explanation was offered that this would apply to a situation where the victim herself was not able to complain and a representative would do so on her behalf. 34. The following categories of standing were proposed: a person acting in her own interest; an association acting in the interest of its members; a person acting on behalf of another person who is not in a position to seek relief in her own name; a person acting as a member or in the interest of a group or class of persons; a person acting in the public interest. 35. It was pointed out that the threshold test with regard to the right to complain would depend on the solution of the question of justiciability, and whether all provisions of the Convention would be covered under an optional protocol. It was also emphasized that the optional protocol should empower the Committee to deal with complaints regarding any of the Convention’s provisions, as was done when the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was adopted. It was also pointed out that a compartmentalization of the provisions of the Convention into justiciable and non-justiciable was not desirable as it might create precedents for other human rights treaties. Some delegations emphasized that the result of the Committee’s consideration of a complaint would not be a judgement, but the Committee would assess whether a State party had taken the minimum steps necessary to comply with its obligations under the Convention. 36. It was proposed to expand the right to file a communication by allowing filing to be done on the basis of a "threat of violations or infringements of rights contained in the Convention". 37. While it was proposed to qualify the non-compliance provision by characterizing it as "deliberate, widespread, or systematic", it was also emphasized that the purpose of the optional protocol was to establish an individual complaints procedure. 38. The question was raised as to who would bear the cost of proceedings. Element 8 39. As to whether communications should be in writing only, delegations agreed that, in principle, they should be in writing. Some delegations proposed that in exceptional cases, when the Committee deemed that there was no other reasonable way to lodge a communication, some other means could be accepted, such as oral presentation, or taped submissions. The practical difficulties connected with oral presentations were pointed out. 40. With regard to the confidentiality of the communication, some delegations stressed the need to clarify whether this referred to the identity of the author, the confidential treatment of the communication vis-à-vis third parties, the non-disclosure of the name of the author to the State party, or the outcome of its consideration. It was suggested to clarify the policy objective of this requirement in order to arrive at a solution. The different types of confidentiality requirements contained in various elements, including 8, 9 (b), 11, 12, 15 and 24, was pointed out, and the need for clarity and consistency of concepts in each case was stressed. 41. Some delegations understood the provision to mean confidential treatment of the communication, but not that the communication itself should be confidential. Thus, knowledge of the identity of the author should be limited to the Committee and the State party. This would also be beneficial to the process of mediation. -111-