E/1999/27 E/CN.6/1999/10 compromise, my delegation did not want to break consensus but stresses that the adoption of article 17 should not constitute a precedent in the future.” Morocco “The Moroccan delegation stresses that the interpretation of the provisions of the Protocol will be subordinated to absolute respect for the sovereignty of Morocco and its moral and spiritual values and to the compatibility of those provisions with the Constitution of Morocco.” Netherlands “1. The Netherlands delegation is of the opinion that the draft optional protocol to the women’s Convention that we just adopted provides a sound legal basis for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) to further enhance its role in the protection of women’s human rights. The communications procedure and the inquiry procedure which are contained in the optional protocol are important means, as experience has shown with other global and regional human rights treaties. These procedures give more substance and meaning to the provisions of the women’s Convention in situations most needed. “2. From the practice of other international human rights treaty bodies, it is evident to the Netherlands delegation that the admissibility criteria contained in article 4, paragraph 2, subparagraph iii (manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated) are concrete illustrations of the general admissibility criterion contained in article 4, paragraph 2, subparagraph ii, which provides that a communication should be compatible with the provisions of the Convention.” New Zealand “New Zealand welcomes adoption of the text of the optional protocol. “New Zealand would like to place on the record its understanding of Article 2. “Our understanding is that this article is to be interpreted by reference to the current practice of other human rights treaty bodies in relation to communications procedures.” Philippines “On the substantive aspects of the optional protocol, my delegation would like to stress the following points: “1. We understand article 2 in light of existing practices of human rights treaty bodies contained in their rules of procedure. In article 2, the justification of an author to act on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals must take into consideration the structural contexts of women’s lives — the political, social, economic and cultural constraints and obstacles in women’s public and private lives. These structural constraints place women in situations where they may not be able to exercise their rights fully much less give their consent in crisis and emergency cases. We therefore broadly interpret the circumstances justifying an author acting on behalf of a victim to include some of these circumstances: & Where women at risk are illiterate and have no legal capacity to represent themselves; & Detention or confinement; 69