MOGOENG CJ The nature of the affected interests and rights [55] Section 28(2) of the Constitution provides that “[a] child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.” Children are, after all, most vulnerable. Some of them are so young that they are incapable of lodging a complaint about abusive or potentially injurious treatment or punishment, however well-intentioned it might have been. Even those who are of school-going age might often be ignorant of what they could do to alert the law enforcement authorities to actual or potentially harmful parental conduct that they are made to endure. This alludes to an interesting speculation, not completely irrelevant though, whether the child in this matter would have reported the assault case had the mother not been a victim of the assault too. [56] The State is obliged to respect, protect, promote and fulfil a child’s section 28 protections44 and the Judiciary is thus bound by the provisions of section 28.45 That means that in our approach to a parent’s entitlement to chastise a child reasonably and moderately, of paramount importance should be the best interests of the child in respect of protection from potential abuse and the need to limit the right because of the good a child and society stand to derive from its retention as a disciplinary tool. [57] More telling is that the drafters of section 28(2) chose not to say that the “interests” of a child are of “importance” in “some matters” concerning a child. The Constitution provides that “in every matter” concerning a child, her “best interests” are of “paramount importance”. That, however, does not mean that the best interests of a child are superior to all other fundamental rights. This much was made clear by this Court in several matters. This Court in S v M held that–– 44 Section 7(2) of the Constitution. 45 Section 8(1) of the Constitution. 21