28/40 Summary of the Human Rights Council panel discussion on the protection of the family - Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

GE.14-24775 (E)



Human Rights Council Twenty-eighth session

Agenda items 2 and 3

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the

High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,

political, economic, social and cultural rights,

including the right to development

Summary of the Human Rights Council panel discussion on the protection of the family

Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights

Summary

The present report contains a summary of the Human Rights Council panel

discussion on the protection of the family and its members, which was held to address the

implementation of States’ obligations under relevant provisions of international human

rights law and to discuss challenges and best practices in that regard. The discussion took

place on 15 September 2014 during the twenty-seventh session of the Human Rights

Council, having been mandated in resolution 26/11 adopted on 26 June 2014 during the

twenty-sixth session of the Council.

Contents

Paragraphs Page

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1–4 3

II. Summary of the discussion ..................................................................................... 5–30 3

A. Opening statement .......................................................................................... 5–8 3

B. Presentations of the panellists ........................................................................ 9–16 4

C. Interventions by Council members, observer States and other observers ....... 17–30 6

III. Responses of the panellists ...................................................................................... 31–35 8

I. Introduction

1. On 26 June 2014, at its twenty-sixth session, the Human Rights Council adopted

resolution 26/11, in which it decided to convene a panel discussion on the protection of the

family and its members in order to address the implementation of States’ obligations under

relevant provisions of international human rights law and discuss challenges and best

practices in that regard.

2. The panel discussion was held during the twenty-seventh session of the Human

Rights Council, on 15 September 2014. It was opened by Jane Connors, Director of the

Research and Right to Development Division of the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights, and presentations were made by the following panellists:

Hiranthi Wijemanne, member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child; Aslan

Abashidze, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Karen

Bogenschneider, Rothermel Bascom Professor of Human Ecology, University of

Wisconsin; Zitha Mokomane, Chief Research Specialist, Human and Social Development

Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa; and Rosa Inés

Floriano Carrera, Coordinator, Department of Life, Justice and Peace, Caritas, Colombia.

The panel discussion was moderated by Yvette Stevens, Permanent Representative of

Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva.

3. The participants in the discussion were: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada,

Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and

Caribbean States), Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia (on behalf

of the African Group), the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala,

Honduras, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Namibia,

Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference),

Poland, Qatar, Russian Federation (on behalf of the Like-Minded Group), Sierra Leone,

Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates (on behalf of the Arab

Group), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America,

Uruguay and Zambia.

4. Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) took the

floor: Allied Rainbow Communities International on behalf of the International Service for

Human Rights, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association

and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission; Plan International on

behalf of Child Rights Connect, Defence for Children International, Eurochild, the

International Federation of Social Workers, Save the Children International and SOS

Children’s Villages International; the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the

Child; the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society; Caritas Internationalis; and the

Federation for Women and Family Planning.

II. Summary of the discussion

A. Opening statement

5. In her opening statement, Ms. Connors highlighted the fact that the family and the

rights of its members were referred to in a range of human rights treaties, in relation to their

civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. The treaties provided the normative

foundation for the discussion on how to understand protection of the family and its

members. They included the rights of adults to marry and found a family, the free and

informed consent requirement for entering into marriage, women’s right to equality within

families, and the provision of protection for children, persons with disabilities and older

persons as members of the family. She noted the importance of accepting the diverse forms

and functions of families among and within countries, including married couples with or

without children; cohabiting couples and their children; single parents and their children;

families headed by grandparents or including grandparents; older children caring for

siblings and other children; registered partnerships with or without children; and same-sex

parents and their children.

6. Ms. Connors observed that, despite international legal obligations, women continued

to experience discrimination within the family, largely because of stereotypical gender roles

that envisaged women as caregivers and men as breadwinners. Consequently, women were

often denied equal rights in respect of issues related to marriage, divorce and distribution of

marital property, inheritance, custody and adoption. Other serious human rights concerns

affecting women, children, the elderly and persons with disabilities included violence

within families that often went unreported or was accepted and remained unpunished.

7. She stressed that the family was the very first unit in which the idea that every

individual was entitled to human rights should be fostered and promoted, and accordingly

States were required to provide it with the widest possible protection and assistance.

Ms. Connors recognized that protection was linked to rights, such as the rights to work, an

adequate standard of living, social security, health, education and cultural rights. As such,

one key issue was the burden of unpaid and undervalued care responsibilities within the

family. Predominantly undertaken by women, those responsibilities could hamper women’s

ability to participate in education and work on an equal basis with men. Consequently,

women were economically and socially disadvantaged in both the family and the wider

community, and, together with their family, were at heightened risk of poverty.

8. Of particular concern was the situation of single-parent families, usually headed by

women. Ms. Connors noted that such women carried a double burden of care

responsibilities and were frequently employed in precarious jobs without adequate social

security coverage.

B. Presentations of the panellists

9. Aslan Abashidze outlined the relevant international standards, including article 16,

paragraph 3, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stipulated that “the

family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by

society and the State”, and article 10, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which provided that “the widest possible protection

and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental

group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the

care and education of dependent children. Marriage must be entered into with the free

consent of the intending spouses”. He highlighted the fact that article 10 specified that the

protection of families included providing assistance to families, and special care to mothers

and children, without any discrimination for reasons of parentage or other conditions.

10. Mr. Abashidze also highlighted States parties’ obligations under article 2, paragraph

1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the

need to take steps to progressively achieve economic and social rights. That should include

preventing retrogressive measures that could negatively affect the family, such as

cancelling child benefits. He further highlighted the fact that States must protect individual

family members from violence and forced separation, and ensure that social assistance was

available to families, including affordable housing and where necessary, special measures

for mothers and infants.

11. Hiranthi Wijemanne focused her intervention on the Convention on the Rights of the

Child, noting that the protection of the family was of direct and particular importance to

children’s rights. The preamble of that Convention stated that the family was the

fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of

its members and, as such, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance. It did

not refer to a single form of family, instead referencing a variety of different forms. The

Convention clearly recognized children as rights-holders, which entailed the right of

children not to be discriminated against on any grounds, including the type of family in

which they grew up; the right to be heard; and the right to preserve their identity, including

nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

12. Ms. Wijemanne highlighted the fact that, while families could help promote and

protect children’s rights, many faced significant hurdles, including economic crises, job

loss, temporary employment, lack of regular income and deprivation of basic services.

Owing to poverty and other factors, some children were separated from their parents. In

that regard, she highlighted the obligations of States to provide families with protection and

support to prevent separation.

13. She drew attention to the fact that families could be dangerous places for children,

who could experience and/or witness physical and sexual violence, and harmful traditional

practices such as child, early and/or forced marriage, so-called honour killings and female

genital mutilation. In that context, she underscored the fact that article 19, paragraph 1, of

the Convention on the Rights of the Child obliged States parties to take all appropriate

measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse,

including sexual abuse, neglect or negligent treatment.

14. Karen Bogenschneider described her work organizing family impact seminars,

including presentations, briefing papers and discussion sessions that communicated family-

focused, research-based information to policymakers on timely topics, including child and

elder care, parenting, poverty and youth crime. In particular, the seminars encouraged

policymakers to build consensus by focusing on the family’s well-being by asking

questions such as: What might the impact of that policy be on families? Would the policy

be more effective if families were involved? How does the policy affect individuals’

responsibilities towards other family members? How might it impact family stability? She

concluded by suggesting three questions, based on her experiences, for the Human Rights

Council to consider. First, could the Council emphasize those issues on which agreement

and consensus were most likely to be reached? Secondly, if so, would that bring more

countries to the table, and would there then be more potential for strengthening family-

centred policies? Third, could the Council involve researchers to help identify which

research-based family policies and programmes existed and the impact they might have on

family well-being?

15. In her presentation, Rosa Inés Floriano Carrera emphasized the importance of taking

care of the family unit in conflict and post-conflict situations, since it was usually the

family that was most affected by forced migration, disappearances, forced recruitment by

armed groups and, in some cases, by members of the same family fighting on different

sides. Unless the response took into consideration that complexity, it might do more harm

than good, and could bring about further family disintegration. She highlighted the need for

both aggregate and disaggregated approaches that recognized individual needs, and

suggested that the responses should focus on protecting the family and family links, and on

creating a secure base environment.

16. Zitha Mokomane outlined some of the challenges families currently faced, and ways

to help protect families. The challenges included poverty, the changing structures of

families owing to migration, instability and/or dissolution, the breakdown of traditional

family structures and non-marital childbearing, and family unfriendly workplace conditions

structured around the assumed existence of a “male breadwinner/female caregiver” model.

Among the possible pathways to address those challenges, she suggested ensuring income

and basic social security, including through cash transfer programmes; developing and

effectively implementing evidence-based policies; improving the nexus between

policymakers and researchers; and including a stand-alone goal on the family in the post-

2015 development agenda with measurable, family-focused targets.

C. Interventions by Council members, observer States and other observers

17. All participants emphasized the importance of the family. A number of delegations

stressed the importance of families as key means of ensuring welfare and stability,

promoting traditional values in society and protecting human rights. Others recognized the

need to focus discussions on the protection of individuals’ rights within the family,

observing that human rights abuses might be experienced in the family by more vulnerable

family members such as women, children and the elderly. They also acknowledged the

importance of recognizing the diversity of families, which could include same-sex unions,

single parents, and adoptive or foster parents.

18. Many delegations emphasized the fact that the family should be protected as the

fundamental and natural unit of society, and referenced several international and regional

human rights instruments in that regard. They recalled that the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights explicitly and

unambiguously obliged all States to provide protection and support for the family as the

natural and fundamental unit of society. Several also referred to article 18 of the African

Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which provided that the family was the natural unit

and basis of society and obliged States to take care of and protect the physical and moral

health of the family.

19. Some delegations noted that States had a duty to assist the family unit as the

custodian of morals and traditional values recognized by the community, and called on

stakeholders, including United Nations mechanisms, NGOs and national human rights

institutions, to put the family at the core of their agendas. They perceived the family as an

instrumental social unit that contributed to social cohesion, development and human rights,

as well as to the preservation of identity, culture and traditional values. They highlighted

evidence-based research demonstrating that well-protected families helped improve respect

for the rights of women, children, older persons and persons with disabilities, and played a

role in eradicating violence against women, reducing child labour and exploitation, and

lowering dropout rates from primary education. Several speakers raised the possible role

that families could play in promoting sustainable development and eradicating poverty, and

called for such an influential social institution not to be ignored in the post-2015

development agenda.

20. Several delegations regretted that, 20 years after the International Year of the

Family, some countries were reluctant to recognize the value of the family unit and accept

their respective legal obligations. The point was made that different challenges had cast a

negative shadow on the status of the family in society, increased its vulnerability to

disintegration and decreased its resilience. The family as a leading societal institution

should never be perceived as a force which aimed to oppose the interests, rights and

fundamental freedoms of individuals.

21. Several delegations drew attention to situations in which homes had been

demolished, land confiscated and families broken apart. They highlighted the role of

terrorist groups in undermining the rights of families and individuals, including by

depriving children of the care of family members and placing huge financial burdens on

families who lost their main breadwinner. The impact of economic sanctions on the family

was also raised.

22. Several delegations highlighted the importance of the family in their cultures and

communities, and its contribution to stability. They outlined some of their achievements in

protecting the family through legislation, recognizing it as the natural and fundamental

group unit of society, entitled to protection by law.

23. Other delegations reiterated that the diversity of families was recognized in General

Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions and in the legislation of many countries.

That diversity could comprise single-parent families formed by choice or resulting from

divorce, separation, or death; child-headed households; extended and intergenerational

families; and same-sex couples, all of which required different support. They called on the

international community to respect that diversity, which should be reflected in family-

centred policies and programmes. Several delegations indicated that they had been reluctant

to support the holding of the panel discussion, as Human Rights Council resolution 26/11

did not refer to family diversity and the individual rights of family members.

24. Many delegations noted that individuals within families needed and were entitled to

protection. They were the rights-holders, not the family, and as such, States bore the

primary responsibility to ensure that their rights were adequately protected, no matter what

form their family took. Citing the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) report

entitled “Hidden in Plain Sight”, which drew attention to the violence that could occur

within families in all regions of the world, many delegations highlighted the fact that the

family was not always the safest place for individuals, especially women, children and the

elderly. Specific examples included forcing female victims of sexual assault to marry the

perpetrator of the assault, and child, early and forced marriages, which were recognized by

the Human Rights Council as violations, abuse or impairment of human rights.

25. Several delegations clarified that States were obliged to promote and provide

support to the family in order to ensure that it could undertake its care responsibilities. They

indicated that States must consider the social and economic factors, and implement policies

that helped provide for a balance between work and family responsibilities. Otherwise, they

ran the risk of limiting parents’ ability to take care of their children. They also asserted that

particular attention and assistance should be given to families in vulnerable situations, such

as single-parent families, poor families with elderly members, families affected by child

abuse and domestic violence, same-sex unions and others.

26. One delegation raised the situation of indigenous communities in which there were

complex and intricate family kinship systems that often did not fall within the framework of

the so-called “nuclear family”. The point was made that the appreciation of family diversity

in all its forms went hand in hand with forging strong and productive partnerships with

local indigenous communities, in order to ensure that government interventions were

tailored, culturally appropriate, genuinely accessible and aimed at achieving the best

possible outcome. Panellists were asked whether they had any additional recommendations

of ways to ensure that policies relating to families and their members protected the diversity

of indigenous and kinship families.

27. Observers highlighted the diversity of families and recalled that States must ensure

that children and other family members were not discriminated against because of the form

their family took. States and the Human Rights Council were asked to focus on the human

rights of individual members of the family, including children. Some observers also drew

attention to the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and intersex persons who might be

vulnerable to being disowned, abused or forced to undergo involuntary psychological or

medical treatment by their families.

28. Several observers highlighted the fact that the protection of the family should be

understood as supporting and strengthening families to ensure the fulfilment of the rights of

all their members. They observed that many States had failed to protect families adequately,

and called for family-friendly policies that recognized and promoted the capacity of strong

family bonds, the birthright of all humanity, to serve as a source of society capital and

stability for the wider fabric of the universal human family. The point was made that

without safe family-based care, children were at greater risk of various forms of

exploitation.

29. One observer stated that, as recognized in United Nations human rights treaties, the

family was the natural and fundamental group unit of society, and as such was entitled to

comprehensive and the widest possible protection and support by society and the State.

30. Delegations and observers posed numerous questions to the panellists, including

how States could improve the well-being of families and counter stereotypical views of

gender roles within the family. They requested examples of initiatives aimed at ensuring

equality, especially gender equality between family members, and asked the panellists to

share their experiences on how victims of domestic violence could be supported in claiming

their rights. The panel was also asked to suggest concrete measures that could be taken to

protect members of the family against abuse and how States could avoid discrimination

against families that did not conform to majority family patterns. They asked what States

and the Human Rights Council could do to address better the reality of family diversity and

how they could help encourage families to transmit values that were consistent with human

rights.

III. Responses of the panellists

31. In response to the questions, Ms. Mokomane reiterated the importance of a stand-

alone goal on the family in the post-2015 development agenda and/or of mainstreaming

issues related to the family in all other goals. She referred to the example of one State

which, with a view to mainstreaming HIV issues, had included HIV coordinators in every

government administration and department. Building on the remarks of other panellists, she

also stressed the importance of evaluating the impact of policy decisions on families and

the need for family-friendly policies. In particular, she cited problems with work concepts

that continued to be based on the male breadwinner model, despite the fact that more

women worked and had child-rearing responsibilities than had previously been the case.

32. Ms. Floriano stressed the need to consider the relationship between family members,

including any patterns of violence and power. She highlighted the importance of ensuring

that public policies responded to new realities, and the role of civil society organizations in

the protection of families, particularly in following up on loopholes and gaps that

government institutions had failed to address.

33. Ms. Bogenschneider underscored the role that family impact analysis could play in

the context of each of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals. For instance,

reducing family poverty could involve examining how to improve parenting, childcare and

job opportunities for families. Family issues could also be a distinct goal. Family impact

assessments could also help identify areas for new policies, such as preparing youth for

successful employment, and/or improving mentoring between generations.

34. Highlighting the situation of disadvantaged families, Ms. Wijemanne emphasized

that top-down programmes did not always reach those most in need. She called on States to

turn such policies around and create family-friendly interventions with community workers

who could reach out and identify disadvantaged families and issues of concern. She

stressed the fact that, where there was violence within families, there needed to be

accessible services, observing that victims might not want to be in contact with law

enforcement. There was also a need for investment in skill development and access to

psychosocial services.

35. Mr. Abashidze referred to the relevant human rights standards, including article 10

of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. He also

emphasized States parties’ obligations under article 2 to achieve progressively the full

realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant and to adopt legislative measures to the

maximum of their available resources. That included adopting relevant criminal legislation

to hold those responsible for domestic violence fully accountable, and establishing

rehabilitation centres. He made clear that the principles of equality and non-discrimination

applied to everyone in relation to all rights.