A/HRC/34/50 inharmonious, it is erroneous to assume that these rights are incompatible. Such an assumption runs the risk of overstating the tensions between these two rights at the normative level, weakening critical protection gaps and foreclosing the potential for constructive and synergistic exchange (see A/68/290). It is unquestionable that instances of forced marriage, female genital mutilation, forced conversion, honour killing, enforced ritual prostitution, sexual slavery, trafficking and over-policing of dress codes, and the denial of educational and employment opportunities, have all been justified on the basis of religious traditions. The Special Rapporteur fully agrees with previous mandate holders that the right to freedom of religion or belief can never be used to justify violations of the rights of women and girls, and that “it can no longer be taboo to demand that women’s rights take priority over intolerant beliefs used to justify gender discrimination” (see A/65/207, para. 69; A/66/156, para. 16; A/68/290, para. 30; A/HRC/16/53, para. 16; and A/HRC/19/60/Add.1, para. 44). Acknowledging and rebuking these practices, however, does not mean tacitly accepting an inherent incompatibility between the right to freedom of religion or belief and gender equality. Instead, the two should be understood in a holistic manner as mutually reinforcing human rights norms (see A/68/290, paras. 19 and 66). 51. The right of children to freedom of religion or belief is violated in myriad ways by both State agencies and non-State actors. Human rights abuses affecting children often tend to be intersectional, such as the abduction and forced conversion of girls from religious minority communities by armed groups. According to article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion encompasses rights and duties of parents or legal guardians “to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” Indeed, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its general comment No. 12 (2009), acknowledged that, in order for the rights of the child to be fully realized, their right to be heard in all matters affecting their well-being and welfare, including matters related to freedom of religion or belief, must be respected alongside their right to seek and receive direction and guidance from their parents or legal guardians, which can compensate for their lack of knowledge, experience and understanding and may be restricted by their evolving capacities. 52. Religious persecution often results in displacement and a surge in refugee populations of an extremely large scale. Asylum seekers and internally displaced persons must benefit from the right to freedom of religion or belief and other human rights guarantees not only because they enjoy the same protections as others, but because they are in a particularly vulnerable situation and often at a disadvantage in asserting their rights owing to displacement or migration, or lack of familiarity with the host language and political, social and legal context (see A/62/280). 53. The Special Rapporteur notes with concern the increasing number of reports regarding the failure of States, including those who are party to the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to provide protections to asylum seekers who fear return to their country of origin because of fear of persecution based on religion or belief. This failure includes the practice of refoulement, or forcible return, of refugees who fear persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion. As noted by various international mechanisms, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture and the European Court of Human Rights, there is a strict prohibition in international law on refoulement: article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 3 of the Convention against Torture and article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights are non-derogable. The aforementioned treaty bodies, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, have affirmed the jus cogens character of the non-refoulement principle where an asylum seeker faces serious risk of torture or related ill-treatment. An issue that merits special mention is increasing intolerance of refugees and asylum seekers of a particular religious affiliation in order to, 16