ÿWPC] ÷ÀèÎJÚYÉZÕkÐî(بáO0|#Bh¦cÃñDwíyT@£0g_½F´”>¦+Î^Ö,4 },È­æ91ü .9ªäžƒ¡ú¤@¸fЛÛXâr”ÿynÀW6$ g%lp{1š–îô&ý9Ä¡ò¿ô¦"zƒ—P»¡(ù lÊf''ÞIºn%ÒùÄ~9¯ÕPØ8~*¿®ÝÑ,×ÃBÈÚ6‚#tîDtf|p¹½ ¦½‡1Á7¥4'2‰s~ýŸ1N13‹sºÝÐÆÓC”œÕëIdeŒ¯)DwÿÂ>_šû±¥^•áðŸxÛŽZL ì©Gý?ÓsÕË?.c ÷4¡(ÆÞp°1ŽÏµp’Aºt)¡Õ!¦÷Õë '.è‡ 51Íž¦V¶WÍáîÂ} g*kŸ;ÒH‘Þãƒë‚ŽZ`•gˆ«ü'€팣õ…¹·ê{‹¬ ÿü´!Çt'ç$¢®??_ðè¼½|Ônl9û,½7ÛU6¾kL(ù^KDVÌ1ji:µA)üÖ¦…~…Ò±Úè$¿Œ›oå˜PY»’üƒ>ŽpSžxÆ”ÓHzýΠ÷E¯ÑéZ×U>²Ìð 0µ¼ 0<q 0Y­ 0_ 0ie 0PÎ 0T Ær 0á8 0( D+A AMl l l ¹ 0NÉ 0Æ #ÁÝ UNž %ìMò(öN^ w,40D mFô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Hendriks v. the Netherlands, Communication No. 201/1985 (27 July 1988), U.N. Doc. Supp. No4), U.N. Doc. Supp. No"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ0ÿÿ.Strongò òÔ  Ôó óÔ  Ô4ÿÿ2EmphasisòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2¸Ò$££Ý ƒf@!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XiÆXXXÔÔ€XiÆXXXiÆÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(žf@$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XzXXXÔÔ€XzXXXzÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÙØÙÙØÈÙ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX œw) K‹k)´ë ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒf@!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XiÆXXXÔÔ€XiÆXXXiÆÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€v.€the€NetherlandsóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€201/1985Ð H˜ ÐÌ27€July€1988Ð  d ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:€óóÔ_ÔWimÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€St.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victim:€óóThe€author€Ð D”  ÐÌòòState€party€concerned:óó€The€Netherlands€Ð ` ÐÌòòDate€of€communication:€óó30€December€1985€(date€of€initial€letter)€Ð Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibility:óó€25€March€1987óó€Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committee,€óóestablished€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð @ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€27€July€1988,€Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concluded€óóits€consideration€of€communication€No.€201/1985,€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐCommittee€by€Ô_ÔWimÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€St.€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€CovenantÐ ¾ Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð ¤ô ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€account€óóall€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication€and€by€the€State€party€concerned,€Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòAdopts€óóthe€following:€Ð "$r# ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóó*€ó óÐ Ô&$"& ÐÓ“ÓÌÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€of€30€December€1985€and€subsequentÐ †)Ö$) Ðletters€of€23€February,€3€September€and€15€November€1986€and€23€January€1988)€is€Ô_ÔWimÔ_ÔÐ l*¼%* ÐÔ_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€a€Netherlands€citizen€born€in€1936,€at€present€residing€in€the€Federal€Republic€ofÐ R+¢&+ ÐGermany,€where€he€works€as€an€engineer.€He€submits€the€communication€on€his€own€behalfÐ 8,ˆ', Ðand€on€behalf€of€his€son,€Ô_ÔWimÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€born€in€1971€in€the€Federal€Republic€ofÐ -n(- ÐGermany,€at€present€residing€in€the€Netherlands€with€his€mother.€The€author€invokes€articleÐ ° Ð23,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant,€which€provides€that:€Ð –æ ÐÌ"States€Parties€...€shall€take€appropriate€steps€to€ensure€equality€of€rights€and€responsibilitiesÐ b² Ðof€spouses€as€to€marriage€...€and€at€its€dissolution.€In€the€case€of€dissolution,€provision€shallÐ H˜ Ðbe€made€for€the€necessary€protection€of€any€children."€Ð . ~ ÐÌHe€claims€that€this€article€has€been€violated€by€the€Courts€of€the€Netherlands€which€grantedÐ ú J Ðexclusive€custody€of€Ô_ÔWimÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€Jr.€to€the€mother€without€ensuring€the€father's€right€ofÐ à 0 Ðaccess€to€the€child.€The€author€claims€that€his€sons's€rights€have€been€and€are€being€violatedÐ Æ   Ðby€his€subjection€to€one„sided€custody;€moreover,€the€author€maintains€that€his€rights€as€aÐ ¬ ü  Ðfather€have€been€and€are€being€violated€and€that€he€has€been€deprived€of€his€responsibilitiesÐ ’â  Ðòòvis„a„visóó€his€son€without€any€reason€other€than€the€unilateral€opposition€of€the€mother.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ2.1€The€author€married€in€1959€and€moved€with€his€wife€to€the€Federal€Republic€of€GermanyÐ D”  Ðin€1962,€where€their€son€Ô_ÔWimÔ_Ô€was€born€in€1971.€The€marriage€gradually€broke€up€and€inÐ *z  ÐSeptember€1973€the€wife€disappeared€with€the€child€and€returned€to€the€Netherlands.€SheÐ ` Ðinstituted€divorce€proceedings€and€on€26€September€1974€the€marriage€was€dissolved€byÐ öF Ðdecision€of€the€Amsterdam€District€Court,€without€settling€the€questions€of€guardianship€andÐ Ü, Ðvisiting€rights.€Since€the€child€was€already€with€the€mother,€the€father€asked€the€court,€inÐ Â ÐDecember€1974€and€again€in€March€1975,€to€make€a€provisional€visiting€arrangement.€InÐ ¨ø ÐMay€1975,€the€Court€awarded€custody€to€the€mother,€without,€however,€making€provisionÐ ŽÞ Ðfor€the€father's€visiting€rights;€co„guardianship€was€awarded€to€the€ex„wife's€father€on€theÐ tÄ Ðground€that€Mr.€Hendriks€was€living€abroad.€Early€in€1978,€the€author€requested€the€ChildÐ Zª ÐCare€and€Protection€Board€to€intercede€in€establishing€contact€between€his€son€and€himself.Ð @ ÐBecause€of€the€mother's€refusal€to€co„operate,€the€Board€failed€in€its€efforts€and€advised€theÐ &v Ðauthor€to€apply€to€the€Juvenile€Judge€of€the€Amsterdam€District€Court.€On€16€June€1978,€theÐ  \ Ðauthor€requested€the€Juvenile€Judge€to€establish€a€first€contact€between€his€son€and€himselfÐ òB Ðand€subsequently€to€make€a€visiting€arrangement.€On€20€December€1978,€the€Juvenile€Judge,Ð Ø( Ðwithout€finding€any€fault€on€the€part€of€the€father,€dismissed€the€request€on€the€grounds€thatÐ ¾ Ðthe€mother€continued€to€oppose€any€such€contact.€In€this€connection,€the€Juvenile€JudgeÐ ¤ô Ðnoted:€Ð Š Ú ÐÌ"That€in€general€the€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€contact€between€a€parent€who€does€not€haveÐ V"¦! Ðcustody€of€a€child€or€children€and€that€child/those€children€must€be€possible;€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ"That,€although€the€court€considers€the€father's€request€reasonable,€the€'mother€cannot€in€allÐ %X $ Ðconscience€agree€to€an€access€order€or€even€to€a€single€meeting€between€the€boy€and€hisÐ î%>!% Ðfather€on€neutral€ground,€despite€the€fact€that€the€Child€Care€and€Protection€Board€wouldÐ Ô&$"& Ðagree€and€would€have€offered€guarantees;€Ð º' #' ÐÌ"That,€partly€in€view€of€the€mother's€standpoint,€it€is€to€be€expected€that€the€interests€of€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðboy€would€be€harmed€if€the€court€were€to€impose€an€order."€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ2.2€On€9€May€1979,€the€author€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€in€Amsterdam,€arguing€thatÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthe€mother's€refusal€to€co„operate€was€not€a€valid€ground€for€rejection€of€his€request.€On€7Ð -n(- ÐJune€1979,€the€Court€of€Appeal€confirmed€the€lower€Court's€judgement:€Ð ° ÐÌ"Considering€...€as€its€main€premise€that€in€principle€a€child€should€have€regular€contact€withÐ |Ì Ðboth€parents€if€it€is€to€have€a€balanced€upbringing€and€be€able€also€to€identify€with€the€parentÐ b² Ðwho€does€not€have€custody,€Ð H˜ ÐÌ"That€cases€may€arise,€however,€where€this€principle€cannot€be€adhered€to,€Ð  d ÐÌ"That€this€may€particularly€be€the€case€where,€as€in€the€present€instance,€a€number€of€yearsÐ à 0 Ðhave€passed€since€the€parents€were€divorced,€both€have€remarried,€but€there€is€still€seriousÐ Æ   Ðconflict€between€the€parents,€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ"That,€in€such€a€case,€it€is€likely€that€an€access€order€will€lead€to€tension€in€the€family€of€theÐ xÈ  Ðparent€who€has€custody€of€the€child€and€that€the€child€can€easily€develop€a€conflict€ofÐ ^®  Ðloyalties,€Ð D”  ÐÌ"That€a€situation€such€as€that€described€above€is€not€in€the€interests€of€the€child,€it€beingÐ ` Ðirrelevant€which€of€the€parents€has€caused€the€tension,€since€the€interests€of€the€child€„€theÐ öF Ðright€to€grow€up€without€being€subjected€to€unnecessary€tension€„€must€prevail,€Ð Ü, ÐÌ"That,€in€addition,€the€father€has€not€seen€the€child€since€1974€and€the€child€now€has€aÐ ¨ø Ðharmonious€family€life€and€has€come€to€regard€the€mother's€present€husband€as€his€father."€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ2.3€On€19€July€1979,€the€author€appealed€on€points€of€law€to€the€Supreme€Court,€arguing€thatÐ Zª Ðthe€grounds€for€a€rejection€could€only€lie€in€exceptional€circumstances€relating€to€the€personÐ @ Ðof€that€parent€"as€certain€to€be€a€danger€to€the€health€and€moral€welfare€of€the€child€or€to€leadÐ &v Ðto€a€serious€disturbance€of€his€mental€balance,€whereas€in€the€present€case€it€has€not€beenÐ  \ Ðstated€or€established€that€such€exceptional€circumstances€exist€or€have€existed".€On€15Ð òB ÐFebruary€1980,€the€Supreme€Court€upheld€the€Court€of€Appeal's€decision,€noting€that€"theÐ Ø( Ðright€of€the€parent€who€does€not€have€or€will€not€be€awarded€custody€of€the€child€to€haveÐ ¾ Ðaccess€to€that€child€must€never€be€lost€sight€of€but€„€as€the€Court€rightly€judged€in€this€case€„Ð ¤ô Ðthe€interests€of€the€child€must€ultimately€be€paramount".€The€author€therefore€states€that€heÐ Š Ú Ðhas€exhausted€domestic€remedies.€Ð p!À  ÐÌ2.4€The€author€contends€that€the€Netherlands€courts€did€not€correctly€apply€article€161,Ð <#Œ" Ðsection€5,€of€the€Netherlands€Civil€Code,€which€stipulates€that€"on€demand€or€on€applicationÐ "$r# Ðof€both€parents€or€of€one€of€them,€the€judge€may€lay€down€an€arrangement€regarding€contactÐ %X $ Ðbetween€the€child€and€the€parent€not€granted€custody€of€the€child.€If€such€arrangement€hasÐ î%>!% Ðnot€been€laid€down€in€the€divorce€judgement€....€it€may€be€laid€down€at€a€later€date€by€theÐ Ô&$"& ÐJuvenile€Judge".€In€view€of€the€"inalienable"€right€of€the€child€to€have€contact€with€both€hisÐ º' #' Ðparents,€the€author€contends€that€the€Netherlands€courts€must€grant€visiting€rights€to€the€non„Ð  (ð#( Ðcustodial€parent,€unless€exceptional€circumstances€exist.€Since€the€Courts€did€not€make€anÐ †)Ö$) Ðarrangement€for€mutual€access€in€his€case€and€no€exceptional€circumstances€exist,€it€isÐ l*¼%* Ðargued€that€Netherlands€legislation€and€practice€do€not€effectively€guarantee€the€equality€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðrights€and€responsibilities€of€spouses€at€the€dissolution€of€marriage€nor€the€protection€ofÐ 8,ˆ', Ðchildren,€as€required€by€article€23,€paragraphs€I€and€4,€of€the€Covenant.€In€particular,€theÐ -n(- Ðauthor€notes€that€the€law€does€not€give€the€courts€any€guidance€as€to€which€exceptionalÐ ° Ðcircumstances€might€.serve€as€a€justification€for€the€denial€of€this€fundamental€right€ofÐ –æ Ðmutual€access.€For€the€psychological€balance€and€harmonious€development€of€a€child,Ð |Ì Ðcontact€with€the€parent€who€was€not€granted€custody€must€be€maintained,€unless€the€parentÐ b² Ðin€question€constitutes€a€danger€to€the€child.€In€the€case€of€his€son€and€himself,€the€authorÐ H˜ Ðcontends€that,€although€the€Netherlands€courts€ostensibly€had€the€best€interests€of€the€childÐ . ~ Ðin€mind,€Ô_ÔWimÔ_Ô€junior€has€been€denied€the€opportunity€of€seeing€his€father€for€12€years€on€theÐ  d Ðinsufficient€ground€that€his€mother€opposed€such€contacts€and€that€court„enforced€visitsÐ ú J Ðcould€have€caused€psychological€stress€detrimental€to€the€child.€The€author€argues€that€everyÐ à 0 Ðdivorce€entails€psychological€stress€for€all€parties€concerned€and€that€the€courts€erred€inÐ Æ   Ðdetermining€the€interests€of€the€child€in€a€static€manner€by€focusing€only€on€his€protectionÐ ¬ ü  Ðfrom€tension,€which,€moreover,€would€not€be€caused€by€the€father's€misconduct€but€by€theÐ ’â  Ðmother's€categorical€opposition.€The€author€concludes€that€the€courts€should€have€interpretedÐ xÈ  Ðthe€child's€best€interests€in€a€dynamic€manner€by€giving€more€weight€to€Ô_ÔWimÔ_Ô€junior's€needÐ ^®  Ðto€maintain€contact€with€his€father,€even€if€the€re„establishment€of€the€father„son€relationshipÐ D”  Ðmight€initially€have€given€rise€to€certain€difficulties.€Ð *z  ÐÌ2.5€Having€regard€to€article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€author€states€thatÐ öF Ðon€14€September€1978€he€submitted€an€application€to€the€European€Commission€of€HumanÐ Ü, ÐRights,€and€that€consideration€of€the€matter€by€that€body€was€completed€with€the€adoptionÐ Â Ðof€the€Commission's€report€on€8€March€1982.€On€3€May€1984,€the€author€submitted€aÐ ¨ø Ðseparate€application€to€the€European€Commission€on€behalf€of€his€son.€On€7€October€1985,Ð ŽÞ Ðthe€Commission€declared€the€case€inadmissible,€òòrations€personae.óó€Ð tÄ ÐÌ2.6€The€author€therefore€requested€the€Human€Rights€Committee€to€consider€hisÐ @ Ðcommunication€since€he€had€exhausted€domestic€remedies€and€the€same€matter€was€notÐ &v Ðpending€before€another€procedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement.€Ð  \ ÐÌ3.€By€its€decision€of€26€March€1986,€the€Committee€transmitted€the€communication,€underÐ Ø( Ðrule€91€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€to€the€State€party€concerned,€requestingÐ ¾ Ðinformation€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€of€the€admissibility€of€theÐ ¤ô Ðcommunication.€Ð Š Ú ÐÌ4.1€In€its€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€9€July€1986,€the€State€party€contests€the€author'sÐ V"¦! Ðstanding€to€submit€an€application€on€behalf€of€his€son,€adding€that:€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ"The€family€relationship€between€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€St.€and€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€Jr.€does€not€in€itself€provideÐ %X $ Ðsufficient€grounds€to€assume€that€the€son€wishes€the€application€to€be€submitted€...€Even€ifÐ î%>!% ÐMr.€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€did€have€the€right€to€submit€an€application€on€behalf€of€his€son,€it€is€doubtfulÐ Ô&$"& Ðwhether€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€Jr.€could€be€regarded€as€a€'victim'€within€the€meaning€of€rule€90,Ð º' #' Ðparagraph€1€(b),€[of€the€Committee's€provisional€rules€of€procedure].€The€Government€of€theÐ  (ð#( ÐNetherlands€wishes€to€stress€that€the€Netherlands€authorities€have€never€prevented€Ô_ÔWimÔ_ÔÐ †)Ö$) ÐÔ_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€Jr.€from€contacting€his€father€of€his€own€accord€if€he€wished€to€do€so.€TheÐ l*¼%* ÐGovernment€of€the€Netherlands€would€point€out€in€this€respect€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€St.€metÐ R+¢&+ Ðhis€son€in€1985€and€entertained€him€at€his€home€in€the€Federal€Republic€of€Germany."€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð4.2€With€respect€to€the€compatibility€of€the€communication€with€the€Covenant,€the€StateÐ ° Ðparty€contends€that€article€23,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant€Ð –æ ÐÌ"does€not€seem€to€include€a€rule€to€the€effect€that€a€parent€who€has€been€divorced€must€haveÐ b² Ðaccess€to€children€from€the€marriage€if€those€children€are€not€normally€resident€with€him/her.Ð H˜ ÐIf€the€article€does€not€lay€down€such€a€right,€there€is€no€need€to€explore€the€question€ofÐ . ~ Ðwhether€this€right€...€has€actually€been€violated."€Ð  d ÐÌ4.3€With€respect€to€the€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€State€party€observes€that€thereÐ à 0 Ðis€nothing€to€prevent€the€author€from€once€again€requesting€the€Netherlands€courts€to€issueÐ Æ   Ðan€access€order,€basing€his€request€on€"changed€circumstances",€since€Ô_ÔWimÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€Jr.€isÐ ¬ ü  Ðnow€over€12€years€old,€and,€in€accordance€with€the€new€article€902€(b)€of€the€Code€of€CivilÐ ’â  ÐProcedure€which€came€into€force€on€5€July€1982,€Ô_ÔWimÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€Jr.€would€have€to€be€heardÐ xÈ  Ðby€the€Court€in€person€before€a€judgement€could€be€made.€Ð ^®  ÐÌ5.1€In€his€comments€dated€3€September€1986,€the€author€states€that€the€decision€of€theÐ *z  ÐSupreme€Court€of€the€Netherlands€of€24€February€1980€effectively€prevents€him€from€re„Ð ` Ðentering€the€domestic€recourse€system.€Ð öF ÐÌ5.2€With€regard€to€the€question€of€his€standing€to€represent€his€son€before€the€Committee,Ð Â Ðthe€author€submits€a€letter€dated€15€November€1986,€countersigned€by€his€son,€forwardingÐ ¨ø Ða€copy€of€the€initial€letter€of€30€December€1985€and€of€the€comments€of€3€September€1986,Ð ŽÞ Ðalso€countersigned€by€his€son.€Ð tÄ ÐÌ6.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ @ ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ &v Ðwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€The€CommitteeÐ  \ Ðdecided€on€the€admissibility€of€the€Communication€at€its€twenty„ninth€session,€as€follows.€Ð òB ÐÌ6.2€Article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€precludes€the€Committee€fromÐ ¾ Ðconsidering€a€communication€if€the€same€matter€is€being€examined€under€another€procedureÐ ¤ô Ðof€international€investigation€or€settlement.€The€Committee€ascertained€that€the€case€was€notÐ Š Ú Ðunder€examination€elsewhere.€It€also€noted€that€prior€consideration€of€the€same€matter€underÐ p!À  Ðanother€procedure€did€not€preclude€the€Committee's€competence€as€the€State€party€had€madeÐ V"¦! Ðno€reservation€to€that€effect.€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ6.3€Article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol€precludes€the€Committee€fromÐ %X $ Ðconsidering€a€communication€unless€domestic€remedies€have€been€exhausted.€In€thatÐ î%>!% Ðconnection,€the€Committee€noted€that,€in€its€submission€of€9€July€1986,€the€State€party€hadÐ Ô&$"& Ðinformed€the€Committee€that€nothing€would€prevent€Mr.€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€from€once€againÐ º' #' Ðrequesting€the€Netherlands€courts€to€issue€an€access€order.€The€Committee€observed,Ð  (ð#( Ðhowever,€that€Mr.€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô'€claim,€initiated€before€the€Netherlands€courts€12€years€earlier,Ð †)Ö$) Ðhad€been€adjudicated€by€the€Supreme€Court€in€1980.€Taking€into€account€the€provision€ofÐ l*¼%* Ðarticle€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€òòin€fine€óóof€the€Optional€Protocol€regarding€unreasonably€prolongedÐ R+¢&+ Ðremedies,€the€author€could€not€be€expected€to€continue€to€request€the€same€courts€to€issueÐ 8,ˆ', Ðan€access€order€on€the€basis€of€"changed€circumstances",€notwithstanding€the€proceduralÐ -n(- Ðchange€in€domestic€law€(enacted€in€1982)€which€would€now€require€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô,€Jr.€to€beÐ ° Ðheard.€The€Committee€observed€that,€although€in€family€law€disputes,€such€as€custody€casesÐ –æ Ðof€that€nature,€changed€circumstances€might€often€justify€new€proceedings,€it€was€satisfiedÐ |Ì Ðthat€the€requirement€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies€had€been€met€in€the€case€before€it.€Ð b² ÐÌ6.4€With€regard€to€the€State€party's€reference€to€the€scope€of€article€23,€paragraph€4,€of€theÐ . ~ ÐCovenant€(para.€4.2€above),€i.e.€whether€the€provision€in€question€laid€down€a€right€of€accessÐ  d Ðfor€a€divorced€parent€or€not,€the€Committee€decided€to€examine€the€issue€with€the€merits€ofÐ ú J Ðthe€case.€Ð à 0 ÐÌ7.€On€25€March€1987,€the€Committee€therefore€decided€that€the€communication€wasÐ ¬ ü  Ðadmissible.€In€accordance€with€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€StateÐ ’â  Ðparty€was€requested€to€submit€to€the€Committee,€within€six€months€of€the€date€of€transmittalÐ xÈ  Ðto€it€of€the€decision€on€admissibility,€written€explanations€or€statements€clarifying€the€matterÐ ^®  Ðand€the€measures,€if€any,€that€might€have€been€taken€by€it.€Ð D”  ÐÌ8.1€In€its€submission€under€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€dated€19€OctoberÐ ` Ð1987,€the€State€party€contends€that€article€23,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant€does€not€provideÐ öF Ðfor€a€right€of€access€to€his/her€child€for€a€parent€who€has€been€divorced€and€whose€childrenÐ Ü, Ðare€not€normally€resident€with€him/her.€Neither€the€òòÔ_ÔtravauxÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔpreparatoiresÔ_Ô€óónor€the€wordingÐ Â Ðof€the€said€article€would€seem€to€imply€this.€The€State€party€further€affirms€that€it€has€metÐ ¨ø Ðthe€requirements€of€article€23,€paragraph€4,€since€the€equality€of€rights€and€responsibilitiesÐ ŽÞ Ðof€spouses€whose€marriage€has€been€dissolved€through€divorce€is€assured€under€NetherlandsÐ tÄ Ðlaw,€which€also€provides€for€the€necessary€protection€of€any€children.€After€the€divorce,Ð Zª Ðcustody€can€be€awarded€to€either€the€mother€or€the€father.€The€State€party€submits€that:€Ð @ ÐÌ"In€general,€it€can€be€assumed€that€a€divorce€occasions€such€tensions€that€it€is€essential€to€theÐ  \ Ðchild's€interest€that€only€one€of€the€parents€be€awarded€custody.€In€cases€of€this€kind,€articleÐ òB Ð161,€paragraph€1,€of€book€1€of€the€Civil€Code€provides€that,€after€the€dissolution€of€aÐ Ø( Ðmarriage€by€divorce,€one€of€the€parents€shall€be€appointed€guardian.€This€parent€will€thenÐ ¾ Ðhave€sole€custody€of€the€child.€The€courts€decide€which€parent€is€to€be€awarded€custody€afterÐ ¤ô Ða€divorce.€This€is€done€on€the€basis€of€the€interests€of€the€child.€One€may€therefore€concludeÐ Š Ú Ðthat,€by€these€provisions,€Netherlands€law€effectively€guarantees€the€equality€of€rights€andÐ p!À  Ðresponsibilities€of€parents€after€the€dissolution€of€marriage,€bearing€in€mind€the€necessaryÐ V"¦! Ðprotection€of€the€child."€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌThe€State€party€adds€that€it€is€customary€for€parents€to€agree,€at€the€time€of€the€divorce,€onÐ %X $ Ðan€access€arrangement€between€the€child€and€the€parent€who€was€not€awarded€custody.€TheÐ î%>!% Ðlatter,€in€accordance€with€article€161,€paragraph€5,€of€the€Civil€Code,€can€request€the€CourtÐ Ô&$"& Ðto€decide€on€an€access€arrangement.€Ð º' #' ÐÌ8.2€The€State€party€further€explains€that,€if€the€Committee€should€interpret€article€23,Ð †)Ö$) Ðparagraph€4,€of€the€Covenant€as€granting€a€right€of€access€to€his/her€child€to€the€parent€whoÐ l*¼%* Ðwas€not€awarded€custody,€it€would€wish€to€observe€that€such€a€right€has,€in€practice,Ð R+¢&+ Ðdeveloped€in€the€Netherlands€legal€system:€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð"Although€not€laid€down€explicitly€in€(the€Netherlands)€legislation,€it€is€assumed€that€theÐ ° Ðparent€not€awarded€custody€has€a€right€of€access.€This€right€derives€from€article€8,€paragraphÐ –æ Ð1,€of€the€European€Convention€on€Human€Rights,€which€lays€down€the€right€to€respect€forÐ |Ì Ðfamily€life.€The€Netherlands€is€a€party€to€this€Convention,€which€thus€forms€part€of€theÐ b² ÐNetherlands€legal€system.€Article€8€...€moreover€is€directly€applicable€in€the€Netherlands,Ð H˜ Ðthus€allowing€individual€citizens€to€institute€proceedings€before€the€Netherlands€courts€ifÐ . ~ Ðthey€are€deprived€of€the€above€right."€Ð  d ÐÌ8.3€With€regard€to€the€possible€curtailment€of€access€to€the€child€in€cases€where€this€isÐ à 0 Ðdeemed€crucial€to€the€child's€interests,€the€State€party€refers€to€a€judgement€of€the€SupremeÐ Æ   ÐCourt€of€the€Netherlands€of€2€May€1980,€the€relevant€passage€of€which€reads:€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌ"The€right€to€respect€for€family€life,€as€laid€down€in€article€8€of€the€European€ConventionÐ xÈ  Ðon€Human€Rights,€does€not€imply€that€the€parent€who€is€not€awarded€custody€of€his€or€herÐ ^®  Ðminor€children€is€entitled€to€contact€with€them€where€such€contact€is€clearly€not€in€theÐ D”  Ðchildren's€interest€because€it€would€cause€considerable€disturbance€and€tension€in€the€familyÐ *z  Ðin€which€they€are€living.€To€recognize€such€an€entitlement€on€the€part€of€the€parent€notÐ ` Ðawarded€custody€would€conflict€with€the€children's€rights€under€article€8€of€the€Convention."€Ð öF ÐÌThis,€it€is€stated,€is€a€case€where€the€"necessary€protection€of€any€children",€within€theÐ Â Ðmeaning€of€article€23,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant,€was€the€overriding€interest€at€stake.€TheÐ ¨ø ÐState€party€adds€that€the€Lower€House€of€parliament€is€debating€a€bill€concerning€theÐ ŽÞ Ðarrangement€of€access€in€the€case€of€divorce.€The€bill€proposes€that€the€parent€who€is€notÐ tÄ Ðawarded€custody€after€divorce€be€granted€a€statutory€right€of€access€and€puts€forward€fourÐ Zª Ðgrounds€on€the€basis€of€which€access€could€be€denied€in€the€interests€of€the€child,€to€wit,€if:€Ð @ ÐÌ"(a)€Access€would€have€a€seriously€detrimental€effect€on€the€child's€mental€or€physical€well„Ð  \ Ðbeing;€Ð òB ÐÌ"(b)€The€parent€is€regarded€as€clearly€unfit€or€clearly€incapable€of€access;Ð ¾ ÐÌ"(c)€Access€otherwise€conflicts€with€the€overriding€interest€of€the€child;€Ð Š Ú ÐÌ"(d)€The€child,€being€12€years€of€age€or€older,€has€been€heard€and€has€indicated€that€he€hasÐ V"¦! Ðserious€objections€to€contact€with€his€parent."€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ8.4€Inasmuch€as€the€scope€of€a€parent's€right€of€access€to€his/her€child€is€concerned,€the€StateÐ %X $ Ðparty€indicates€that€such€a€right€is€not€an€absolute€one€and€may€always€be€curtailed€if€this€isÐ î%>!% Ðin€the€overriding€interests€of€the€child.€Curtailment€can€take€the€form€of€denying€the€rightÐ Ô&$"& Ðof€access€to€the€parent€not€awarded€custody€or€restricting€access€arrangements,€for€exampleÐ º' #' Ðby€limiting€the€amount€of€contact.€The€interests€of€the€parent€not€awarded€custody€will€onlyÐ  (ð#( Ðbe€overruled€and€access€denied€if€that€is€considered€to€be€in€the€child's€interests.€However,Ð †)Ö$) Ðif€the€parent€who€was€awarded€custody€reacts€to€access€arrangements€in€such€a€way€as€toÐ l*¼%* Ðcause€considerable€disturbance€in€the€family€in€which€the€child€is€living,€the€parent€who€wasÐ R+¢&+ Ðnot€awarded€custody€may€be€denied€access.€Applications€for€access€can€thus€be€turned€down,Ð 8,ˆ', Ðor€access€rights€revoked,€if€this€is€deemed€to€be€in€the€overriding€interests€of€the€child.€Ð -n(- Ї8.5€The€State€party€further€recalls€that€the€above€considerations€were€all€applied€in€decidingÐ ° Ðwhether€the€author€should€have€access€to€his€son.€This€led€to€the€denial€of€access€by€everyÐ –æ Ðcourt€involved.€Ð |Ì ÐÌ8.6€The€State€party€concludes€that€article€23,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Covenant€has€not€beenÐ H˜ Ðviolated€and€contends€that€the€obligation€to€ensure€the€equality€of€rights€and€responsibilitiesÐ . ~ Ðof€spouses€at€the€dissolution€of€marriage,€referred€to€in€that€provision,€does€not€include€anÐ  d Ðobligation€to€ensure€the€right€of€access€in€the€form€of€an€access€arrangement.€Alternatively,Ð ú J Ðif€the€Committee€should€interpret€the€above€provision€as€encompassing€that€right,€it€statesÐ à 0 Ðthat€the€Netherlands€legal€system€already€provides€for€the€right€in€question.€In€the€author'sÐ Æ   Ðcase,€the€right€,was€assumed€to€exist,€yet€its€exercise€was€denied€in€the€interests€of€the€child.Ð ¬ ü  ÐThe€necessary€protection€of€the€child€upon€dissolution€of€the€marriage€made€it€impossibleÐ ’â  Ðfor€the€complainant€to€exercise€his€right€of€access.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ9.€In€his€comments€dated€23€January€1988,€the€author€claims€that€article€161,€paragraph€5,Ð D”  Ðof€the€Netherlands€Civil€Code€should€have€been€interpreted€as€requiring€the€judge€in€all€butÐ *z  Ðexceptional€cases€to€ensure€continued€contact€between€the€child€and€the€non„custodialÐ ` Ðparent.€He€concludes€that,€in€the€absence€of€a€clear€legal€norm€under€Netherlands€lawÐ öF Ðaffirming€that€a€parent„child€relationship€and€parental€responsibility€continue,€theÐ Ü, ÐNetherlands€courts,€in€the€exercise€of€uncontrolled€discretion,€violated€his€and€his€son'sÐ Â Ðrights€under€the€Covenant€by€denying€his€applications€for€visiting€rights.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ10.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€present€communication€in€the€lightÐ tÄ Ðof€all€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,€paragraph€1,Ð Zª Ðof€the€Optional€Protocol.€The€facts€of€the€case€are€not€in€dispute.€Ð @ ÐÌ10.2€The€main€question€before€the€Committee€is€whether€the€author€of€the€communicationÐ  \ Ðis€the€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€23,€paragraphs€1€and€4,€of€the€Covenant€because,€as€aÐ òB Ðdivorced€parent,€he€has€been€denied€access€to€his€son.€Article€23,€paragraph€1,€of€theÐ Ø( ÐCovenant€provides€for€the€protection€of€the€family€by€society€and€the€State:€Ð ¾ ÐÌ"The€family€is€the€natural€and€fundamental€group€unit€of€society€and€is€entitled€to€protectionÐ Š Ú Ðby€society€and€the€State".€Ð p!À  ÐÌUnder€paragraph€4€of€the€same€article:€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ"States€parties€to€the€present€Covenant€shall€take€appropriate€steps€to€ensure€equality€ofÐ %X $ Ðrights€and€responsibilities€of€spouses€as€to€marriage,€during€marriage€and€at€its€dissolution.Ð î%>!% ÐIn€the€case€of€dissolution,€provision€shall€be€made€for€the€necessary€protection€of€anyÐ Ô&$"& Ðchildren."€Ð º' #' ÐÌ10.3€In€examining€the€communication,€the€Committee€considers€it€important€to€stress€thatÐ †)Ö$) Ðarticle€23,€paragraphs€1€and€4,€of€the€Covenant€sets€out€three€rules€of€equal€importance,Ð l*¼%* Ðnamely,€that€the€family€should€be€protected,€that€steps€should€be€taken€to€ensure€equality€ofÐ R+¢&+ Ðrights€of€spouses€upon€the€dissolution€of€the€marriage€and€that€provision€should€be€made€forÐ 8,ˆ', Ðthe€necessary€protection€of€any€children.€The€words€"the€family"€in€article€23,€paragraph€1,Ð -n(- Ðdo€not€refer€solely€to€the€family€home€as€it€exists€during€the€marriage.€The€idea€of€the€familyÐ ° Ðmust€necessarily€embrace€the€relations€between€parents€and€child.€Although€divorce€legallyÐ –æ Ðends€a€marriage,€it€cannot€dissolve€the€bond€uniting€father€„€or€mother€„€and€child~€this€bondÐ |Ì Ðdoes€not€depend€on€the€continuation€of€the€parents'€marriage.€It€would€seem€that€the€priorityÐ b² Ðgiven€to€the€child's€interests€is€compatible€with€this€rule.€Ð H˜ ÐÌ10.4€The€courts€of€the€States€parties€are€generally€competent€to€evaluate€the€circumstancesÐ  d Ðof€individual€cases.€However,€the€Committee€deems€it€necessary€that€the€law€shouldÐ ú J Ðestablish€certain€criteria€so€as€to€enable€the€courts€to€apply€to€the€full€the€provisions€of€articleÐ à 0 Ð23€of€the€Covenant.€It€seems€essential,€barring€exceptional€circumstances,€that€these€criteriaÐ Æ   Ðshould€include€the€maintenance€of€personal€relations€and€direct€and€regular€contact€betweenÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€child€and€both€parents.€The€unilateral€opposition€of€one€of€the€parents,€cannot,€in€theÐ ’â  Ðopinion€of€the€Committee,€be€considered€an€exceptional€circumstance.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ10.5€In€the€case€under€consideration,€the€Committee€notes€that€the€Netherlands€courts,€as€theÐ D”  ÐSupreme€Court€had€previously€done,€recognized€the€child's€right€to€permanent€contact€withÐ *z  Ðeach€of€his€parents€as€well€as€the€right€of€access€of€the€non„custodial€parent,€but€consideredÐ ` Ðthat€these€rights€could€not€be€exercised€in€the€current€case€because€of€the€child's€interests.Ð öF ÐThis€was€the€court's€appreciation€in€the€light€of€all€the€circumstances,€even€though€there€wasÐ Ü, Ðno€finding€of€inappropriate€Ô_ÔbehaviourÔ_Ô€on€the€part€of€the€author.€Ð  ÐÌ11.€As€a€result,€the€Committee€cannot€conclude€that€the€State€party€has€violated€article€23,Ð ŽÞ Ðbut€draws€its€attention€to€the€need€to€supplement€the€legislation,€as€stated€in€paragraph€10.4.€Ð tÄ ÐÌ____________Ð @ ÐÌ*/€€€The€text€of€an€individual€opinion€submitted€by€Messrs.€Ô_ÔVojinÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDimitrijevicÔ_Ô€and€Omar€ElÐ  \ ÐÔ_ÔShafeiÔ_Ô,€Mrs.€Rosalyn€Higgins€and€Mr.€Adam€Ô_ÔZielinskiÔ_Ô€is€reproduced€in€appendix€I€to€theÐ òB Ðpresent€annex.€The€text€of€an€individual€opinion€submitted€by€Mr.€Amos€Ô_ÔWakoÔ_Ô€is€reproducedÐ Ø( Ðin€appendix€II.Ð ¾ ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓAppendix€I€ó óóóÐ p!À  ÐÓ4†ÓÌÌòòIndividual€opinion:€submitted€by€Messrs.€Ô_ÔVojinÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDimitrijevicÔ_Ô€and€Omar€El€Ô_ÔShafeiÔ_Ô,€Mrs.Ð "$r# ÐRosalyn€Higgins€and€Mr.€Adam€Ô_ÔZielinskiÔ_Ô,€pursuant€to€rule€94,€paragraph€3,€of€theÐ %X $ ÐCommittee's€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€concerning€the€views€of€the€Committee€onÐ î%>!% Ðcommunication€No.€201/1985,€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€v.€the€Netherlandsóó€Ð Ô&$"& ÐÌ1.€The€great€difficulty€that€we€see€in€this€case€is€that€the€undoubted€right€and€duty€of€aÐ  (ð#( Ðdomestic€court€to€decide€"in€the€best€interests€of€the€child"€can,€when€applied€in€a€certainÐ †)Ö$) Ðway,€deprive€a€non„custodial€parent€of€his€rights€under€article€23.€Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ2.€It€is€sometimes€the€case€in€domestic€law€that€the€very€fact€of€a€family€rift€will€lead€a€non„Ð 8,ˆ', Ðcustodial€parent€to€lose€access€to€the€child,€though€he/she€has€not€engaged€in€any€conductÐ -n(- Ðthat€would€òòper€se€óórender€contact€with€the€child€undesirable.€However,€article€23€of€theÐ ° ÐCovenant€speaks€not€only€of€the€protection€of€the€child,€but€also€of€the€right€to€a€family€life.Ð –æ ÐWe€agree€with€the€Committee€that€this€right€to€protection€of€the€child€and€to€a€family€lifeÐ |Ì Ðcontinues,€in€the€parent„child€relationship,€beyond€the€termination€of€a€marriage.€Ð b² ÐÌ3.€In€this€case,€the€Amsterdam€District€Court€rejected€the€father's€petition€for€access,Ð . ~ Ðalthough€it€had€found€the€request€reasonable€and€one€that€should€in€general€be€allowed.€ItÐ  d Ðwould€seem,€from€all€the€documentation€at€our€disposal,€that€its€denial€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô'Ð ú J Ðpetition€was€based€on€the€tensions€likely€to€be€generated€by€the€mother's€refusal€to€agree€toÐ à 0 Ðsuch€a€contact€„€"even€to€a€single€meeting€between€the€boy€and€his€father€on€neutral€ground,Ð Æ   Ðdespite€the€fact€that€the€Child€'Care€and€Protection€Board€would€agree€and€would€haveÐ ¬ ü  Ðoffered€guarantees"€(decision€of€20€December€1978).€Given€that€it€was€not€found€that€Mr.Ð ’â  ÐÔ_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô'€character€or€Ô_ÔbehaviourÔ_Ô€was€such€as€to€make€the€contact€with€his€son€undesirable,Ð xÈ  Ðit€seems€to€us€that€the€only€"exceptional€circumstance"€was€the€reaction€of€Ô_ÔWimÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHendrlksÔ_ÔÐ ^®  Ðjunior's€mother€to€the€possibility€of€parental€access€and€that€this€determined€the€perceptionÐ D”  Ðof€what€was€in€the€best€interests€of€the€child.€Ð *z  ÐÌ4.€It€is€not€for€us€to€insist€that€the€courts€were€wrong,€in€their€assessment€of€the€best€interestsÐ öF Ðof€the€child,€in€giving€priority€to€the€current€difficulties€and€tensions€rather€than€to€the€long„Ð Ü, Ðterm€importance€for€the€child€of€contact€with€both€its€parents.€However,€we€cannot€but€pointÐ Â Ðout€that€this€approach€does€not€sustain€the€family€rights€to€which€Mr.€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€and€his€sonÐ ¨ø Ðwere€entitled€under€article€23€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌÔ_ÔVojinÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDimitrijevicÔ_ÔÐ Zª ÐÌRosalyn€HigginsÐ &v ÐÌOmar€El€Ô_ÔShafeiÔ_ÔÐ òB ÐÌAdam€Ô_ÔZielinskiÔ_ԀР¾ ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓAppendix€IIóóó óÐ p!À  ÐÓ •ÓÌÌòòIndividual€opinion:€submitted€by€Mr.€Amos€Ô_ÔWakoÔ_Ô.€pursuant€to€rule€94.€paragraph€3€of€theÐ "$r# ÐCommittee's€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€concerning€the€views€of€the€Committee€onÐ %X $ Ðcommunication€No.€201/1985,€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€v.€the€Netherlandsóó€Ð î%>!% ÐÌ1.€The€Committee's€decision€finding€no€violation€of€article€23€of€the€Covenant€in€this€caseÐ º' #' Ðis€predicated€on€its€reluctance€to€review€the€evaluation€of€facts€or€the€exercise€of€discretionÐ  (ð#( Ðby€a€local€court€of€a€State€party.€Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌ2.€Although€I€fully€appreciate€and€understand€the€Committee's€opinion€in€this€matter€and,Ð R+¢&+ Ðin€fact,€agreed€to€go€along€with€the€consensus,€I€wish€to€put€on€record€my€concerns,€whichÐ 8,ˆ', Ðare.€twofold.€Ð -n(- Ї3.€My€first€concern€is€that,€though€the€Committee's€practice€of€not€reviewing€the€decisionsÐ ° Ðof€local€courts€is€prudent€and€appropriate,€it€is€not€dictated€by€the€Optional€Protocol.€In€casesÐ –æ Ðwhere€the€facts€are€clear€and€the€texts€of€811€relevant€orders€and€decisions€have€been€madeÐ |Ì Ðavailable€by€the€parties,€the€Committee€should€be€prepared€to€examine€them€as€to€theirÐ b² Ðcompatibility€with€the€specific€provisions€of€the€Covenant€invoked€by€the€author.€Thus,€theÐ H˜ ÐCommittee€would€not€be€acting€as€a€"fourth€instance"€in€determining€whether€a€decision€ofÐ . ~ Ða€State€party's€court€was€correct€according€to€that€State's€legislation,€but€would€only€examineÐ  d Ðwhether€the€provisions€of€the€Covenant€invoked€by€the€alleged€victim€have€been€violated.€Ð ú J ÐÌ4.€In€the€present€case,€the€Committee€declared€the€communication€of€Mr.€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_ÔÐ Æ   Ðadmissible,€thus€indicating€that€it€was€prepared€to€examine€the€case€on€the€merits.€In€itsÐ ¬ ü  Ðviews,€however,€the€Committee€has€essentially€decided€that€it€is€unable€to€examine€whetherÐ ’â  Ðthe€decisions€of€the€Netherlands€courts€not€to€grant€the€author€visiting€rights€to€his€son€wereÐ xÈ  Ðcompatible€with€the€requirements€of€protection€of€the€family€and€protection€of€children€laidÐ ^®  Ðdown€in€articles€23€and€24€of€the€Covenant.€Paragraph€10.3€of€the€decision€reflects€theÐ D”  ÐCommittee's€understanding€of€the€scope€of€article€23,€paragraphs€1€and€4,€and€of€the€conceptÐ *z  Ðof€"family".€In€paragraph€10.4,€the€Committee€underlines€the€importance€of€maintainingÐ ` Ðpermanent€personal€contact€between€the€child€and€both€his€parents,€barring€exceptionalÐ öF Ðcircumstances;€it€further€states€that€the€unilateral€opposition€by€one€of€the€parents€„€asÐ Ü, Ðapparently€happened€in€this€case€„€cannot€be€considered€such€an€exceptional€circumstance.Ð Â ÐThe€Committee€should€therefore€have€applied€these€criteria€to€the€facts€of€the€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€case,Ð ¨ø Ðso€as€to€determine€whether€a€violation€of€the€articles€of€the€Covenant€had€occurred.€TheÐ ŽÞ ÐCommittee,€however,€makes€a€finding€of€no€violation€on€the€ground€that€the€discretion€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€local€courts€should€not€be€questioned.€Ð Zª ÐÌ5.€My€second€concern€is€whether€the€Netherlands€legislation,€as€applied€to€the€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_ÔÐ &v Ðfamily€is€compatible€with€the€Covenant.€Section€161,€paragraph€5,€of€the€Netherlands€CivilÐ  \ ÐCode€does€not€provide€for€a€statutory€right€of€access€to€a€child€by€the€non„custodial€parent,Ð òB Ðbut€leaves€the€question€of€visiting€rights€entirely€to€the€discretion€of€the€judge.€TheÐ Ø( ÐNetherlands€legislation€does€not€contain€specific€criteria€for€withholding€of€access.€Thus€theÐ ¾ Ðquestion€arises€whether€the€said€general€legislation€can€be€deemed€sufficient€to€guaranteeÐ ¤ô Ðthe€protection€of€children,€in€particular€the€right€of€children€to€have€access€to€both€parents,Ð Š Ú Ðand€to€ensure€equality€of€rights€and€responsibilities€of€spouses€at€the€dissolution€of€aÐ p!À  Ðmarriage,€as€envisaged€in€articles€23€and€24€of€the€Covenant.€The€continued€contact€betweenÐ V"¦! Ða€child€and€a€non„custodial€parent€is,€in€my€opinion,€too€important€a€matter€to€be€left€solelyÐ <#Œ" Ðto€the€judge€to€decide€upon€without€any€legislative€guidance€or€clear€criteria,€hence€theÐ "$r# Ðemerging€international€norms,€notably€international€conventions€against€the€abduction€ofÐ %X $ Ðchildren€by€parents,€bilateral€agreements€providing€for€visiting€rights€and,€most€importantly,Ð î%>!% Ðthe€draft€convention€on€the€rights€of€the€child,€draft€article€Ý‚ ÿÿÿÝòòÔÔÝ  Ý6,€Ý‚ ÿÿÿé¨theÐÝóóÔÔÝ  Ýparagraph€3,€of€which€provides|Ð Ô&$"& Ð"a€child€who€is€separated€from€one€or€both€parents€has€the€right€to€maintain€personalÐ º' #' Ðrelations€and€direct€contacts€with€both€parents€on€a€regular€basis,€save€in€exceptionalÐ  (ð#( Ðcircumstances".€Draft€article€6€òòhis,€óóparagraph€2,€provides€similarly.'€"a€child€whose€parentsÐ †)Ö$) Ðreside€in€different€States€shall€have€the€right€to€maintain€on€a€regular€basis,€save€inÐ l*¼%* Ðexceptional€circumstances,€personal€relations€and€direct€contacts€with€both€parents€...".€Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ6.€The€facts€of€this€case,€as€presented€to€the€Committee,€do€not€reveal€the€existence€of€anyÐ -n(- Ðexceptional€circumstances€that€might€have€justified€the€denial€of€personal€contacts€betweenÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔWimÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€junior€and€Ô_ÔWimÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHendriksÔ_Ô€senior.€The€Netherlands€courts€themselves€agreedÐ –æ Ðthat€the€father's€application€for€access€was€reasonable,€but€denied€the€application€primarilyÐ |Ì Ðon€the€grounds€of€the€mother's€opposition.€Although€the€Netherlands€courts€may€haveÐ b² Ðapplied€Netherlands€law€to€the€facts€of€this€case€correctly,€it€remains€my€concern€that€Ô_ÔthatÔ_ÔÐ H˜ Ðlaw€does€not€include€a€statutory€right€of€access€nor€any€identifiable€criteria€under€which€theÐ . ~ Ðfundamental€right€of€mutual€contact€between€a€non„custodial€parent€and€his€or€her€childÐ  d Ðcould€be€denied.€I€am€pleased€that€the€Netherlands€Government€is€currently€contemplatingÐ ú J Ðthe€adoption€of€new€legislation€which€would€provide€for€a€statutory€right€of€access€and€giveÐ à 0 Ðthe€courts€some€guidance€for€the€denial€of€access€based€on€exceptional€circumstances.€ThisÐ Æ   Ðlegislation,€if€enacted,€would€better€reflect€the€Spirit€of€the€Covenant.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌAmos€Ô_ÔWakoÔ_Ô€