when the child’s purported father is involved in terrorist activities. States must ensure procedural safeguards that ensure every child’s birth registration, possibly without requiring the father’s information or marriage status. Conferral of nationality to children should always take place without stigmatization or discrimination on any grounds. 2.1.5 Human Rights Considerations Relating to the Practice of Performing DNA Testing on Children to Confirm Nationality 99. Some countries use DNA testing to determine parentage, and thereby eligibility for nationality of children born to individuals suspected of being foreign fighters. DNA testing should be used only to establish eligibility for nationality on an exceptional basis, because of the invasiveness of the measure. Logistical challenges, including access to DNA testing in areas affected by conflict, are likely to make it difficult for many children to be reunited with their families or to be repatriated to their country of nationality if DNA testing is required. States utilizing this measure should perform a careful analysis of each child’s respective situation, ensuring that all necessary information regarding their personal circumstances and background is solicited. In addition, given that the long-term implications of using biometric data on the enjoyment of various human rights are not fully understood, the use of such a method should be limited and should not be undertaken in a way that undermines the best interests of the child or a group of children. The right to family life 100. The Convention on the Rights of the Child describes the family as “the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the 46. growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children.”184 The use of DNA testing to confirm a child’s link to his or her possible country of nationality may pose a risk to the child’s right to association with his or her family. DNA testing will not confirm a genetic link if a child was adopted or in situations in which the individual thought to be the child’s father was not in fact the biological father.185 A narrow definition of family (i.e., direct DNA linkage) may not always serve to best identify those in the position to care for and nurture the child.186 Indeed, “the concept of family may differ in some respects from State to State, and even from region to region within a State, and that it is therefore not possible to give the concept a standard definition.”187 The focus on biological families per se may also lead to separation of a child from the primary caregiver where the child is raised by non-biological parents. Instead, States are encouraged to consider a child’s “family” as not only their direct relatives (biological parents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, etc.), but also less closely related relatives and individuals with a shared life or emotional ties even without a DNA 184 Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), preamble. 185 J. Taitz, J. E. M. Weekers and D. T. Mosca, “The Last Resort: Exploring the Use of DNA Testing for Family Reunification”, Health and Human Rights, vol. 6, no. 1 (2002), available at www.jstor.org/stable/4065312, 20-32. 186 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 16 (1988) on article 17 (The right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation), para. 5, noting that the term “family” should be given a broad interpretation to include those understood as family in the society of the State concerned; see also Committee on the Rights of the Child, concluding observations: Nepal (2005) (CRC/C/15/Add.261), paras. 51 and 52, noting that adequate alternative care for a child includes placement with their extended family; UNICEF, Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2007), 124. 187 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 19 (1990) on protection of the family, the right to marriage and equality of the spouses (article 23), para. 2.