1. The Holy See is well aware of its
position within the international juridical system, as a sovereign subject of
international law, as well as of its obligations as a State Party to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and its Optional Protocols, which
has been clearly articulated in its Reports, Written Replies and statements
made during the inter-active dialogue. At this point, and pursuant to art. 45
(d) of the CRC, the Holy See intends to comment on certain passages contained
in the Concluding Observations (CRC/C/VAT/CO/2; CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/CO/1;
CRC/C/OPAC/VAT/CO/1) presented by the Committee on the Rights of the Child
(hereinafter “Committee”), on 5 February 2014.[1]
2. In specific regard to the Concluding
Observations CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, the Holy See underlines that in executing the
obligations under the CRC, its conduct has always been inspired by general
principles of international law, which include respecting in good faith the
obligations deriving from treaties.[2] The specific details are set out in
theSecond Periodic Report (CRC/C/VAT/2) and in the Written Replies to the List
of Issues of the Committee (CRC/C/VAT/Q/2/Add.1). The Holy See has acted in a
similar way in relation to the application of the Optional Protocols as
specified in its Initial Reports (CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/1 and CRC/C/OPAC/VAT/1) and in
the Written Repliesof the Holy See to the List of Issues of the Committee
(CRC/C/OPSC/ VAT/Q/2/Add.1).
3. The Holy See, in affirming its proper
nature as a subject of international law, reiterates that the international
obligations contracted upon adherence to the CRC, with reservations[3] and
interpretative declaration[4], and its Optional Protocols are fulfilled first
and foremost through the implementation of the aforementioned duties within the
territory of the Vatican City State (VCS), over which the Holy See exercises
full territorial sovereignty.Beyond this geographic territory, which it
administers, the Holy See disseminates principles recognized in the CRC to all
people of goodwill and to various local Catholic churches and institutions,
which operate in different States in compliance with national laws. Therefore,
the obligations of the Convention and its Optional Protocols refer to Vatican
citizens, as well as, where appropriate, the diplomatic personnel of the Holy
See or its Officials residing outside the territory of Vatican City State.[5]
The Holy See does not have the capacity or legal obligation to impose the
abovementioned principles upon the local Catholic churches and institutions
present on the territory of other States and whose activities abide with
national laws. The Holy See, in accordance with the rules of international law,
is aware that attempting to implement the CRC in the territory of other States
could constitute a violation of the principle of non-interference in the
internal affairs of States.
4. In light of the above, the Holy See takes
note with satisfaction that the Committee has considered this position,
indicating that itis “aware” of “the Holy See’s ratification of the Convention
as the Government of the Vatican City State, and also as a sovereign subject of
international law having an original, non-derived legal personality independent
of any territorial authority or jurisdiction”, and that the Committee is “fully
conscious that bishops and major superiors of religious institutes do not act
as representatives or delegates of the Roman Pontiff ” (CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, para.
8).
5. Indeed, as regards implementation of its
obligations under the Convention and its Optional Protocols, the Holy See, for
example, has made significant amendments to the criminal laws of Vatican City
State. As was emphasized in the Second Periodic Report on the CRC and in the
Initial Reports on the Optional Protocols, in the Written Replies to the List
of Issues of the Committee as well as in the interactive dialogue with the
Committee, the Holy See has executed its commitments within the territory of
VCS, where it has the obligation to implement the Convention and its Protocols.
6. On the other hand, by rejecting the
consistent position expressed in international law and practice, and despite
repeated explanations of the Holy See in its Reports,[6] Written Replies[7] and
interactive dialogue,[8] the Committee has overlooked important
distinctionsbetween the Holy See, Vatican City State and the universal Catholic
Church. This, inter alia, has led to a grave misunderstanding of the Holy See’s
international legal obligations under the Convention.[9]
7. The profundity of confusion regarding the
nature of the Holy See, its internal legal order as well as its international
legal personality, is fully revealed, for example, in Concluding Observation
para. 8 (CRC/C/VAT/CO/2),[10] when “religious obedience”, [11] in canons 331
and 590 of the Codex Iuris Canonici (CIC), is interpreted to construct a new
form of “ecclesial governance,”[12] where the Holy See is required to control
the daily activities of clerics, religious and laypersons, living in the territories
of sovereign States. [13]
8. In reference to the abovementioned
canonical norms, the Holy See, as a sovereign subject of international law,
reserves to itself the exclusive competence to interpret its internal
fundamental norms, in conformity with pertinent international law, including
the freedom of religion, with specific reference to the exclusive power of
faith communities to organize and govern their internal affairs.[14]
9. In addition, the Holy See wishes to
underline that the treaty body has plunged into canon law, which is a juridical
system, however, not equivalent to that of States. In other words, only the
laws of the territory of Vatican City State are comparable to those of other
States Parties to the Convention.Unsurprisingly, the position in para. 8
(CRC/C/VAT/CO/2) based on an erroneous interpretation of Canons 331 and 590, is
fundamentally flawed, and in response, the Holy See reaffirms the following
points found in either its Reports, Written Replies orstatements during the
interactive dialogue:
a. That canon law is a “complex unity of
divine positive law, divine natural law and human law which reflect the
Catholic Church: its origin, means, spiritual and moral mission, organizational
structure, supernatural end, spiritual and temporal goods,” signifies that it
differs from the laws of other States, in fundamental respects;[15]
b. That the Church is a “communion” of
mutual relationships means that interaction between the particular and the
universal Church must “respect the principles of collegiality and primacy and
the duties and rights in canon law of all members of Christ’s faithful;”[16]
c. That the “religious obedience” of Bishops
and religious Superiors concerns the unity of the doctrine of the Catholic
faith and of the Catholic Church, founded and constituted as a society by Jesus
Christ based on the communion of faith, sacraments and discipline, which are
freely adhered to by members of the faithful[17];
d. That penal canon law provides certain
sanctions for breaches concerning the public order of the ecclesial society
(e.g. dismissal from the clerical state, penances) means it “differs greatly
from State criminal law and [is] not intended to usurp or otherwise interfere
with them or with State civil actions.”[18] In specific regard to the
distinctions between penal canon law and State criminal laws, the Holy See
refers State Parties to its Second Periodic Report on the Convention on the
Rights of the Child.[19]
10. Of general concern, for all States
Parties, should be the fact that para. 8 (CRC/C/VAT/CO/2) offers a
controversial new approach to “jurisdiction”, which clearly contradicts the
general understanding of this concept in international law.
a) In particular, para. 8 contends that “by
ratifying the Convention”[20] a State Party has “committed itself to
implementing the Convention” through “individuals and institutions” living and
operating in the territories of other States.[21] In the case of the Holy See,
this amounts to a sort of “universal legal jurisdiction” over most States
Parties.
b) This interpretation is contrary to
obligations under the CRC, which are prima facie territorial, taking into
consideration the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and a facial
reading of the treaty together with the general understanding of jurisdiction
as previously discussed in the Holy See’s Written Replies.[22]
c) Due to the grave implications of this
erroneous approach for relations between States, the Holy See emphasizes, once
again, that in accordance with international law and State practice, the Holy
See does not ratify a treaty on behalf of every Catholic in the world, and
therefore, does not have obligations to “implement” the Convention within the
territories of other States Parties on behalf of Catholics, no matter how they
are organized.[23]
d) Moreover, the Holy See’s religious and
moral mission, which transcends geographical boundaries, cannot be transformed
into a sort of “universal legal jurisdiction”, which somehow becomes a matter
under the mandate of a treaty body.
11. Before moving on to other issues, the
Holy See, while maintaining its position on jurisdiction set out in Written
Reply no. 32, wishes to correct the statement made in Written Reply no. 34
(CRC/C/VAT/Q/2/Add.1), wherein it refers to the “openness of the religious
sisters to engage in discussions about issues of compensation, and their
willingness to pay part of a compensation package developed by State
authorities”. Rather, religious sisters had agreed with the Government of
Ireland to pay a specific sum of money in relation to a “redress scheme” in
2002 concerning other entities, which did not include the institution under
discussion.
12. As for the recommendations concerning
the situations described in paragraphs 37-39 of the Concluding Observations
(CRC/C/VAT/CO/2), such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the States in
which the Catholic institutions operate. The functioning of these entities must
be carried out in accordance with national laws and with respect for the
competent State authorities tasked with investigating, prosecuting and
punishing crimes or other illicit acts committed against children by members of
these institutions.
13. As for para. 40 (b) (CRC/C/VAT/CO/2),
the Holy See emphasizes that the criminal laws of Vatican City State punish
acts of violence against children residing within this territory in accordance
with due process and appropriate penalties upon findings of guilt: Law n. VIII,
Complementary Norms in Criminal Matter, of 11 July 2013, Title II, and Law n. IX:
Law Modifying the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure, of 11 July 2013.
14. In regard to recommendations concerning
the accession to international instruments contained in Concluding Observations
(CRC/C/VAT/CO/2), paragraphs 44 (j) and 62, the Holy See reaffirms that it
operates within the international community like other subjects of
international law, while maintaining its specific mission and end. For this
reason, the Holy See has always sought to become a part of international
multilateral conventions regulating various areas, also on behalf of Vatican
City State, with the necessary evaluation of these conventional norms in
respect to its nature and to the particular function of its internal juridical
system. Pursuant to the principles and rules of international law, the Holy See
accedes to conventions that do not contradict the character of its mission and
the nature of its own internal juridical system or that directly support
specific norms within its juridical system. Moreover, it is noteworthy to
recall the well-known position of the Holy See that it becomes a State Party to
certain conventions in order to contribute with its moral support in the
construction of an opinio juris to encourage a rapid entry into force of the
conventions and their effective observance.
15. Moreover, the Holy See highlights that
the Committee makes certain recommendations that disregard principles of
international law that underpin every treaty (e.g. the sovereign equality and
independence of all States, the non-interference in the domestic affairs of
States as well as the principles of free consent, good faith and pacta sunt
servanda rule).[24] For example, certain Concluding Observations
(CRC/C/VAT/CO/2) : a) disregard a State Party’s own account of what it
consented to when it ratified a treaty;[25] b) adopt an erroneous view of the
State Party based on an unusual interpretation of what was perceived to be the
internal law of a State Party;[26]c) recommend investigations, the enactment of
laws, and the development of policies within the territorial jurisdiction of
other States[27] (with indifference to the territorial sovereignty of other
States and the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other
States); and d) ignore the reservations and interpretative declaration of a
State Party. [28]
16. The Holy See is concerned about the lack
of respect for the text of a treaty, which has been carefully drafted by States
Parties, including the Holy See itself (the fourth State Party to ratify the
CRC). In this regard, the Holy See in its Second Periodic Report and Written
Replies has duly noted the introduction of new terms or principles by the
Committee, which in its view marks a departure from the ordinary meaning of the
words in the text.[29] The Holy See ratified the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties and is bound to follow the rules of interpretation therein. In
addition, the Holy See reaffirms its own reservations, interpretative
declaration as well as long standing principles recognized in international law
as well as the Convention.[30]
17. Of particular concern in the Concluding
Observations is the advancement of controversial new expressions not contained
in the Convention, and related principles, which contradict the ordinary
meaning of the words in the text, and fail to respect the spirit of the CRC. In
addition, these particular expressions are the subject matter of much debate on
the international level, and certainly, have not been agreed to or otherwise
accepted by the Holy See.[31]
a) In a clear and open violation of the
“ordinary meaning” of the terms of the CRC “in their context and in the light
of its object and purpose”,[32] the Concluding Observations advocate for
“abortion.”[33] This is completely unacceptable and such a recommendation is
incompatible with the fundamental purpose and function of the international
legal order.[34] According to the CRC, children, defined as under 18 (art. 1),
require “legal protection, before as well as after birth,” (preamble para. 9).
By doing do, theConcluding Observations derogates from the child’s “right to
life” (art. 6) as well as his or her right to“pre-natal and post-natal health
care” (art. 24.2.d). In addition, it deviates from the principle that children
should not be discriminated against on the basis of “birth” (art. 2).
b) The Holy See recognizes the variety of situations
in which people live, and many due to tragic circumstances, however, the
Concluding Observations promote “diverse forms of family”[35]as a matter of
principle. This expression is not found in the Convention, nor is it defined.
It is worth noting that according to the International Bill of Human Rights
both States and society have an obligation to protect the family, based on
marriage between one man and one woman, the “natural and fundamental group unit
of society”.[36] The Convention recognizes this principle when it incorporates
the International Bill of Human Rights in preamble paragraphs. 3-4 and
acknowledges the family as “the fundamental group of society andthe natural
environment for the growth and well-being of …children,” which “should be afforded
the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its
responsibilities within the community” (preamble para. 5, CRC).
c) In further regard to the natural family,
the term “family planning” is used in the Convention. The Holy See pursuant to
its reservation interprets the expression to mean only morally acceptable
methods, that is, the natural methods.[37] The expression “contraception”[38]
is not contained in the text of the CRC.
d) With respect to the rights of parents,
“both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development
of the child” (art. 18 CRC), they have prior rights “to choose the kind of
education that shall be given to their children” (preamble para. 3, CRC
incorporates UDHR art. 26.3 by reference) and education should include
“development of respect for the child’s parents” (art. 29 (1) (c) CRC).
However, a State Party is urged to ensure “sexual and reproductive health
education” and “sexual and reproductive health and information.”[39] These expressions
are not found in the text of the Convention nor are they defined in
international law. On this matter, the Holy See takes the opportunity to
reaffirm that the education of children (defined in art.1 CRC), boys and girls,
including education about authentic human love, human sexuality, married love
and related matters are primarily and fundamentally the right, duty, and
responsibility of parents.[40] The international principle regarding religious
freedom recognizes that parents have the right to ensure that their
childreceives a religious and moral education in conformity with their own
convictions, which also guarantees the freedom to teach a religion or
belief.[41]
e) In the Concluding Observations, the
principle of equality between men and women (boys and girls) (art. 2 CRC; cf.
preamble para. 5, UDHR) and the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds
of sex (preamble para. 3, art. 2, CRC) are discussed within the context of
“gender”, which is a word not contained in the text, and apparently employed to
incorporate a larger ideological platform. In this latter regard, references to
inherent dignity (preamble paras. 1-2, CRC) and inherent equality between the
two sexes are dismissed as examples of “gender-based discrimination”[42], while
subjective lifestyle choices and attractions are promoted as a matter of
“rights”: “same sex couples”;[43]“sexual orientation”.[44] With reference to
the term “gender”, the Holy See reiterates its position set out in para. 36 of
its Second Periodic Report.[45]
18. The fundamental premises contained in
Concluding Observation para. 8 distort the entire Concluding Observations and
launch the Committee into matters protected by the right to freedom of
religion.[46] For example, suggestions are made relating to: a) the
interpretation of scripture;[47] b) changes to faith and morals;[48] d)
amendments to canon law;[49] and e) revision of ecclesial governance.[50]
19. Moreover, many of the recommendations
noted in paras. 16-17 supra, may also be viewed through the prism of religious
freedom, in particular regard to the autonomy of religious communities to
express their doctrine, manifest their faith and worship. From this
perspective, the Holy See offered a more profound understanding of inherent
human dignity, as founded on the image and likeness of God, and equality
between men and women, as being in harmony with the fundamental complementarity
of men and women and their call to communion. In response, however, the
Concluding Observations state: “complementarity and equality in dignity [are]
two concepts which differ from equality in law and practice” and “justify
discriminatory legislation and policies.”[51] In addition, the Holy See
emphasizes that the “concept of human rights” cannot be juxtaposed with the
freedom of religion, as if the latter did not constitute a fundamental human
right.
20. Other comments, for example, made in the
Concluding Observations promote negative stereotyping and manifestations of
intolerance against members of the Catholic religion. For example, the
Concluding Observationsallege that the “complementarity” between the two sexes
and the “equality in dignity” of males and females “justify discriminatory
legislation and practices”.[52] In addition, promotion of the protection of the
family, based on marriage between one man and one woman means that “Church run
institutions” discriminate against “children on the basis of their family
situation.”[53] A reasonable observer might argue that the principle of
non-discrimination has been applied in an unprincipled way, namely as a sword
against freedom of religion.
21. Moreover, many of the recommendations
noted in paras. 17-20 supra, deal with matters to which the Holy See has
entered reservations and interpretative declaration, and therefore do not
respect arts. 2 (d); 19-21 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.[54]
Indeed, they completely disregard the Declaration of the State Party at the
moment of its accession to the CRC, according to which “…the Holy See, in
acceding to this Convention, does not intend to prescind in any way from its
specific mission which is of a religious and moral character.”[55]
22. The Concluding Observations include
inaccurate statements that have no evidentiary foundation.[56] Moreover, many
materials presented by the Holy See, especially regarding child protection were
dismissed or ignored.[57]Lastly, it is noteworthy, that answers given by a
State Party not considered in line with certain suggestions does not mean that
a reply to a question has not been given. For example, the Holy See was
repeatedly asked the same query on various matters (e.g. discrimination based
on sex, views of the child, the meaning of family, reservations, new
expressions not accepted by the State Party, and matters falling within the territorial
jurisdiction of other States). Indeed, the interactive dialogue largely
involved the repetition of questions in the Committee’s List of Issuesto which
the Holy See had previously responded in its Written Replies, which, in turn,
left the impression that the interactive dialogue was predetermined by
Concluding Observations that had already been prepared.
23. In conclusion, as was clearly explained
during the interactive dialogue with the Committee on 16 January 2014, and
keeping in mind the concerns raised in paras. 6-10; 15-22 supra, the Holy See:
a) Reiterates its commitment to make
protection of the child a priority, in all situations, and continue to take
appropriate measures pursuant to the Convention and its Optional Protocols, as
unequivocally set out in its Reports, Written Replies and statements during the
interactive dialogue;
b) Confirms its willingness to implement the
Convention and its Optional Protocols, in accordance with its own nature and
mission, and to consider, in a similar way, the pertinent suggestions proposed
by the Committee, in line with its moral and religious mission, for a better
implementation of its treaty obligations and for a systematic preparation and
presentation of its Periodic Reports;
c) Reaffirms also as a sovereign of the
Vatican City State, that implementation of the norms of the Convention and its
Optional Protocols, as well as the relevant recommendations by the Committee,
will be exclusively considered in light of its specific nature and mission (see
paras. 3 and 6 supra), as recognized by the international juridical system.[58]
—
[1] The Committee on the Rights of the
Child, Concluding Observations on the Second Periodic Report of the Holy See on
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, 31 January 2014; The
Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations on the Initial
Report of the Holy See on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights
of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography,
CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/CO/1, 31 January 2014; The Committee on the Rights of the Child,
Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of the Holy See on the Optional
Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of
Children in Armed Conflict, CRC/C/OPAC/VAT/CO/1, 31 January 2014.
[2] See e.g.,preamble and art. 26, Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p.
331 (23 May 1969).
[3] Reservations of the Holy See: “a) [The
Holy See] interprets the phrase `Family planning education and services’ in
article 24.2, to mean only those methods of family planning which it considers
morally acceptable, that is, the natural methods of family planning.
“b) [The Holy See] interprets the articles
of the Convention in a way which safeguards the primary and inalienable rights
of parents, in particular insofar as these rights concern education (articles
13 and 28), religion (article 14), association with others (article 15) and
privacy (article 16).
“c) [The Holy See declares] that the
application of the Convention be compatible in practice with the particular
nature of the Vatican City State and of the sources of its objective law (art.
1, Law of 7 June 1929, n. 11) and, in consideration of its limited extent, with
its legislation in the matters of citizenship, access and residence.”
[4] Declaration of the Holy See on the CRC:
“
“The Holy See recognizes that the Convention
represents an enactment of principles previously adopted by the United Nations,
and once effective as a ratified instrument, will safeguard the rights of the
child before as well as after birth, as expressly affirmed in the `Declaration
of the Rights of the Child’ [Res. 136 (XIV)] and restated in the ninth
preambular paragraph of the Convention. The Holy See remains confident that the
ninth preambular paragraph will serve as the perspective through which the rest
of the Convention will be interpreted, in conformity with article 31 of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969.
“By acceding to the Convention on the Rights
of the Child, the Holy See intends to give renewed expression to its constant
concern for the well-being of children and families. In consideration of its
singular nature and position, the Holy See, in acceding to this Convention,
does not intend to prescind in any way from its specific mission which is of a
religious and moral character”.
[5] Apostolic Letter, issued MOTU PROPRIO,
Roman Pontiff Francis, On the Jurisdiction of Judicial Authorities of Vatican
City State in Criminal Matters, 11 July 2013, entered into force 1 September
2013.
[6] The Holy See, Initial Report on the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, CRC/C/3/Add.27, March 28, 1994, at
paras. 1-2; The Holy See, Second Periodic Report on the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, CRC/C/VAT/2, October 22, 2012, at paras. 1-5; The Holy
See, Initial Report on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Prostitution,
CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/1, November 8 2012, at paras. 4-5; The Holy See, Initial
Periodic Report to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement
of Children in Armed Conflict, CRC/C/OPAC/VAT/1, October 22, 2012, at paras.
4-5.
[7] The Holy See, Written Replies to the
List of Issues in relation to its Second Periodic Report on the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, CRC/C/VAT/Q/2 Add.1, January 9, 2014, at paras. 6-8;
The Holy See, Written Replies to the List of Issues in relation to its Initial
Report on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on
the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Prostitution,
CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/Q/1 Add.1 January 9, 2014, at paras. 6-8.
[8] The Holy See, Presentation of Reports to
the Committee on the Rights of the Child at the Interactive Dialogue, 65th
Session of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (13-31 January 2014), 16
January 2014.
[9] The “moral authority” or “moral
leadership” of the Holy See, referred to several times by the Committee (see
e.g., CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/CO/1, supra note 1, at paras. 16, 21), does not constitute
legally binding authority over anyone. Such leadership cannot be transformed
into a treaty obligation. That the central organ of the Church has openly
“shared” best practices, especially about child protection going well beyond
its strict obligations under the CRC, should not be misinterpreted as
suggesting that intra-Church matters fall within the mandate of a treaty body.
[10] CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1, at para.
8; see also CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/CO/1, supra note 1, at para. 3; see the same line of
reasoning in CRC/C/OPAC/VAT/CO/1, supra note 1, at para. 7, 13-14.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1,
at para. 41 (“The Committee is also concerned that in spite of its considerable
influence on Catholic families the Holy See has still not adopted a
comprehensive strategy to prevent abuse and neglect in the home”). See also
paras. 22; 32 (c); 41-43; 51.
[14]See e.g., Human Rights Committee,
General Comment No. 22 (48) (art.18), Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4.
[15] CRC/C/VAT/2, supra note 6, at para. 97.
[16] CRC/C/VAT/Q/2/Add.1, supra note 7, at
para. 8.
[17] CRC/C/VAT/2, supra note 6, at para. 97;
see also e.g., Comité des droits de l’enfant, Soixante-cinquième session Compte
rendu analytique de la 1852ͤ séance, CRC/C/SR.1852, 21 janvier, 2014, at paras.
36, 41- 42.
[18] CRC/C/VAT/2, supra note 6, at para. 98.
[19]Id. at paras. 98 a-h.
[20] See e.g.,Convention on the Rights of
the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, at art. 49 (2), U.N. Doc. A/Res/44/25 (20 November
1989). In addition, the argument is framed in a manner that contradicts the
plain meaning of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which, according to
art. 49 (2) of the CRC, provides that States Parties are bound by their treaty
obligations when the treaty enters “into force on the thirtieth day after
deposit by such [twentieth] State of its instrument of ratification or
accession”, and not upon ratification, as suggested by theConcluding
Observations.
[21] CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1, at para.
8; see also CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/CO/1, supra note 1, at para. 3; see e.g.,the same
line of reasoning in CRC/C/OPAC/VAT/CO/1, supra note 1, at para. 7, 13-14.
[22]CRC/C/VAT/Q/2 Add.1, supra note 7, at
para. 10; Cf. Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 20, at arts. 2;
10.2; 7.2, 20.2; 22.1, 44.2; 44.6.
[23] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1,
at paras.16; 18; 20; 22; 24; 30; 32; 34; 40; 42; 49; 51; 53; 57; 59; 61; 63;
CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/CO/1, supra note 1, at paras. 16, 18, 24, 26;
CRC/C/OPAC/VAT/CO/1, supra note 1, at paras. 7, 13-14, 18.
[24] See. e.g.,the recognition of these
principles in the preamble of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,supra
note 2.
[25] CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1, at para.
8; See also CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/CO/1, supra note 1, at para. 3.
[26] Id.
[27] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1,
at paras. 16; 18; 20; 22; 24; 30; 32; 34; 40; 42; 49; 51; 53; 57; 59; 61; 63.
[28] CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, para.12 (reservations,
generally); para. 31 (reservation on the rights and duties of parents); paras.
36, 56 (reservation on family planning); para.55 (interpretative declaration on
the right to life).
[29] See e.g.,CRC/C/VAT/2, supra note 6, at
paras. 18; 36 and both sets of Written Replies, generally: CRC/C/VAT/Q/2 Add.1
and CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/Q/1 Add.1, supra note 7.
[30] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/2, supra note 6, at
paras. 23 a-n: (e.g. equality between women and men; special protection due to
the family, the natural and fundamental unit of society; the right to life of
the child, before as well as after birth; and the prior right of parents before
the State to educate their child).
[31] In particular regard to these disputed
terms, the Holy See takes the opportunity once again to reaffirm its position:
“The three Reservations and the Interpretative Declaration are even more
important given the attempted redefinition or creation of new terms and/or
rights and/or principles, which do not correspond to an authentic and holistic
vision of the human person and his or her rights and duties, nor present a good
faith interpretation of the Convention’s text. The Holy See has never agreed to
such terms, rights or principles often contained in the Committee’s General
Comments and its Concluding Observations, and they certainly do not enjoy
international consensus.” (CRC/C/VAT/2, para. 18).
[32] Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, supra note 2, at art. 31. 1.
[33] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1,
at para. 55.
[34] See e.g., Rome Statute of International
Criminal Court, U.N. Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the
Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, U.N. Doc.
A/CONF. 183/9 (1998), art. 7.2. f (situations that are relevant to pregnancy
“shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to
pregnancy”).
[35] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1,
at para. 48.
[36] Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, at art. 16, U.N. Doc. A/RES/217 (III) (10 December
1948); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A., Res. 2200A
(XXI ), at art. 23, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (16 December 1966); International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI) A, at 10., U.N.
Doc. A/6316 (16 December 1966).
[37] In its first reservation the Holy See
stated the following: (“ [The Holy See] interprets the phrase `Family planning
education and services’ in article 24.2, to mean only those methods of family
planning which it considers morally acceptable, that is, the natural methods of
family planning” ).. See also the Holy See’s response to the Committee on this
topic CRC/C/VAT/2, supra note 6, at para. 51.
[38] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1,
at para. 56-57.
[39] Id., atpara. 57 (c).
[40] Id., at para. 30-31; See also the Holy
See’s Position on the Conference Outcome Document at the Fourth World
Conference on Women in Beijing (1995); See also the Holy See’s Position on the
Outcome Document at the International Conference on Population and Development
in Cairo (1994 ).
[41] International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights supra note 36, at art. 13.3; See also HRC,General
Comment No. 22 (48) (art.18), Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, at paras. 6 and 8.
[42] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/CO/2 , supra note
1, at para. 27-28.
[43] Id., at para. 25.
[44] Id., at para. 26.
[45] CRC/C/VAT/2, supra note 6, at para. 36
(“The Holy See understands gender “according to ordinary usage in the United
Nations context, associates itself with the common meaning of that word, in
languages where it exists…[as] grounded in biological sexual identity, male or
female….”).
[46] See, e.g. Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, supra note 36, at art. 18; International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, supra note 36, at art. 18.
[47] CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1, at para.
40.d.
[48] See e.g., the Concluding Observations
take issue with: “statements and declarations on homosexuality”
(CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1, at para. 25); the principle of “complementarity
and equality in dignity” between the two sexes (Id., at para. 22); promotion of
the family, based on marriage between one man and one woman (Id., at para. 48);
the Holy See’s “position on abortion” and “contraception” (See e.g. Id., at
paras. 55, 56, respectively).
[49] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1,
at paras. 14; 40.b; 40; See also e.g. CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/CO/1, supranote 1, at paras.
11-12, 30.
[50] CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1, at paras.
16; 18; 20; 22; 24; 30; 32; 34; 40; 42; 49; 51; 53; 57; 59; 61; 63.
[51] Id., at para. 27 (The Holy See argued
that each “human being is created in the image and likeness of God”. Moreover,
it contended that the principle of complementarity between the two sexes better
reflected an objective reality and avoided two extreme views of equality: one
that would promote indistinct uniformity, on the one hand, or perpetuate
irreconcilable and conflicting differences, on the other hand).
[52] Id., at paras. 27-28.
[53] Id., at paras. 48-49.
[54] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
supra note 2, at art. 2, (d): (“‘Reservation’ means a unilateral statement,
however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting,
approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify
the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to
that State”).
[55] See e.g., Declaration of the Holy See
to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, supra note 5.
[56] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/CO/2, supra note 1,
at paras. 29; 43; 60; 60.c; See also e.g. CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/CO/1,supra note 1, at
paras. 9, 29.b.
[57] See e.g., CRC/C/VAT/2 supra note 6, at
paras. 96-99; CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/1 supra note 6, at paras. 26-31; CRC/C/VAT/Q/2
Add.1, supra note 7, at paras. 43-51; CRC/C/OPSC/VAT/Q/1 Add.1, supra note 7,
at paras. 10.4-10.4.b; CRC/C/SR.1852, supra 17, at paras. 36, 38, 40-43, 46;
and Committee on the Rights of the Child, Sixty-fifth Session, Summary Records
of the 1853rd meeting, CRC/C/SR.1853, at paras. 9,15, 29, 31, 33, 36, 38, 41, 46, 50, 51, 53,
55, 56, 65, 67.
[58] It is worth emphasizing, that the
specific nature of the Holy See was known during the drafting phases of the
Convention and its Optional Protocols, accepted by the States Parties to the
Convention and recognized at the time of the ratification, including its
reservations and interpretative declaration made in accordance with the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 2.
