CRC/C/GC/8 page 7 schools, and most recently in the home.11 The European Committee of Social Rights, monitoring compliance of member States of the Council of Europe with the European Social Charter and Revised Social Charter, has found that compliance with the Charters requires prohibition in legislation against any form of violence against children, whether at school, in other institutions, in their home or elsewhere.12 24. An Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on the Legal Status and Human Rights of the Child (2002) holds that the States parties to the American Convention on Human Rights “are under the obligation … to adopt all positive measures required to ensure protection of children against mistreatment, whether in their relations with public authorities, or in relations among individuals or with non-governmental entities”. The Court quotes provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, conclusions of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and also judgements of the European Court of Human Rights relating to States’ obligations to protect children from violence, including within the family. The Court concludes that “the State has the duty to adopt positive measures to fully ensure effective exercise of the rights of the child”.13 25. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights monitors implementation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In a 2003 decision on an individual communication concerning a sentence of “lashes” imposed on students, the Commission found that the punishment violated article 5 of the African Charter, which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. It requested the relevant Government to amend the law, abolishing the penalty of lashes, and to take appropriate measures to ensure compensation of the victims. In its decision, the Commission states: “There is no right for individuals, and particularly the Government of a country to apply physical violence to individuals for offences. Such a right would be tantamount to sanctioning State-sponsored torture under the Charter and contrary to the very nature of this human rights treaty.”14 The Committee on the Rights of the Child is pleased to note that constitutional and other high-level courts in many countries have issued decisions condemning corporal punishment of children in some or all settings, and in most cases quoting the Convention on the Rights of the Child.15 26. When the Committee on the Rights of the Child has raised eliminating corporal punishment with certain States during the examination of their reports, governmental representatives have sometimes suggested that some level of “reasonable” or “moderate” corporal punishment can be justified as in the “best interests” of the child. The Committee has identified, as an important general principle, the Convention’s requirement that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children (art. 3, para. 1). The Convention also asserts, in article 18, that the best interests of the child will be parents’ basic concern. But interpretation of a child’s best interests must be consistent with the whole Convention, including the obligation to protect children from all forms of violence and the requirement to give due weight to the child’s views; it cannot be used to justify practices, including corporal punishment and other forms of cruel or degrading punishment, which conflict with the child’s human dignity and right to physical integrity.