人权理事会就保护家庭及其成员问题举行小组讨论

上午

2014年9月15日

人权理事会今早就保护家庭及其成员问题举行小组讨论

人权事务高级专员办事处研究和发展权利司司长简•康诺斯（Jane Connors）在一份介绍声明中表示，家庭及其成员权利在一系列国际人权条约条款中都有所体现。尽管规定了明确的国际法律义务，妇女在家庭中仍不断受到各种程度的歧视。家庭中的暴力和剥削问题也是严重的人权问题。此外，往往由妇女担任顶梁柱的单亲家庭处境也令人担忧。

塞拉利昂常驻联合国日内瓦办事处代表伊维特•史蒂文斯（Yvette Stevens）担任讨论主持人。参加小组讨论的专家有：经济、社会和文化权利委员会成员阿斯兰•库赛诺维奇•阿巴希泽（Aslan Khuseinovich Abashidze）；儿童权利委员会成员希兰提•伟杰曼尼（Hiranti Wijemanne）；南非人类科学研究理事会人类和社会发展研究方案首席研究专家兹萨•摩科马尼（Zitha Mokomane）；威斯康辛大学人类生态学教授凯伦•伯根施耐德（Karen Bogenschneider）和罗瑟梅尔•巴斯康（Rothermel Bascom）；以及哥伦比亚国际慈善社生命、正义与和平部协调员罗萨•伊尼斯•佛罗瑞亚诺•卡雷拉（Rosa Inés Floriano Carrera）。

史蒂文斯女士表示，今天的讨论将指导理事会在保护家庭问题上进一步前行。然而，此次小组讨论并非意图定义家庭；家庭的定义在每个国家都有所不同，国家本身需决定家庭的含义。

阿巴希泽先生表示，国家和社会保护家庭是国际人权法的重要原则。《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》也规定国家有义务为家庭提供协助与保护。经济、社会和文化权利委员会在其关于公约第十九条的一般性意见中承认各国对家庭的定义各不相同。

伟杰曼尼女士表示，家庭是人类生命不可或缺的一部分。《儿童权利公约》包含着多条与家庭相关的条款，并规定国家有义务确保和尊重每位儿童的权利，且不基于任何理由对儿童进行歧视，这也包括其成长的家庭环境。

伯根施耐德女士对采取切实措施以加强家庭中心政策和方案的建议表示衷心支持。他们已在25个州和哥伦比亚特区中为各州政策制定者召开了逾190场家庭影响研讨会。在这种思辨的环境氛围下，他们得以跨过纸上谈兵，制定更好的公共政策以改善家庭的实际生活。

佛罗瑞亚诺•卡雷拉女士表示，当家庭不得不面对冲突带来的不利影响时，家庭的团结和凝聚往往首当其冲。假如我们的应对措施不能反映实际情况的复杂性或不能将家庭纳入考量，那这种措施甚至可能弊大于利。向家庭提供的人道主义援助必须有组织进行，以保证家庭的核心联系与凝聚力。

摩科马尼女士表示，家庭问题被千年发展目标完全遗忘在外，且未被可持续发展目标或2015年后发展议程纳入考量。保护家庭应被作为单独目标纳入考量，这应是人权理事会在此次小组讨论后开展行动的重点之一

在随后的讨论中，发言者指出，家庭多样性十分重要，而不同形式的家庭要求国家进行分门别类的针对性保护。尽管家庭本身并非权利持有者，但国家仍有义务和责任保护家庭及其成员。家庭所面对的挑战不断加剧，如经济形势、缺乏社会保护、移徙或武装冲突等；研究表明，受到良好保护的家庭能为其成员，特别是妇女儿童的权利带来积极影响。讨论中强调了性暴力或针对儿童暴力等家庭中侵犯权利行为的严重性。面对不断发展的处境，什么才是支持家庭的最佳方式？如何通过具体措施和政策确保土著家庭得到保护？

在讨论中发言的包括：智利、代表主要提案国发言的埃及、代表一个看法一致集团发言的俄罗斯、代表一个国家集团发言的澳大利亚、代表一个国家集团发言的联合王国、代表伊斯兰合作组织发言的巴基斯坦、代表一个国家集团发言的美国、发表北欧国家联合声明的芬兰、代表一个国家集团发言的乌拉圭、欧盟、代表一个国家集团发言的斯洛文尼亚、代表拉丁美洲和加勒比国家共同体发言的哥斯达黎加、代表非洲集团发言的埃塞俄比亚、代表阿拉伯集团发言的阿拉伯联合酋长国、代表不结盟运动发言的伊朗、爱沙尼亚、捷克共和国、叙利亚、挪威、埃及、俄罗斯、纳米比亚、塞拉利昂、德国、苏丹、爱尔兰和卡塔尔。

彩虹社区联合国际（Allied Rainbow Communities International）、计划国际（Plan International, Inc.）、霍华德家庭、宗教和社会中心（Howard Centre for Family, Religion and Society）、起草儿童权利公约特设非政府组织小组、国际慈善社、天主教慈善国际联盟代表一组非政府组织进行了发言。

人权理事会将在其午间会议期间继续关于秘书长、人权高专及人权高专办专题报告的一般性辩论。在下午的会议中，人权理事会将就融入性别观点问题举行其年度讨论。

Opening Statements

BAUDELAIRE NDONG ELLA, President of the Human Rights Council, said that they would be holding this morning a round table on the protection of the family and its members. The Human Rights Council recognized that the family was the natural and fundamental group unit of society, entitled to protection afforded to it by society and the State. The aim of the discussion was to strengthen cooperation at all levels, and take agreed measures to strengthen policies and programmes devoted to the family in the context of an integrated overall approach to human rights.

JANE CONNORS, Director, Research and Right to Development Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in an introductory statement said that the family and the rights of its members were addressed in provisions in a range of international human rights treaties. These provisions encompassed civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights; enshrined women’s right to equality within the family; and provided protection for children, persons with disabilities and older persons as members of families. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proclaimed the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society, providing it with entitlements to protection by society and the State. Families assumed diverse forms and functions among and within countries. The principle of equality between women and men within the family was recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reflected as a legally binding obligation on States parties in Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Despite these international legal obligations, women continued to experience, in varying degrees, discrimination within the family. This was largely a result of stereotypical notions of gender roles which envisaged women as care-givers and men as breadwinners. Violence and exploitation within the family were also serious human rights concerns. The situation of single-parent families, which were often headed by women, raised specific human rights concerns. The Convention on the Rights of the Child underscored the importance of a family environment for the child’s growth and well-being. It provided for the protection of children in situations where they had been separated from their parents and where children had been deprived of a family environment. It also referred to family reunification. The obligations were especially relevant to migration, where children were often separated from their families against their will. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities made clear that persons with disabilities and their family members should receive the necessary protection and assistance. Although no universal human rights instrument made explicit provision regarding care for older persons in the family, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights indicated in its General Comment Number 5 that protection of the family should include establishment of social services to support the family when there were elderly people at home, especially where the family was of low-income.

Statements by the Panellists

YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, in her opening remarks said that the discussion today would guide the Council on the road forward in addressing the issue of protecting the family. However, this panel discussion was not about defining a family; the definition of the family in each State was different and it was up to States themselves to decide what groups were considered a family. Turning to Mr. Abashidze, Ms. Stevens asked about the perspectives of international human rights law on the obligations of States to protect the family.

ASLAN KHUSEINOVICH ABASHIDZE, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, said that the protection of families by States and societies was an important principle in international human rights law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its Article 10 also defined the obligations of States to provide assistance and protection to the family. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had not yet prepared a general comment on Article 10, but in its general comment on Article 19, the Committee recognized that the definition of the family was different from State to State and also requested States to provide information in their periodic reports about assistance accorded to all forms of families, and all members in groups considered a family. The obligations of States under Article 10 prohibited regressive measures and required States to adopt national plans for the implementation of the Covenant, which would include measures such as protection from domestic violence, sexual violence, illegal separation of children from parents, illegal forms of punishment in families and kindergarten, separation of families during migration, problem of child soldiers, protection of mothers and especially working mothers, legal age of entry into marriage, protection of the elderly, and others.

Introducing Ms. Wijemanne, YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, asked about her views on how the protection of the family and its members positively contributed to the rights of children.

HIRANTI WIJEMANNE, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, said that the family was an integral part of human life and was of particular significance and importance to children as it influenced how the child grew and developed and what type of adult he or she became. The Convention on the Rights of the Child contained various provisions related to families and recognized children as right-holders, and did not refer to a unique form of family; the definition of the family varied in each State. The Convention obliged States to ensure and respect the rights of every child and not to discriminate against children on any ground, including on the ground of the family environment they were growing in. States had the responsibility to support and assist families and this related to the critical role of families in the promotion and protection of human rights. Article 9 stated that a child should not be separated from their parents, unless such separation was necessary for the best interest of the child; in reality, children were often separated from their parents because of poverty, migration, stigma or other reasons and in such situations States had the obligation to provide families with protection and support in order to prevent separation. States also had the obligation to protect children within the family, including from homicide, physical and non-physical punishment, sexual violence by family members, and harmful practices which had devastating consequences such as female genital mutilation, early and child marriage, or honour killings.

YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, turning to Ms. Bogenschneider, said the essence of the panel was to listen to best practices. Ms. Bogenschneider was in a good position to highlight pro-family solutions and policies. Could these be shared?

KAREN BOGENSCHNEIDER, Rothermel Bascom Professor of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin, heartily endorsed the recommendation to undertake concerted actions to strengthen family-centred policies and programmes. This had been the focus of her work for over two decades. Since 1993, Ms. Bogenschneider and her colleagues had convened over 190 Family Impact Seminars for state policy-makers in 25 states and the District of Columbia. These seminars were occurring in a political environment so divisive that it was mathematically impossible for the United States Congress to get much more polarized. Not every seminar ended up influencing a policy decision, but some did. Policy-makers reported that the seminars influenced policy decision that could help lift families out of poverty by informing laws that ensured access to nutritious food and to health care. They had also influenced policies that could support work/family balance by informing laws on the funding of child care. Objective information and a range of policy options were provided, which had earned them a solid, non-partisan reputation. Careful attention was paid to the issues focused on. There was no focus on issues where policy-makers had already made up their minds. One way to build consensus was by focusing on family well-being. It was found that policy-makers wanted access to research on the effectiveness of various policy options so they could invest in policies that worked and cut those that did not. In a contentious environment, they had been able to move beyond family rhetoric to enhancing the reality of families’ lives by building better public policies.

YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, then introduced Ms. Floriano Carrera.

ROSA INES FLORIANO CARRERA, Coordinator, Department of Life, Justice and Peace, Caritas, Colombia, said the unity and cohesion of the family unit was one of the first things affected when a family had to face the adversity that went hand in hand with conflict. If a response did not reflect the complexity of the drama and did not consider the family, it could do more harm than good. If the family and the community were not considered as a whole, then there could be a re-victimization of the family. This may result in just reducing families to figures for humanitarian aid. Another risk was that if the response was not organized, the family would be disintegrated. The dignity of persons was at the heart of the humanitarian approach. The person, however vulnerable, was a subject of rights and was still able to act. Humanitarian aid to the family had to be organized in order to guarantee the core links and cohesion of the family. On what could be done, it was important to provide help that fuelled hope and the family’s ability to face the difficult context they were in. The response had to lay down clear procedures to help the family overcome the crisis and to ensure that members of families could be the drivers of their own projects. The institutional backbone of public policies that dealt with the families had to provide a clear articulate response and strategy.

YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, said that on many occasions the potential of the family was scarcely explored in the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and asked about the relation of the family to sustainable development and the sustainable development goals.

ZITHA MOKOMANE, Chief Research Specialist, Human and Social Development Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, said that the family had been completely left out from the Millennium Development Goals and was not being considered in the sustainable development goals or the post-2015 development agenda. The protection of the family should be included as a stand-alone goal, and this could be one action point for the Human Rights Council following this panel. There was a need for more family-focused programmes in poverty reduction programmes, including through livelihood protection, income support, universal pensions and others; many countries already had some of those measures in place, but they were focused on individuals. States should capitalize on the resilience of families and support them through stressful situations.

Discussion

GLORIA MARIA VARGAS, Vice-Minister of the National Chilean Service for Women, said that traditional roles of women and men were changing; 30 per cent of families today were single-parent families and most children were born in non-marriage unions; Chile was considering legal reforms to account for the new reality and guarantee the rights of each member of the family. Ms. Vargas urged the Human Rights Council to protect the diverse reality and composition of families, to ensure that each family member had his or her rights respected.

Egypt, speaking on behalf of the main sponsors, said that even though the family unit itself was not a right-holder, States still had the obligation and responsibility to protect the family and its members. Russia, speaking on behalf of a Like-minded Group of 24 States, said family units witnessed growing challenges such as the economic situation, lack of social protection, migration and armed conflict; research demonstrated that well protected families contributed positively to the rights of their members, particularly women and children. The post-2015 development agenda should not ignore the potential of the family. Australia, speaking on behalf of a Group of States, said that States should review their obligations towards their most vulnerable populations, namely indigenous peoples, whose intricate kinship systems did not fall into the definition of the family. How could specific measures and policies ensure that indigenous families were protected?

United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of a Group of States, reiterated that various forms of the family existed, including single-parent families, child-headed households, extended families, same gender and heterosexual families, as well as recomposed families. Family diversity was important and different forms of families required the tailored protection of the State to ensure the protection of its members. The panellists were asked about the best ways to support families in this ever evolving context. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, endorsed the view that all States had the obligation to provide protection for the family as a fundamental unit of society. Islam highly valued the family. The Organization had established a department of family affairs and called on States to ensure that the protection of families be included in the post-2015 agenda. United States, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, underlined the gravity of violence within families, such as sexual violence or violence against children. All countries had the obligation to protect and assist families against such violence. The group asked how to promote strong families while ensuring the protection of human rights of persons.

Finland, speaking on behalf of Nordic countries, said that same-sex couples had the right to create a family. Domestic violence was discriminating towards women and girls, and it was crucial to tackle stereotypes against women and girls. Uruguay, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, said that families were entitled to protection by States. It was unfortunate that violence occurred in the context of the family, often against women, girls or the elderly. Uruguay was concerned that in some countries, rapists could escape justice if they married their victims. Uruguay also expressed concerns about harmful traditional practices such as forced and early marriage and female genital mutilation. European Union said that the diversity of families had to be recognized. States had the primarily responsibility to protect the equal rights of family members.

Slovenia, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said that no one should be forced to create a family and condemned the practice of early or forced marriage. States had the responsibility to ensure equal rights for family members. Different forms of families, including single parents and same-sex partners, had to be respected. Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, said that family members had to be entitled to the protection of States to be able to participate in society and fulfil their parent responsibilities. States also had to ensure the protection of women and children as well as of disabled family members.

Allied Rainbow Communities International said that families came de facto in a diversity of forms. A right-based approach towards the protection of families was crucial to ensure the effective protection of those that were more vulnerable. Marital rape, domestic violence and child abuse remained unfortunately rife in all regions of the world, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons continued to face abuse and violence. Plan International, speaking in a joint statement, recalled the legal obligations for States to respect and protect children’s rights and recognized all forms of families to ensure that children were not discriminated against. It urged States to reaffirm that States were all rights holders, recognize all forms of families and ensure the rights of all family members. Howard Centre for Family, Religion and Society, said that the family was the natural and fundamental group unit of society entitled to comprehensive protection and support by the society and the State. The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family.

YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, said that some of the major questions had related to how they could protect against violence within families, how States could promote strong families while protecting the human rights of all individuals, and how family protection could be included in the post-2015 development agenda, among others.

ZITHA MOKOMANE, Chief Research Specialist, Human and Social Development Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, said on how to involve the family in the post-2015 development agenda that it was very important to have a stand-alone goal on the family; something that could be measurable. An example from the area of HIV from Botswana could be used. At the peak of the epidemic, there had been Ministerial Coordinators. On child rearing responsibilities, one of the major things that had happened was increased labour force participation of women but despite this, there was still a structure around the model of a male breadwinner and women as caregivers. There had to be family-friendly policies. These had to be context-specific and evidence-based.

ROSA INES FLORIANO CARRERA, Coordinator, Department of Life, Justice and Peace, Caritas, Colombia, on working against violence against women said that one of the elements that had been crucial in Colombia was what had happened to former combatants that were now being reintegrated into society. All of these former combatants were from dysfunctional families that had faced violence within the family. As an option for a country that was trying to overcome many forms of violence, there had to be particular care in looking at relationships within the family, and the use of violence in the family. There had to be work on relationships between the family so that these became fair and balanced ones. In so-doing it had been possible to tackle gender-based violence. On looking at how to include the whole family in providing solutions to ensure that members were more resilient to overcome a difficult context, when this happened, they were more equipped to overcome adversity. If public policies took into account the potential for violence in the family, changed this and set aside resources to counter it, then the society had a better chance of overcoming violence in society as a whole.

KAREN BOGENSCHNEIDER, Rothermel Bascom Professor of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin, said that the challenge was turning family rhetoric to family reality; one approach could be to include the family as a stand-alone sustainable development goal, and another was to apply family impact analysis to each one of the sustainable development goals. This should be a subject of discussion. Another way to turn rhetoric to reality was to apply family impact analysis on policies in order to address inequalities. States should decide whether to focus on issues they agreed on and take them forward and in this research evidence could help, for example in how to get children on to a good start, or how to prepare youth for workforce success.

HIRANTI WIJEMANNE, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, recalled that disadvantaged and vulnerable families were often invisible and said that family programmes in most countries, which were mainly top-down, often did not reach the most vulnerable ones. There was a need to turn those policies around and promote more family-friendly interventions which would identify those families most in need, which often did not reach out for assistance but remained entrenched in their cycles of violence or poverty. Secondly, with regard to violence, children learned about violence in their families and it was important that from a very young age children needed to be taught that there were non-violent resolutions to conflict. Families which suffered from violence needed to be identified, because many remained silent although they needed to be helped. Finally, psycho-social services needed to be made available to victims, particularly through outreach.

ASLAN KHUSEINOVICH ABASHIDZE, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, said that article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was the main human right disposition relating to the family as it was aimed to ensure the broadest protection and support by States to the family. Immediate measures had to be adopted regardless of the availability of resources, including criminal legislation on domestic violence and the creation of rehabilitation centres. With regards to nomadic persons and indigenous people, the Human Rights Committee usually suggested best practices and the way forward to States.

Ethiopia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the role of the family was underscored within the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and that the African Union Plan of Action on the Family in Africa was adopted in 2004 to address challenges faced by families in Africa. The African Group called on all States and other stakeholders to put the family at the core of their agendas. United Arab Emirates, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that the family was the basic unit of a community, and called on States to make every effort to put an end to violence within the family, particularly against women and children. The Arab Group underlined the situation of Palestinian families living under occupation. Iran, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said that economic sanctions had a negative impact on families and their members, including women and children. Iran was concerned that the United Nations tried to impose views on forms of families, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the sovereignty of States.

Estonia said that families were diverse and could include single parents or same-sex partners. Estonia was not in favour of holding this panel as the organizers omitted to refer to the variety of families and the rights of family members. Czech Republic recalled that particular attention had to be given to vulnerable families, such as single parents, same-sex partners, families with elder persons, and families with a history of domestic violence. The Czech Republic recalled also that States had the obligation to protect all families, including the new forms of families.

Russia said that the family was a complex social and cultural phenomenon. The object of the family was not the simple reproduction of the population but the continuation of the human race in the broadest understanding of the term. Russia was developing a State focused on the well-being of families. Egypt was convinced that the family was an instrumental social unit that contributed to social cohesion, development and human rights, as well as to the preservation of identify, culture and traditional values through its profound role in forging solidified intergenerational linkages. Namibia fully supported the need to strengthen the protection of families through a legal framework. It acknowledged that the family unit came in many shapes and sizes and changed, as social practices and traditions were dynamic and ever-changing. It supported the protection of all family units, not just the nuclear family or families married under civil law. Norway said States should not fail to promote and protect the rights of persons because they belonged to particular forms of family. Norway recalled all States’ obligation to protect the human rights of each individual family member against human rights violations or abuses occurring in family contexts.

Syria said that it had taken great strides to protect the family and strengthen its role in development through the adoption of legislation and taking steps to ensure the cohesion of the Syrian family. Now the acts of terrorist groups were endangering families in Syria. Qatar said that the family had to be considered as the fundamental unit of society. Qatar had looked at its society very carefully and followed policies and measures to promote the family. It had an institute for the family that carried out research and also raised awareness about relevant issues. Sudan said that its Constitution reaffirmed that the family was the natural and fundamental group unit of the society and was entitled to protection of the law. Many policies had been designed and implemented to achieve the best attainable protection for the family and its members. Sierra Leone said that children within a family unit were protected and considered as right-holders within the family unit. The rights of children were protected in the various provisions of national law as well as by the national Constitution. It was up to each country to determine the definition of the family and how best to address the issues relating thereof.

Germany said families today came in many forms. It had to be taken into account that sometimes individuals had to be protected against violence within the family itself. The panel was asked about best practices in ensuring that the human rights of all persons in diverse forms of family were promoted. Ireland was strongly of the view that, in conformity with international human rights law, it was the members of the family to which human rights protections applied, rather than viewing the family unit itself as a rights-holder. This was a clear legal principle, but it also had important legal consequences, particularly where a family member or members may be abused by others.

Group of Non-Governmental Organizations for the Convention on the Rights of the Child said that today’s topic was of direct importance to children’s rights. Without safe family based care, children were at risk of various forms of exploitation. A State’s international obligations towards families were to support and assist them to ensure the protection of the rights of all their members. Caritas International said that it was true that today’s families were burdened with many social and cultural challenges. Many States had failed to fulfil their responsibilities to adequately protect families, particularly in the case of those families that faced serious difficulties.

YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva and Panel Moderator, asked the panellists to comment on the question asked by many: the diversity of families and how to avoid discrimination against families that did not conform to the majority of family forms.

ASLAN KHUSEINOVICH ABASHIDZE, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, said that the current international treaties and the practices of treaty bodies were based on the fact that families were defined by States and also on broad provisions on protection and assistance provided to families by States. Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights covered very broad provisions related to the protection of the family and focused on some specific aspects such as the protection of mothers and children. The definition of the family was up to each State and if it broadened that definition, then its responsibilities also broadened; States were obliged to inform the Committee in their periodic report on what definition of the family was in that particular State.

HIRANTI WIJEMANNE, Member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, expressed her gratitude that the delegations had highlighted the issue of children and the issue of violence, including corporal punishment, and the need to address it. Ms. Wijemanne stressed again the value of outreach and community-based family services in order to work better with the families, and ensure that the rights of family members were protected.

KAREN BOGENSCHNEIDER, Rothermel Bascom Professor of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin, said that all agreed on the importance of the family as a building block of society and said she had heard a lot of commitment from the States. Hopefully, the States would succeed to areas of agreement and act on empowering families. Families needed a voice in policy making, and research was available to guide those efforts.

ROSA INES FLORIANO CARRERA, Coordinator, Department of Life, Justice and Peace, Caritas, Colombia, said that the recognition of the diversity of families had to be recognized, and underlined the importance for civil society organizations to identify loopholes and gaps in domestic legislation, in order to move public policies forward and offer greater guarantees to family members.

ZITHA MOKOMANE, Chief Research Specialist, Human and Social Development Research Programme, Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa, said that the diversity of families had to be recognized in order to ensure the protection of human rights for all without discrimination, as well as the prevention of maternal mortality. Single parents were vulnerable.

YVETTE STEVENS, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva, acknowledged the valuable roles played by families in society. She also said that although families were not rights holders per se, States had to protect families in order to protect the rights of family members. States had to protect disadvantaged families and address domestic violence. Diversity should be recognized and there should be no discrimination between families. She also underlined States’ obligations to report to the United Nations treaty monitoring bodies.

__________


1 Joint statement: Amnesty International; Article 19: International Centre Against Censorship; International Service for Human Rights; International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission; and International Lesbian and Gay Association.


2 Joint statement: SOS Children's Villages International; Defence for Children International; International Federation Terre des Hommes; Groupe des ONG pour la Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant; International Federation of Social Workers; Save the Children International; and World Vision International.


3 Joint statement: Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII; Company of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul; Edmund Rice International Limited; Association internationale des charites - International association of charities (AIC); International Catholic Child Bureau; International Institute of Mary Our Help of the Salesians of Don Bosco (IIMA); New Humanity; Pax Romana (International Catholic Movement for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs and International Movement of Catholic Students); International Volunteerism Organization for Women, Education and Development – VIDES; and World Union of Catholic Women’s Organizations.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record