Posted by Researcher on November 30, 2002 at 23:40:47
In Reply to: UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD posted by Researcher on November 11, 2002 at 20:36:26:
My contacts in the UN told me about how the Family tried to use the UN charter on Human Rights against authorities in Spain in 1994. After investigations and reviews, their case was thrown out.
My contact says that with so much testimony from many exmembers and SG's now, the UN charter could prove to be the most effective way to shut down any continuing cross-border illegal activity for good. According to my source, even retroactive testimony will do, i.e., even if the Family claims to have cleaned up its act, there is enough testimony about what happened in the past and present to arrive at the conclusion that the Family is hurting the basic family unit and depriving members and even relatives of their human rights.
I do not wish to see anymore drastic action such as having children taken away from their parents in sweeping raids. But I would like to see the restoration of human dignity; reparations for past and present abuses; the cessation of financing activities for leadership at the expense of the poor rank & file members; the return of access to children by parents who have a legal right; the international awareness that the Family practices skipping from country to country with kidnapped children; the Family's lies and secrets to be exposed to the world.
Here is the document (only relevant parts, the full document is 50 pages long):
Distr.
GENERAL
E/CN.4/1995/91/Add.1
23 December 1994
ENGLISH
Original: ENGLISH/FRENCH/SPANISH/ARABIC/CHINESE
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-first session
Item 22 of the provisional agenda
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF
Report submitted Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/18
SPAIN
11. In addition to its reply of 5 November 1993 (E/CN.4/1994/79, para. 47), on 7 January 1994 the Government of the Kingdom of Spain sent its observations concerning the communication of 11 October 1993 (E/CN.4/1994/79, para. 46), which had been transmitted to it by the Special Rapporteur:
"Pursuant to my letter No. 153/93 of 9 November 1993 and in order to supplement the information furnished by the Government of Spain concerning allegations of religious intolerance with respect to Spain as regards the case involving the religious movement called 'The Family', I have the honour to inform you that, in accordance with the communication from the State Attorney-General, the Public Prosecutor in Barcelona attached to the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court has filed an appeal against the acquittal decision handed down in this case."
12. On 15 March 1994, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain submitted further observations on the above-mentioned communication:
"Pursuant to my letters Nos. 153/3 of 9 November 1993 and 3/94 of 7 January 1994 and in order to supplement the information furnished by the Government of Spain concerning allegations of religious intolerance with respect to Spain as regards the case involving the religious movement called 'The Family', I have the honour to transmit herewith a report on the matter addressed to the Special Rapporteur on the question of religious intolerance from the Spanish Ministry of Social Affairs."
"Report concerning the religious movement 'The Family' prepared for the Special Rapporteur on the question of religious intolerance
Article 16 of the Spanish Constitution guarantees, among other fundamental rights, the right to freedom of ideology, religion and worship. All individuals enjoying full legal capacity, i.e. persons of full age, may exercise these rights.
Religious entities belonging to churches, faiths and communities with activities in Spain are regarded as religious and are therefore placed under the protection of the Organization Act relating to freedom of religion, but a large number of them, whose purpose is to study and experiment with psychic and parapsychic phenomena or to propagate humanist or spiritualist values and which do not have a truly religious function, fall outside the scope of that Act.
The Constitution and the Organization Act relating to freedom of religion guarantee religious entities, and hence sects, which are characterized as such, the right to exercise freedom of religion or worship without any restrictions other than those required in order that activities resulting from the expression of this freedom may be conducted with due regard for public order as protected by law, so as to preserve the right of others to exercise public freedoms and fundamental rights and to safeguard security and public health, without it being necessary to enter those organizations in any official register. In this connection, the authorities may not interfere in matters concerning the basic religious beliefs of Spaniards and may not exercise any coercion against believers who, availing themselves of their legitimate right, have made a specific choice in the matter of religion or belief.
Not only may religious entities freely exercise their activities, but they may also request to be entered in the register of religious entities kept at the Ministry of Justice. Registration is free and public and, since the procedure is tantamount to deposit of an instrument of incorporation, upon being registered, religious entities acquire legal personality.
Moreover, the Constitution itself requires the public authorities to guarantee 'the right of everyone to education, through general planning of education, with the effective participation of all parties concerned and the setting up of teaching establishments'.
Article 39 of the Constitution stipulates that children shall enjoy the protection provided for by international conventions designed to protect their rights. It should be noted in this connection that Spain has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Article 14 of the Convention establishes the right of children to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right of parents and legal representatives to guide children in the exercise of that right, and further provides for a number of restrictions to the exercise of that right.
In accordance with constitutional requirements and for the protection in particular of the rights of the child, article 172 of the Civil Code, establishes the possibility for the competent public authority for the protection of minors to assume custodial responsibility for a minor who is in need of care because the parents are not properly performing their duties in respect of protection.
The competent authority is consequently required to intercede when it finds a child to be in a situation where he or she is in need of care through being exposed to possible violations of his or her rights.
Such a situation may arise for a wide variety of reasons, including cases where the minor or his or her parents belong to a particular religious movement, if within that movement violations are committed of such rights as the right to health, the right to physical integrity, the right to education and the many other rights enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Concern about the ill effects of certain sects on children is shared by all countries and by international organizations like the Council of Europe, which, following the European Parliament, has adopted a recommendation (Recommendation 1178 (1992)) on sects and new religious movements.
In the case of the 'Children of God' or 'The Family', the Catalan authorities considered that the fundamental rights of the children confined therein were not being respected, for which reason, acting in accordance with the law and in compliance with a court order, they authorized a search of the home belonging to the aforesaid movement.
The children were placed in welfare centres for minors, along with other children placed in the care of the Catalan authorities and no discrimination was exercised against them on the grounds that their parents belonged to a religious movement or for any other reason.
The Spanish Constitution recognizes a further fundamental right, which is the right to effective judicial protection. In the present case, several judicial bodies interceded, namely, the fourth examining court of Sabadell, the nineteenth court (domestic court) of Barcelona and the Court of Appeal of Barcelona, to which the appeal lodged by the parents of the children concerned was referred.
One of the judges, serving on the bench of the nineteenth court (domestic court) of Barcelona, fixed the schedule of visits for the parents and indeed ordered them to spend their holidays together, with supervision being exercised through a weekly visit by social workers.
Appended to this document is a report by the Generalitat of Catalonia (Social Welfare Department, Directorate of Child Welfare), which answers point by point the allegations made by the aforementioned sect to the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of religious intolerance.
REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF CHILD WELFARE (DEPARTMENTOF SOCIAL WELFARE OF THE GENERALITAT OF CATALONIA) TO THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
In reply to the communication received from the Special Rapporteur, based on information brought to his notice concerning the movement 'Children of God' or 'The Family', the Directorate of Child Welfare has the honour to transmit the following information and comments:
1. The fourth examining court of Sabadell, 'following the measures (file No. 100/90) taken by virtue of the report drawn up by the 'Mozos de Escuadra' (autonomous police) of the Generalitat of Catalonia and the request by the Public Prosecutor's Department, which showed that at least 20 children under the age of 11 were living in the property situated at Castellar des Vallés (Avda. Can Piñol, No. 45, sector D, Urbanización 'Airesol'), who, according to investigations, were clearly in a situation presenting a danger to their physical and mental health, such as to make it necessary for them to be immediately admitted to an appropriate reception centre; and having taken note of the report by the Public Prosecutor's Department and the information provided in the report drawn up by the Catalan police concerning the residence and way of life of the aforesaid minors in that property, under the authority of persons believed to belong to the destructive sect known as 'Children of God' or 'Family of Love', whose activities as a sect might rank among various offences covered and punished by the Penal Code; and having regard, in addition, to the obvious risk that an extended stay in the property might entail for the physical and mental health of the aforesaid minors; taking into account the provisions of article 172 of the Civil Code and other such provisions; authorizes the police force to seize the minors immediately and to have them admitted to the appropriate reception centre and the competent child welfare agency (in Catalonia, the Directorate of Child Welfare) will of its own motion assume custodial responsibility for those children, so long as other measures have not been taken, in accordance with the law'.
2. The operative part of the above-mentioned judicial decision is reproduced below:
'The Mozos de Escuadra of the autonomous police of the Generalitat of Catalonia are authorized to go and round up immediately the minors, about whom nothing is known as to their identity, nationality or other personal particulars and who may be found at the private home located at Castellar des Vallés (Avda. Can Piñol, No. 45, Ubanización Airesol, Sector D) under the authority of the destructive sect known as "Children of God - Family of Love" or "Missionary Families" or "Missionary Families of Montserrat", in order to have them admitted forthwith to the "San José de la Montaña" reception centre, placing them in the hands of the Directorate of Child Welfare, Generalitat of Catalonia, which of its own motion shall assume custodial responsibility for the children, so long as no other measure has been taken, in accordance with the law.'
3. On 8 July 1990, in accordance with the above-mentioned judicial warrant, the Catalan police took away 21 minors from the property referred to and had them provisionally admitted to the San José de la Montaña Centre in Barcelona, placing them under the protection and control of the Directorate of Child Welfare, which is entrusted with the requisite powers and functions under Act No. 21/87 of 20 November amending certain articles of the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Act in respect of family placements, adoption and other forms of protection for minors, in conjunction with Catalan legislation.
4. In accordance with the above-mentioned judicial decision and the provisions of article 172 et seq. of the Civil Code, Decree No. 332/1988 of 21 November and Decree No. 380/1988 of 1 December concerning the powers and structure of the Directorate of Child Welfare, the latter, by administrative decision, declared the minors to be in need of care and placed them under its control, granting custody to the director of a recognized centre, namely, the 'San José de la Montaña' reception centre.
This decision was notified in particular to the fourth examining court of Sabadell, the United States Consulate General in Barcelona and the Public Prosecutor's Department and, subsequently, to the parents of the minors, once their identity had been established.
5. Availing themselves of their rights under the Civil Code, the parents of the minors informed the nineteenth court of first instance (domestic court) of Barcelona of their opposition to that decision.
6. Subsequently, the second examining court of Sabadell, to which the criminal action brought by the fourth examining court of Sabadell on 2 August 1990 had been referred, instructed a psychologist and an educator from the Directorate of Child Welfare to make a diagnosis, to monitor the development and behaviour of the children and to coordinate and supervise the action of the technical team responsible for studying the case.
By a decision dated 7 September 1990, filed under No. 717/90-P, the court approved and confirmed the custodial responsibility assumed by the Directorate of Child Welfare and the placement of the minors in an institution and, in addition, fixed a schedule of weekly visits for the parents.
7. In September 1990, all the minors were transferred to the Mas Arquer reception centre in Arenys de Munt (Barcelona) so that they could be better looked after and continue their education normally.
The parents of three of the children filed a complaint with the first examining court of Arenys de Mar on 13 October 1990 for failure to comply with the duty of protection and for coercion. After taking cognizance of the reports and statements of the educators and technical and administrative staff of the centre, the judge dismissed the complaints, noting that there was no evidence and that the facts complained of had not been established.
8. On 10 July 1990, on the basis of provisions of article 172 et seq. of the Civil Code and Decrees Nos. 332 and 380/1988 concerning the powers and structure of the Directorate of Child Welfare, the Directorate of its own motion assumed custodial responsibility for the minors in question and entrusted legal custody to the director of the San José de la Montaña centre and then to the director of the Mas Arquer reception centre.
9. The parents of the minors protested against the measures taken by the Directorate of Child Welfare and expressly lodged a complaint with the nineteenth court of first instance (domestic court) of Barcelona, which instituted the required legal proceedings (case No. 510/90-DC).
On 7 September 1990, the court upheld the institutional placement decision taken by the Directorate of Child Welfare in the case of all the minors taken into care, granting the parents visiting rights (one day a week).
10. By court order of 9 July 1991 and following the request for interim measures made by the Directorate of Child Welfare, the nineteenth court of first instance (domestic court) authorized the Directorate to fix a holiday schedule for the children with their parents for the summer of 1991 and to arrange for weekly visits by social workers from the place of residence of each family, with the requirement that they report to the court in the second half of September.
On 6 November 1991, the nineteenth court delivered a court order non-suiting the parents who had challenged the measures taken against their children and confirming the decision of the Directorate of Child Welfare to assume custodial responsibility for the children, while authorizing the minors concerned to remain in the company and in the custody of their parents, under the supervision of the Directorate of Child Welfare and the Public Prosecutor's Department.
11. The parents appealed against the court decision referred to in the previous paragraph and, on 21 May 1992, the Court of Appeal of Barcelona handed down a judgement annulling the declaration of need of care and the custodial measures taken by the Directorate of Child Welfare.
12. Subsequently, on 29 June 1993, the third division of the Court of Appeal of Barcelona acquitted the accused - the parents of the minors -of the charges made by the Public Prosecutor's Department of fraud, assault and battery, unlawful setting up of a teaching establishment and unlawful association, and quashed the preservation measures previously adopted.
13. Through the Counsel of the Generalitat of Catalonia (Letrado de Generalitat de Catluña), the Directorate of Child Welfare filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court of the Spanish State against the judgement of the Court of Appeal of Barcelona annulling the declaration of need of care and the custodial measures adopted regarding the minors, pleading a violation of article 24, paragraph 1, of the Spanish Constitution and of the right to education enshrined in paragraphs 1 to 5 of article 27, read in conjunction with article 15 of the Constitution.
The decision of the Constitutional Court is at present awaited.
14. Annex I of this report contains general clarifications and particulars regarding any reports that the Commission on Human Rights (with responsibility for the question of religious intolerance) may have received concerning the treatment and care of the minors by the staff and institutions of the Autonomous Administration.
Annex I
The paragraph of the complaint reproduced below calls for corrections of detail and an overall rebuttal.
Twenty-two children are alleged to have been removed and detained in public welfare centres for over a year and, during this period, to have been neglected and ill-treated by the social workers. On release of the children, the Catalan authorities are alleged to have required their parents to send them to State schools and further required each family in the community to undertake to reside in their own home.
Firstly, as regards the 'detention' of the children for more than a year: the action taken by the Directorate of Child Welfare in the case of the 'Children of God' was fully in accordance with the law, since, as explained in the preceding document, it was taken at the request of the prosecutor's department of the Juvenile Court and in compliance with the requisite court orders at each stage of the proceedings. The children, whose institutionalization did not last 12 months, were allowed to receive visits from their parents and to spend weekends with their families, in both cases as soon as authorized by the competent judge.
During the children's stay in the Centre, all their rights were respected without restriction and they were able to attend the local State school, take part in activities with other children, and receive visits from school friends in the Centre expressly established for this purpose and organize parties and a variety of activities. In our view, therefore, talk of detention amounts to an outright lie.
As to ill-treatment and neglect by the social workers, the specialist teachers hired to care for the children all had the necessary qualifications; some were social workers, others had received other training and the Centre was managed by a woman educationalist from the Directorate of Child Welfare with broad experience in the educational field.
The technical team called upon to advise the judge on the final solution to be proposed frequently visited the children and examined them and in no case was there any suggestion of neglect or ill-treatment. On the contrary, the development of all aspects of the children's personalities during the months of their placement in the Centre was more than satisfactory.
The action taken by the Administration concluded with the return of the children to their parents' custody, with retention of guardianship, the Administration requiring, in accordance with the decision of the Court and the Public Prosecutor's Department, that the children should continue their schooling in official establishments (whether public or private) and that they should continue to join in activities with other children of their acquaintance (sports, hobbies, etc.).
The families were advised to live separately in order to strengthen the children's feeling of belonging to a family unit. That was merely advice, but it was followed spontaneously by all members of the group. Family therapy was also recommended, and a few families of the group accepted it spontaneously."
13. On 17 November 1994, the Special Rapporteur received the following additional information from the Spanish Government:
"In order to supplement the information, I have the honour to transmit to you the Supreme Court ruling dated 30 October 1994 rejecting the appeal by the Public Prosecutor's Department against the decision of the Provincial Court of Barcelona of 29 June 1993, which you have already received.
In Spain, the case is thus closed:
1. The measures for the protection of the minors ordered by the Generalitat of Catalonia were cancelled by the ruling of the Provincial Court of Barcelona dated 21 May 1992 and the Constitutional Court rejected the application for amparo filed against the ruling (see our communications of 5 November 1993 and 2 November 1994).
2. The criminal accusation against the parents of the minors was rejected by the Provincial Court of Barcelona in a ruling of 29 June 1993 that was upheld by the Supreme Court on 30 October 1994.
We repeat:
There has never been any violation by the Kingdom of Spain of the right to freedom of religion and there has been no discrimination on grounds of religion or belief."