CAT/C/LIE/CO/3 Juvenile justice 27. Recalling information by the State party that Vaduz National Prison was not designed for the detention of juveniles, the Committee notes with concern information in the Annual Report 2009 of the Corrections Commission that, during the last quarter of 2009, juveniles, including one female person, were held in Vaduz National Prison, contrary to the principle of separation between adults and juveniles in accordance with international human rights standards. Also, while appreciating the reduction of the maximum length of pretrial detention for children under the age of 18 (art. 19, para. 2, of Juvenile Court Act), the Committee is concerned that it remains high (one year). The Committee is furthermore concerned that some juveniles sentenced to imprisonment serve their sentences in Austria according to the 1982 bilateral treaty, which does not contain any safeguards for special protection for persons under the age of 18 years. The Committee reminds the State party that deprivation of liberty, and in particular pretrial detention, of juveniles should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time (arts. 11 and 16). The Committee recommends that the State party expands and reinforces alternative measures other than deprivation of liberty for children below the age of 18 in pretrial detention and in prison. In particular, in upholding the principle of separation of juveniles from adults, the State party should ensure that alternative measures are applied for persons under the age of 18 currently held in Vaduz National Prison and for the juvenile currently serving a sentence in Austria. It is recommended that the State party further reduce the maximum length of pretrial detention of juveniles by amending the Juvenile Court Act. 28. The Committee notes with concern that the State party does not intend to amend the Juvenile Court Act (sect. 21a, of the Juvenile Court Act), according to which a person of trust is present during the questioning of a juvenile by the police (or a judge) only if the juvenile so requests. The Committee believes that the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance should not be limited to the trial before the court or other judicial body, but also apply to all other stages of the process, beginning with the interviewing (interrogation) of the child by the police as is stated in general comment No. 10 (2007) on children’s rights in juvenile justice of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (para. 52) (arts. 11 and 16). The State party is urged to change its position and amend article 21 of the Juvenile Court Act with a view to ensuring the presence of a person of trust during interrogation or questioning by police of children under the age of 18 without any request of the juvenile. Involuntary civil placement 29. The Committee is concerned that the right of persons under involuntary placement to give their consent to treatment and the right to request at any time their own discharge from a psychiatric or social welfare establishment are not explicitly guaranteed by law. In this respect, the Committee notes with appreciation that the State party is considering a formulation regarding the right to request at any time one’s own discharge as part of a future revision of the Social Welfare Act and that the courts interpret the provisions of article 13, paragraph 2, of the Social Welfare Act as empowering such persons to request their own discharge (arts. 2 and 16). It is strongly recommended that the State party amend the Social Welfare Act so as to expressly provide for the right of persons deprived of their liberty in involuntary civil placements to request at any time their discharge. 9