A/70/286 31. Thus, there can be no doubt that the erosion of parental rights by undue State interference is a serious problem and a source of grave violati ons of freedom of religion or belief. That problem requires systematic attention. It is furthermore true that some States may use the rhetoric of superficial child rights in an attempt to “justify” such interference. However, based on an appropriate understanding of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the fear that article 14 of the Convention could legitimize the erosion of parental rights seems unsubstantiated. Instead of being part of the problem, the Convention can and should be part of the solut ion. In conjunction with other human rights instruments, article 14 can help to tackle the problem of abusive State interventions. Rather than eroding parental rights in the sphere of freedom of religion or belief, article 14 corroborates, and at the same time further qualifies, those rights by acknowledging their significance from the specific perspective of the rights of the child. Moreover, the Convention gives the child, his or her parents and other family members a strong position in pursuing their hum an rights-based interests. When it comes to families belonging to religious minorities, article 30 of the Convention can be used in combination with article 14 in order to strengthen further the claims of persons belonging to minorities against unjustified interventions. 32. Earlier provisions of freedom of religion or belief remain fully valid. That includes article 18, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which provides that the States parties “undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformit y with their own convictions.” 3 Whereas the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights focuses on the rights of parents, the Convention on the Rights of the Child combines parental rights and the rights of the child to freedom of religion or belief. 4 That reflects an increased awareness, manifested in the Convention, of the status of the child as a rights holder. 33. While article 18, paragraph 4, of the Covenant should be interpreted in the light of the Convention, with its explicit focus on the interrelatedness of parental and child rights, article 14, paragraph 2, of the Convention should, vice versa, b e seen in continuity with article 18, paragraph 4, of the Covenant, which remains fully valid. Indeed, the liberty of parents or legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions continues to constitute a human-rights based claim which is far from redundant, since the parental right to provide “direction” to the child in his or her exercise of freedom of religion or belief includes the religious socialization of the child, albeit neither in an unchangeable way nor in a manner inconsistent with the evolving capacities of the child. 34. In practice, the right of the child to freedom of religion or belief and parental rights to provide direction to the child in that regard should be seen as la rgely, although not always, consonant. The Convention on the Rights of the Child operates on the assumption that parents serve as the natural custodians of the best interests of __________________ 3 4 15-12514 See also similar wording in article 13, para. 3, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and article 12, para. 4, of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. See also article 5, para. 2, of the 1981 Declaration, which more narrowly focuses on access to education in matters of religion or belief. In that context, the Declaration refers to parental rights and the best interests of the child. 9/22