| Analysis |
As regard the disruption of family life, the Commission reiterates its standard jurisprudence that it is an inherent feature of a lawful detention that the person detained should be restricted in his personal liberty including, as in the present case, separation from his family and his household. As regard the custody over her children, the Commission notes that such is necessary in light of the protection of health and morals. Although the Commission has sometimes referred to the ground of the protection of rights and interests of others when it concerns the custody over children, it refers to health and morals in this cases, as it did in its first jurisprudence on these matters. Why it chooses a different rationale, the Commission does not make clear.
|