E/1999/27 E/CN.6/1999/10 7. At the same meeting, statements were made by the representatives of Liechtenstein, Romania, Japan, Canada, Norway, Lesotho, New Zealand, Ecuador, Australia, Zimbabwe, Switzerland, Turkey, the Philippines, Mexico, Algeria, Slovenia, Colombia, Cuba, Chile, Egypt, Costa Rica, China, Sri Lanka, Ghana, India, the United States of America, Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Bolivia and the Dominican Republic. 8. Also at the same meeting, the Deputy Director of the United Nations Development Fund for Women made a statement. General exchange of views 9. At the 1st meeting, on 1 March, the Working Group, at the invitation of the Chairperson, held a general exchange of views on agenda item 6 of the Commission. 10. Delegations recalled that the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women by the General Assembly would be commemorated in December 1999. They considered that the adoption by consensus of the optional protocol would be a fitting way to commemorate this event, especially as 163 States were already parties to the Convention. It would also represent a concrete follow-up to the Platform for Action, which had called for the preparation of an optional protocol and for the Convention’s universal ratification by the year 2000. 11. Delegations stressed that the optional protocol would strengthen implementation of the Convention and of the human rights of women. Delegations called for the completion of an instrument that would be effective and accessible to women, and would reflect the specificity of the Convention and the real situation of women, as well as of women’s experiences of violations of human rights. They noted that in finalizing the optional protocol, the Working Group should be guided by principles including effectiveness for women, consistency with existing human rights instruments and the practice developed thereunder, the requirement of its practicality in the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and the need for its clarity as a legal instrument. 12. Many delegations suggested that both a communications as well as an inquiry procedure should be included in the optional protocol, and that the range among those who could lodge complaints should be broad. Many delegations also noted that a specific provision prohibiting reservations to the optional protocol should be included. At the same time, it was stressed that the optional protocol should be accessible to the largest number of States parties. Delegations expressed confidence that the flexibility of all negotiating partners would ensure the successful conclusion of the work of the Working Group. 13. At the 2nd meeting, on 11 March 1999, interpretative statements were made by the representatives of Japan, Ghana (also on behalf of Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe), the Philippines, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, Egypt, New Zealand, Algeria, Canada, Senegal, Cameroon, Germany (on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the European Union, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the associated country Cyprus as well as the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country Switzerland and the EFTA countries members of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), Mali, Austria, Jordan, Denmark (also on behalf of Finland, Iceland and Norway) and Morocco. 14. At the same meeting, a statement was made by the Chairperson of the Commission on the Status of Women. 57