all the concepts or models of family. Indeed, in General Comment N° 19, the Human Rights Committee, in the same paragraph in which it notes that : “…the concept of family may differ in some respects from State to State, and even between regions within a State, so that it is not possible to give a standard definition of the concept.” 22. Emphasizes that: “…when a group of persons is regarded as a family under the legislation and practice of a State, it must be given the protection referred to in Article 23. Consequently States Parties should report on how the concept and scope of the family is construed or defined in their own society and legal system. Where diverse concepts of family, "nuclear" and "extended”, exist within a State, this should be indicated with an explanation of the degree of protection afforded to each one. In view of the existence of various forms of family, such as unmarried couples and their children or single parents and their children, States Parties should also indicate whether and to what extent such types of family and their members are recognized and protected by domestic laws and practice.” (Cursives added) 23. In other words, it is one of the areas in which it is most essential to allow a national margin of appreciation. For this purpose it will be necessary to conduct an inquiry, which is not appropriate to undertake in this case, but should be done whenever the point is raised in a case brought before this Court and the arguments in that regard presented by the parties and by any amici curiai are heard. 24. All this reaffirms my conviction that in this case it is not necessary or prudent to declare a violation of paragraph 1 of Article 17 which could be taken as an implicit pronouncement on the interpretation of the different provisions of said Article. Alberto Pérez Pérez Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 12