A/70/286 the child, as enshrined in article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, and that the child h as a natural interest in living in a family together with his or her parents. That does not preclude conflicts of interests, in particular when the child grows up and tries to become more independent. Moreover, situations may emerge in which the best interests of the child may actually require State interventions to protect him or her, for example against neglect, domestic violence or harmful practices. Intervening measures must always be carried out with empirical and normative diligence and furthermore they are connected to substantive and procedural safeguards. 5 2. No obligation to provide a religiously “neutral” upbringing 35. Other critics have questioned the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child from the opposite angle by contending that it allegedly gives too much weight to parental rights, in particular in the context of freedom of religion or belief. In order for the child to fully retain the right to free choice in questions of religion or belief, it has been argued that parents should not be allowed to determine the child’s religious identity by initiating the child into any particular religion. The idea seems to be that the child should rather grow up in a more or less religiously “neutral” environment, in order to preserve all options of his or her future selfdetermination. Sometimes such demands are presented in the name of the chi ld’s “right to an open future”. 6 36. Freedom of religion or belief indeed facilitates an open development by guaranteeing everyone’s freedom to “change” one’s religion or belief 7 and to “have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice”. 8 In the course of their personal development, individuals, including children, can modify, change or even abandon their religion or belief. However, that does not presuppose a right of the child to grow up in a religiously “neutral” family environment, let alone a right possibly enforced by the State against parents. The principle of “neutrality” can meaningfully be invoked only against States in order to remind them of their obligation to exercise fairness, impartiality and inclusivity and in this specific sense “neutrality”, when dealing with diversity of religion or belief. By contrast, parents cannot be obliged by the State to remain religiously “neutral” when raising their children. 37. Some parents may take a deliberate decision not to socialize their children in a religious manner. Of course, such a decision must be respected as falling within their parental rights, however, that cannot serve as the general model to be promoted, let alone enforced, by the State. Attempts made by the State to enforce a religiously “neutral” upbringing of children within their families would amount to a far-reaching violation of parental rights to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined, inter alia, in article 14, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 38. For many believers, religion represents an all-encompassing reality which permeates all spheres of life. Religious rituals and ceremonies may thus be involved __________________ 5 6 7 8 10/22 For details see below, section III.D. In that regard, reference is often made to an emblematic article by Joel Feinberg, “The child’s right to an open future” in Whose Child? Children’s Rights, Parental Authority, and State Power, William Aiken and Hugh LaFollette, eds. (Totowa, New Jersey, Rowman and Littlefield, 1980). Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly refers to “freedom to change his religion or belief”. See article 18, paras. 1 and 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 15-12514