A/68/290 assume unequal rights concerning family property and inheritance; they may give the husband a privileged legal position in issues of child custody; and some of these laws allow men to contract polygamous marriages. 64. While from the perspective of equality between men and women the critical focus will naturally fall on discriminatory gender roles existing in many denominational family laws, one also has to address the problem of State enforcement of religious norms. The enforcement of religious norms by State agencies necessarily gives rise to critical questions from the perspective of freedom of religion or belief, which is a right of human beings, not of States. In most (not all) such systems, State enforcement of denominational family laws accommodates a certain degree of religious pluralism. Accordingly, members of different religious communities, including recognized minorities, can regulate their family-related legal affairs in conformity with the normative precepts of their own religious traditions. In spite of pluralistic conceptualizations, however, the element of State enforcement of denominational family laws remains problematic from the perspective of freedom of religion or belief. Although each of the existing systems would require an assessment based on their specific merits, systems of State enforced denominational family laws typically fail to do justice to the human rights of persons living outside of the recognized religious communities, for example atheists or agnostics, members of small religions or new religious movements. However, as the Human Rights Committee has pointed out, article 18 of the International Covenant “protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions.” 14 65. Moreover, individuals may change their religious orientations. The freedom to do so constitutes an integral part of the forum internum dimension of freedom of religion or belief. However, this right can hardly be appropriately accommodated within a system of State-enforced denominational family laws. Many of the resulting problems concern women. For instance, it happens that women stemming from religious minorities who have converted in the context of a marriage wish to reconvert to their previous religion when the marriage breaks down. When trying to do so, they may encounter enormous difficulties in securing the right to have custody of their children. Losing custody of a child can be one of the worst experiences for a parent. This is only one example of serious human rights problems in this field in which violations of freedom of religion or belief and discrimination against women coincide. 66. It should be noted in this context that there have also been cases of custody denials based on prejudices against certain religious minorities within secular family law systems. This shows the need for sensitizing judges and other professionals dealing with such matters in all systems of family law. At the same time, there is a clear need for structural reforms in order to close relevant protection gaps. What is required in order to overcome the risk of human rights violations in this important field is family law systems that unequivocally respect the equality of men and women while at the same time doing justice to the broad reality of diversity of religion or belief, including persuasions beyond the realm of traditionally __________________ 14 18/22 See CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, para. 2. 13-42191