A/76/380 influences children’s thoughts, but require “harm” to establish impermissible influence within parent-child relationships. 38. Children’s heightened brain plasticity increases their vulnerability to coercive alteration of their thoughts. Recently, the Committee on the Rights o f the Child urged State parties to identify, define and prohibit digital practices that “manipulate or interfere with” children’s freedom of thought, including “automated systems or information filtering systems” that can “affect or influence children’s be haviour or emotions”. 68 39. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, article 5 (1) of the American Convention on Human Rights and various national constitutions, including those of Serbia and Switzerland, protect the “mental integrity” of individuals, 69 which some interpret as a right against “significant, non-consensual interference with one’s mind”, including manipulation. 70 Relevant courts have not yet elaborated on this point. 4. An enabling environment for free thought 40. The Special Rapporteur recalls that United Nations treaty bodies have developed a tripartite understanding of State responsibilities for human rights – namely, obligations to respect, protect and fulfil rights, entailing both negative duties (of restraint) and positive obligations. 71 Several stakeholders further claim that States have positive obligations towards freedom of thought, akin to other rights, including a duty to create an enabling environment for the freedom. 72 However, it is uncertain what this would entail. 41. Some postulate that facilitating societal or institutional conditions to make someone capable of “thinking” in the first place, are not necessarily legal obligations under freedom of thought. 73 Others warn against empowering States to determine what the “ideal” conditions for free thought are and warn that States may use this purported legal “obligation” to justify authoritarian control over channels of communication and information, such as enacting mass propaganda and re-education campaigns. 74 In any event, States parties presently have positive legal obligations arising from other human rights, which could significantly further the enjoyment of freedom of thought. 42. Freedom to access information and communication. Under freedom of thought, there is potentially a legal basis for claiming that States are obliged to provide access to information and communication. In Nurbek Toktakunov v. Kyrgyzstan, the Human Rights Committee found that the “right to fre edom of thought and expression includes the protection of the right of access to State -held information”, endorsing the claimant’s (previously rejected) request for government death penalty statistics. 75 Interestingly, this verdict reflects both the formulation and __________________ 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 12/28 Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment (CRC/C/GC/25), para. 62. See https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/3-right-integrity-person; see also www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Serbia_2006.pdf?lang=en. See, e.g., https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-69277-3_8; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2019.00019/full ; and https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2996&context=articles. See https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/factsheet15rev.1en.pdf , p. 5. Submissions from ANAJURE and from deMens.nu. Consultations on legal framework and on intellectual freedom. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2124014, p. 10. Consultation on intellectual freedom. CCPR/C/101/D/1470/2006, para. 7.4. 21-14191