and excessive use of force? Could data be provided on the number of complaints, investigations, prosecutions, convictions and reparations provided to victims of torture and ill-treatment during the reporting period?
No legislative measure had been adopted to decriminalise defamation. Was the State party considering such a measure? How did the State’s legislation address the subjective nature of defamation? In January 2024, Vanessa Mendoza Cortés was acquitted of defamation charges after a judicial process that lasted more than four years, after raising concerns about Andorra's total ban on abortion during a meeting of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in 2019. Had she received reparation from the State after being acquitted? Had measures been taken to protect human rights defenders who appeared before the United Nations human rights treaty bodies and other international organizations from any kind of reprisals?
How did the State protect and promote the rights to peaceful assembly and association? A 2021 law regulated the “right to demonstrate” in public spaces and established the obligation to report the demonstration to the competent ministry ahead of time. What was the purpose of this system and what happened when people did not comply? Was such prior communication part of a notification or an authorisation regime?
A 2018 law that regulated the collective rights of workers and collective bargaining was undergoing a major reform to make trade union activity in companies possible. Had this reform process been completed? How did current legislation effectively guarantee the right to form and join trade unions and the right to strike?
Another Committee Expert asked if all State officials were required to undergo training on sexual and gender-based violence. Could the State party provide data on judicial processing of cases of violence against women? How did the State party prevent revictimization of women victims in the judicial process? What reparation measures were in place for victims, including shelters and financial compensation? What was the State party’s strategy for preventing violence against women and was its implementation evaluated?
How was Andorra’s prohibition of voluntary termination of pregnancy compatible with the Covenant? Which legal provisions guaranteed effective access to abortion when the life or health of the woman or girl was in danger, when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or when the foetus was not viable? How was such access guaranteed in practice? How did the referral system for access to an abortion outside Andorran territory prevent undue physical or psychological suffering? What costs were covered by the State? Health professionals were still subject to criminal sanctions for termination of pregnancy. How was this compatible with the State’s Covenant obligations? What plans were in place to reform abortion law?
One Committee Expert asked how the State’s climate and energy measures translated into concrete safeguards for the right to life and related rights for those most exposed to climate risks. What specific preparedness and risk reduction measures had been adopted to prevent the loss of human life and serious damage related to climatic events in the Andorran mountains? Were there plans to adopt a comprehensive national adaptation plan with concrete actions and deadlines? What measures were planned to prevent people in vulnerable situations from bearing disproportionate burdens due to the energy transition?
The law provided for the protection of consumers at risk of energy poverty. How were these people identified, what concrete supports were available to them and how did these mechanisms contribute to protecting their right to life and health in a context of increasing climate tensions? What climate or energy policies had been modified as a result of public consultations? How did Andorra ensure the effective participation of people and communities in vulnerable situations in climate-related decisions? How did the National Energy and Climate Change Commission promote equality and non-discrimination in its work, and how were the Commission's recommendations taken into account by the Government? What judicial or administrative remedies were available for person affected by climate change, and what impact assessment requirements were in place?
Pre-trial detainees accounted for 49.3 per cent of the prison population and the average duration of pre-trial detention was 242 days, despite the detailed limitations in the Code of Criminal Procedure. What concrete measures were being taken to reduce both the proportion of pre-trial detainees and the average length of pre-trial detention, and to encourage the use of non-custodial measures in accordance with the Tokyo Rules? What guidance was given to judges to give preference to alternative measures? How did the State guarantee rapid access to a lawyer; the possibility of notifying a relative at the outset of the detention; and immediate information, in a language understood by the person, about the reasons for the arrest and his or her rights.
State legislation allowed for solitary confinement, including of minors, for up to 14 days. How were these provisions reconciled with international standards? Were measures envisaged to prohibit the isolation of minors altogether? Were there strict limits on the total duration and frequency of solitary confinement for adults? Were all such decisions subject to independent review, with a complaints mechanism available to inmates?
Did police detention facilities ensure access to clean water, food, light, ventilation and sanitation facilities, as well as access to medical care and a lawyer? Were there exceptions to the maximum duration of 48 hours of police custody? Were police stations regularly visited by an independent body and could detainees lodge complaints of ill-treatment or poor conditions while still in police custody?
Were prison health services integrated into the public health system? How was the confidentiality of medical examinations and records guaranteed? Could detainees request to be examined by an outside doctor of their choice? How did the State party ensure adequate and timely access to mental health care for persons in pre-trial detention and in institutions? What institutional mechanism was responsible for implementing the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture? What concrete changes had resulted from these reviews?
What was the procedure and criteria for the appointment and promotion of judges, and what safeguards existed to prevent political or other influence? Which body was competent to impose sanctions on judges and what safeguards existed to prevent pressure being exerted on judges? How was the Public Prosecutor's Office regulated to prevent interference in individual cases? Were any examples where the Public Prosecutor's Office had opposed recommendations by the Government? What formal guarantees of security of tenure existed for prosecutors?
How many people had benefitted from legal aid in criminal, civil and administrative matters in recent years? What was the average processing time for applications for legal aid? What measures were being taken to ensure that legal aid was available in practice, including outside major urban centres? How was it ensured that no person was prevented from accessing justice for financial reasons? Did the right to interpretation also extend to the translation of essential judicial documents? What measures ensured effective communication with persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities in judicial proceedings?
What concrete and targeted measures had been adopted to ensure that persons with disabilities could vote independently and secretly, and participate meaningfully in elections and public decision-making? What measures had been taken to promote the representation and participation of women with disabilities in political life? How had civic participation mechanisms influenced recent public policy decisions? What proportion of participants or contributions came from traditionally underrepresented groups? Were discussions under way regarding extending political rights, including the right to vote in national elections and eligibility for public office, to foreigners residing in Andorra? What accessibility measures had been implemented for the various civic participation tools, including for persons with disabilities, residents of remote areas, non-Catalan speakers and low-income groups?
A Committee Expert welcomed the actions taken by the State party to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, such as the adoption of the strategic policy on combatting trafficking in human beings in 2021; the broadening of the scope of crimes of trafficking in human beings to include forced labour, forced services and forced begging in 2022; the adoption of a specific legal provision on the non-punishment of victims of trafficking in victims; and strengthening of the Labor inspectorate to identify victims of trafficking.
However, there were reportedly still risks of labour exploitation in the State party, particularly in domestic work, seasonal work, construction and agricultural sectors. What measures were in place to undertake research and analysis on trafficking to inform future policy measures; expand the labour inspectorate’s mandate to cover domestic work, temporary work and work carried out by migrants; increase the number of inspections carried out at the inspectorate’s own initiative in sectors considered to be at risk from labour exploitation and trafficking; set up safe reporting mechanisms and effective complaint mechanisms for workers; review the restrictive conditions governing access to residence permits for trafficking victims; adopt additional measures to detect and identify potential victims of trafficking; and involve civil society organizations in monitoring and implementation of anti-trafficking policies? Could data be provided on the number of cases lodged in courts; investigations initiated and of persons prosecuted for trafficking crimes and convictions, and the number of adequate remedies provided during the reporting period?
The State party had not yet put in place laws for the granting of asylum or refugee status and had not established a system for providing sustainable refugee protection. What steps would the State party take to accede to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, and to the 1954 and 1961 Conventions relating to Statelessness, and to ensure access to international protection for persons seeking asylum, including children? Had there been any progress in developing a legal framework governing asylum, refugee status determination and international protection, including enshrining the principle of non-refoulement? What measures had the State Party adopted to develop a legal framework and related procedures for determining statelessness, including a simplified naturalisation procedure, and for ensuring respect for the fundamental rights of stateless persons?
One Committee Expert asked whether the State party had analysed the possible impact that a general ban on conspicuous religious signs could have on students. Under a 2022 decree, students could continue their schooling online. Did this imply that certain students needed to abandon face-to-face teaching to exercise their religious freedom? Had complaints or appeals been filed related to the application of this ban? What mechanism was available for students or families to challenge decisions taken under this regulation?
Could data be provided on the number of complaints, investigations and convictions regarding cases of sexual violence and exploitation against children, including those facilitated by digital technologies? Had the State evaluated the impact of its related protocols and awareness-raising campaigns?
The State party was reportedly discussing raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility, currently set at 12 years. Was a specific timetable for increasing this age? The maximum duration of pre-trial detention of minors was currently set at 90 days. Had the State party considered reviewing this? How many children and adolescents were currently staying at the La Gavernera shelter? What was the average length of stay and what independent monitoring mechanisms and complaint channels for minors were in place?
Did the State party hold consultations with representatives of civil society when preparing its report? Were there institutional mechanisms for consultations regarding reports to treaty bodies, and were there any initiatives envisaged to disseminate the Covenant and the Committee's future recommendations in educational or training fields, beyond their publication online?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Andorra fully recognised that women’s rights, including sexual and reproductive health rights, formed an integral part of the human rights framework in the Covenant. Andorra ensured that no woman was left without information, medical guidance and professional support. The State had taken concrete steps to guarantee access to counselling, health care and accompaniment in practice. It sought to place women’s interests, rights, dignity and well-being at the centre of public policies. The Women’s Care Service established in 2020 was dedicated to women’s sexual and reproductive health.
No woman had at any time in Andorra’s history had been prosecuted, convicted or criminally sanctioned for voluntarily terminating a pregnancy, and the Government was actively working to remove the criminalisation of women who voluntarily terminated their pregnancy in the Criminal Code. A ministry of institutional relations was established to give dedicated political and diplomatic attention to this topic. Andorra was a small country with just one hospital serving the entire population. Thus, certain medical treatments such as chemotherapy were carried out abroad. In practical terms, travelling abroad involved distances that were shorter than domestic travel within larger countries, as the country spanned just roughly 30 kilometres. Within this context, the State worked to ensure that women were supported, informed and accompanied when seeking medical treatment abroad, with full respect for their dignity.
In the Vanessa Mendoza case, the Government had not acted against her because she was a human rights defender; it had responded to her demonstrations, which jeopardised the work of civil servants. This was why proceedings were brought against her, which ended in an acquittal by the courts, which was why no compensation was owed. The Government had later recruited her for public sector functions. Andorra had active civil society organizations, including three organizations making legitimate claims for the decriminalisation of abortion, which worked with the Andorran Women’s Institute.
The State party consulted with relevant associations when preparing reports for treaty bodies; it always consulted with the Ombudsperson. Recommendations by the Committee were, when possible, integrated into the social realm and human rights education at various levels.
Climate change could affect the right to life. Over the last three years, average temperatures in Andorra had been 1.5 degrees Celsius higher compared to the average between 1989 and 2011. The Constitution enshrined authorities’ responsibilities to protect the environment. Andorra was a mountainous country that contributed only 0.001 per cent of global emissions. Andorra aimed to reduce emissions by 60 per cent from 2005 to 2035. Law 21 of 2018 on the promotion of the energy transition was a key pillar of the State’s climate policy. Last year, a landslide had caused the closure of the road that linked Andorra to France, and the State’s authorities had aided the impacted French cities.
Andorra had a programme to assist the reconstruction of buildings to make them more energy efficient, and the State’s public transport system had been made free since 2022. There were monitoring and prevention measures for avalanches. The State aimed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and had a programme that promoted climate adaption and resilience. It was monitoring implementation of climate action proposals made in 2014; 11 of these had been carried out with positive results. The National Energy and Climate Change Commission had around 40 members, including stakeholders from the private sector and members of non-governmental organizations.
The Criminal Code stated that the crimes of torture, genocide, and crimes against humanity were not subject to the statute of limitations. The State party had not made plans to review penalties for acts of torture but welcomed the Committee’s recommendations in this regard. The Public Prosecutor’s Office had not received many complaints of torture or ill-treatment over the reporting period. The Superior Council of Justice was making improvements to data collection related to these offences.
Law 31 of 2021 aimed to preserve and maintain public security. It called for a simple notification to authorities prior to public assemblies; this was not an authorisation process. These notifications were in place to ensure that demonstrations did not affect economic activity and the rights of participants. If necessary, authorities called on demonstrators to change planned routes of demonstrations.
A draft reform to the 2018 law on trade unions was currently being discussed in Parliament. This reform aimed to encourage the establishment of new staff representative bodies and collective bargaining, in line with the constitutional right of employees to defend their economic rights. The draft law also regulated the legitimate exercise of the right to strike and prohibited the replacement of striking workers. Administrations could intervene when strikes had an impact on key economic services. The 2018 law on trade unions recognised the rights of all workers to establish trade unions and join them freely.
A draft bill was before Parliament which aimed to reduce the length of pre-trial detention, except in cases of convictions for serious offences. The bill eliminated the possibility of solitary confinement of minors. In practice, no minor was placed in solitary confinement unless doing so was necessary to protect the security of the individual.
Detainees had the right to access a lawyer from the moment of detention. Police informed detainees of their rights when they were detained, including their right to a lawyer. Persons who did not understand Catalan could contact an interpreter.
The State party was not aware of cases of persons with disabilities being subjected to forced treatment; they could only be subjected to such treatments if their life was in danger.
The Ministry of Social Affairs had made agreements with electricity distribution companies to establish a subsidised price for vulnerable families. The State covered vulnerable families’ additional heating costs during the winter period and in some cases covered all energy costs.
Law 10 of 2022 on displaying religious symbols was not a restriction; it promoted coexistence and did not provide arbitrary power to the State. School governing boards decided on rules to be implemented in this regard, taking the community’s views into consideration. Any punishment for displaying religious symbols was a last resort. The Government provided quality online education, which could be used in cases where pupils did not wish to attend in-person education.
Criminalisation of defamation was exceptional. The State did not wish to discourage public debate or criticism of public officials. It was working to strike a balance between freedom of expression and protecting individuals’ reputations and welcomed the Committee’s recommendations in this regard.
Under 2015 legislation on gender-based violence, the State party trained professionals and interested citizens on detecting and responding to such violence. In 2025, 359 women had used the support service for violence victims; 115 of these women subsequently decided to make a formal complaint about the incident. Women were referred to temporary shelters, which provided accommodation for between three and six months. Women in these shelters received money to cover basic needs, psychological support and legal aid. Andorra did not have a specific court for dealing with gender-based violence cases, but judicial practitioners were trained in assessing these cases and preventing revictimization. The State also did not have a specific national plan to combat gender-based violence but had protocols for coordinating support for women who made complaints. Amendments to Act One of 2015 allowed women who were recognised as victims of gender-based violence to be compensated.
When officials suspected that they had encountered a victim of trafficking, they notified the prosecution service, which investigated the case. Persons found to be victims were given shelter, psychological and legal support. Andorra had a working group on trafficking in persons, which was working to increase officials’ capacities to detect cases of trafficking. There were currently no civil society organizations working on trafficking in Andorra.
The State party provided social, psychological and legal support to refugees, who were given special work permits. After two years living in the country, refugees could access ordinary work permits and the same social benefits as citizens.
The minimum age of criminal responsibility was 12 and detention of minors was treated as a last resort. The last minor taken into custody was in 2017. Offenders aged between 12 and 18 could be required to carry out community service or be kept in an open regime with their families. Social educational activities lasted for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years. Community service could be imposed for between 30 and 150 hours; it could not unduly encroach the child’s education or exceed six hours per day. The La Gavernera facility currently housed 24 children. This was an open facility; children staying there could attend school, go to the doctors, see their families, and participate in extracurricular activities.
Follow-Up Questions by Committee Experts
Committee Experts asked follow-up questions on plans to accede to international conventions on refugees and statelessness and establish a legal framework governing asylum; whether the State party would make a public apology related to its actions related to Vanessa Mendoza, and whether the Committee could be provided with information on the ruling in this case; whether persons who had been subjected to unfair accusations by the State could claim compensation; why no members of civil society from Andorra had participated in the dialogue; measures to ensure that public demonstrations could be held respectfully and peacefully; and how the State party ensured access to digital platforms and citizenship participation fora for foreigners, persons with disabilities and members of low-income groups.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Andorra currently did not plan to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and its Protocol, due to a lack of technical resources. The State’s law established protection for refugees for two years. Some Syrian and Ukrainian refugees had obtained residence and work permits in Andorra.
Andorra had a dynamic civil society that participated in the preparation of reports for international treaty bodies. Civil society organizations in Andorra were small and had limited budgets, which limited their participation in dialogues with treaty bodies.
The proceedings that were triggered against Vanessa Mendoza did not relate to legitimate claims regarding the decriminalisation of abortion.
There were 15 cells for detainees in police custody. Detainees had access to a bathroom, water and food. All health care professionals who worked in prisons, including full time professional psychologists, came from the public health care service. All interpretation costs for detainees were covered by the State. Some changes to the average length of pre-trial detention were currently being considered in Parliament.
Andorra had been able to ensure that 100 per cent of persons with disabilities in its territory were able to vote on equal footing. In 2023, the State party adopted regulations regarding assistance for persons with disabilities in voting procedures.
Closing Statements
FERRAN COSTA MARIMON, Permanent Representative of Andorra in Geneva and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the constructive and engaging dialogue. The Committee’s concluding observations assisted the State party in identifying priorities, refining the legal and institutional framework and strengthening the protection of civil and political rights. Implementation of the Covenant was not a static objective but an ongoing process, requiring sustained commitment and a readiness to adapt to social change. The dialogue reflected Andorra’s commitment to multilateralism and the treaty body system. Open and rigorous scrutiny strengthened the State’s institutions and benefited the State party. Once the concluding observations were adopted, Andorra would examine them carefully and in a constructive spirit. It remained fully committed to the good-faith implementation of the Covenant and to continued cooperation with the Committee.
CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chairperson, said the dialogue had addressed key aspects of implementation of the Covenant in Andorra. He commended the State party on progress in several areas, including the legislative framework on equality and gender-based violence, efforts to promote inclusive education, and recent steps taken to strengthen the Ombudsperson’s mandate. However, discussions also highlighted the absence of a national human rights institution compliant with the Paris Principles, the limited availability of measurable data on equality and anti-discrimination, the need for a comprehensive asylum framework, low conviction rates in cases of gender-based violence, and the continued criminalisation of abortion. The Committee welcomed the State party’s engagement with the treaty body system and encouraged its continued cooperation in future reporting cycles.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the 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.
CCPR26.002E