A/70/286 effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children”. 59. Moreover, the right to education has the component of compulsory primary education, which by implication can also be enforced against the will of the parents or guardians (article 28, paragraph 1 (a), of the Convention). With regard to adolescents, the Committee on the Rights of the Child emphasizes that States parties should provide them “with access to sexual and reproductive information, including on family planning and contraception, the dangers of early pregnancy, the prevention of HIV/AIDS and the prevention and treatment of sexuall y transmitted diseases (STDs).” 12 In that context the Committee insists that adolescents should “have access to appropriate information, regardless of … whether their p arents or guardians consent.” 12 60. State interventions should always be carried out with the purpose of supporting families in fulfilling their task of providing a suitable environment for the flourishing of the rights of the child, to the maximum degree possible. It is in that spirit that article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, calls, inter alia, for “the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child ”. Separating a child from his or her parents against their will in order to protect the best interests of the child must remain the ultimate resort. As the Committee on the Rights of the Child has pointed out in its general comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration: “Given the gravity of the impact on the child of separation from his or her parents, such separation should only occur as a last resort measure, as when the child is in danger of experiencing imminent harm or when otherwise necessary; separation should not take place if less intrusive measures could protect the chi ld.” Under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention, “competent authorities subject to judicial review” have to “determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child”. Even in such a situation, the child should be able to “maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child ’s best interests” (article 9, paragraph 3). 61. The Special Rapporteur sees a need to stress that this understanding must also guide the handling of cases involving religious minorities. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. When dealing with religious minorities, small communities or new movements, often branded as “sects”, some State agencies seem to operate on the assumption that, in case of doubt, children should be separated from their parents. Lack of diligence and respect, possibly based on prejudice, is thus a source of major human rights concerns, also from the perspective of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 62. In some situations, State interventions may actually prove necessary to safeguard the best interests of the child, for instance if the child ’s rights to life, health or education are imperilled. However, any such situation warrants a careful empirical and normative assessment. Empirical diligence is needed, inter alia, to avoid stereotypical ascriptions, possibly based on rumours, overgeneralizations or merely abstract, possibly far-fetched fears. Members of small religious communities __________________ 12 16/22 General comment no. 4 (2003) on adolescent health and development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 15-12514