A/70/286 contained in article 18, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is reiterated. B. The interrelatedness of the rights of the child to freedom of religion or belief and parental rights 27. The relationship between the rights of the child and parental rights in the area of freedom of religion or belief has given rise to controversies. On the one hand, fears have been expressed that the status of the child as a rights holder might undermine parental rights, thus opening the floodgates for far-reaching interference by State agencies in the religious socialization of children. On the other hand, there exist views that parents should be obliged to provide a religiously “neutral” upbringing of their children. With the following clarifications, the Special Rapporteur would like to contribute to a holistic understanding of the rights of the child and parental rights in their normative interrelatedness, withou t ignoring possible conflicts. 1. No legitimate pretext for eroding parental rights 28. Some critics of article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child have voiced concerns that the explicit recognition of the child ’s freedom of religion or belief in the Convention might lead to an erosion of pare ntal rights and undermine the specific responsibility that parents have in the religious socialization of their children. That has been among the reasons for some States entering reservations or explanatory declarations concerning article 14 when ratifying or acceding to the Convention. The Special Rapporteur is convinced that such anxieties cannot be sustained on the basis of an appropriate reading of the Convention, seen in conjunction with other relevant international standards. 29. Fears that some State agencies could be tempted to use the child’s right to freedom of religion or belief as a pretext for undue interference are generally understandable. As a matter of fact, in some countries, far -reaching State interventions into families in the spheres of religious initiation, socialization and education of children actually do occur — at times also by invoking an alleged interest of the child. Such problematic State interventions disproportionately affect families belonging to religious minorities, new religious movements or small communities often stigmatized as “sects”. Depending on the country, families not professing any religion may also be under increased threat of undue State interference. In extreme cases, children have been taken away from their fa milies, for instance under the pretext of saving them from ill-defined “superstitious” religions — a pretext often invoked against indigenous families in the past. 30. Converts constitute another particularly vulnerable group. In particular, in States that privilege a certain religion as the official or State religion, parents converting away from that hegemonic religion run the risk of being alienated or even separated from their children. Possibly starting with adverse comments by teachers in kindergartens and schools, such alienation can climax in a formal loss of custody rights, for instance when a divorce takes place. Official documents issued for children do not always reflect the new religious orientation of parents after conversion, thus leading to different religions being ascribed to the parents and the children, often against the explicit will of both. 8/22 15-12514