Andorra

Andorra is a co-Principality with a democratic parliamentary system. The President of France and the Spanish Bishop of Urgell are co-princes of Andorra, who hold honorary positions as heads of state.[ref]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17028050[/ref]

With a population of 78,000,[ref]https://www.estadistica.ad/serveiestudis/web/index.asp?lang=4[/ref] Roman Catholicism is the predominant religion in the country and benefits from a privileged status not enjoyed by other religious groups. Recent census data did not detail the religious demography of the country, however, there are small Muslim and Jewish minorities living in the country.[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/country/andorra/freedom-world/2020[/ref]

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted
Official symbolic deference to religion
No condition holds in this strand
Constitution and government
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Official symbolic deference to religion
Education and children’s rights
No condition holds in this strand
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Severe Discrimination
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
No Rating
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

The Constitution[ref]https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ad/ad001en.pdf[/ref] and other laws and policies protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

Catholic privilege

The Constitution grants a special status to the Catholic Church “in accordance with Andorran tradition” and recognizes the “full legal capacity” of the bodies of the Catholic Church, granting them legal status “in accordance with their own rules” (Article 11).

The Catholic Bishop of Urgell (a diocese that is mostly in Spain but also includes Andorra) automatically serves as one of the two princes of the country (the Bishop of Urgell serves equally as joint head of state with the president of France).

The Catholic Church also receives some special privileges not available to other religious groups; for example, the government pays the salaries of the Catholic priests.

Other religion or belief groups are not legally recognized by the State, which has consistently failed to adequately respond to requests of members of the Muslim and Jewish community to build places of worship and cemeteries. The government registers all other religion or belief groups as cultural entities under the law of associations.[ref]https://preview.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-ANDORRA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Owing to strict citizenship laws, an estimated 50% of the population are non-citizens with limited rights. However, Roman Catholic priests appear to be granted citizenship as a matter of course, provided they minister in the country.[ref]https://preview.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-ANDORRA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Education and children’s rights

Instruction in the Catholic faith is optional in public schools. The Catholic Church provides teachers for religion classes, and the government pays their salaries. The Ministry of Education also provides space in public schools for Catholic religious instruction.[ref]https://preview.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-ANDORRA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

In 2020, the government is reported to have funded three public Catholic schools at the primary and secondary level. Although the schools are open to students of all faiths, Catholic instruction is mandatory.[ref]https://preview.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/240282-ANDORRA-2020-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref]

Family, community and society

Sexual health and reproductive rights

Andorra maintains a complete ban on abortion, providing criminal penalties for doctors and women involved in any such procedure.[ref]https://www.eldiario.es/catalunya/andorra-bastion-catolico-aborto-castiga_1_1331304.html[/ref] Public demonstrations calling for a liberalization of the legislation garnered thousands of participants.[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/country/andorra/freedom-world/2020[/ref]

As calls for the legalization of abortion have grown in the country, the Catholic Church has sought to influence decision-makers by threatening to withdraw the Bishop of Urgell as Co-Prince.[ref]https://laicismo.org/andorra-vota-dividida-y-con-el-obispo-de-urgell-amagando-con-renunciar-al-cargo-de-coprincipe-si-se-aprueba-el-aborto/196580[/ref]

Activists in favour of the legalization of abortion have faced prosecution under the country’s defamation laws.

Freedom of expression and advocacy of humanist values

Media freedom

According to Freedom House, “While press freedom is generally respected, business, political, and religious interests have historically influenced media coverage.”[ref]https://freedomhouse.org/country/andorra/freedom-world/2020[/ref] Reporters Without Borders elaborates on this further in its 2021 World Press Freedom report stating,

“The financial sector is still powerful and the all-pervasive influence of the principality’s three overlapping pillars – state, private sector and the Catholic Church – continues to condition[influence?] the media environment. The problem is compounded by the microstate’s size, which leaves little room for privacy, anonymity and independence, three indispensable conditions for press freedom. […] The relationship between government and media is not very transparent and follows the model of close but opaque links that characterises governance in general in Andorra.”[ref]https://rsf.org/en/andorra[/ref]

Blasphemy

Under Article 339 of the Criminal Code (2005),[ref]https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/uploads/res/document/and/2005/penal_code_of_andorra_html/Andorra_Code_Penal_Fr.pdf[/ref] “anyone who, with intent to insult and in public, commits acts or utters statements which are seriously offensive for members of a religious, national or ethnic, trade union, political, or of persons professing a belief or ideology group shall be punished by a term of imprisonment.”

There is no evidence to suggest that this provision is enforced, however.[ref]https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2020%20Blasphemy%20Enforcement%20Report%20_final_0.pdf[/ref]

Stifling dissent

Defamation remains a criminal offence in Andorra, punishable by up to four years in prison depending on who has been defamed.[ref]http://legaldb.freemedia.at/legal-database/andorra/[/ref]

In July 2020, Vanessa Mendoza Cortés – president of the women’s rights organization Association Stop Violence (Associació Stop Violències, in Catalan) – was charged with criminal defamation after she had presented her expert opinion on the situation of the protection of women and girls and the harmful impact of the current full ban on abortion in Andorra, to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.[ref]https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/EUR1236842021ENGLISH.pdf[/ref] The authorities argued that she was tarnishing the prestige of the government. Among the evidence used against her were media statements by Vanessa Mendoza Cortés expressing critical opinions of the government on issues relating to the protection of women and girls, and criticizing the position of the Bishop of Urgell and Co-Prince of Andorra against the decriminalization of abortion in Andorra.