E/1999/27 E/CN.6/1999/10 counsel, the author should normally be a party involved in the process of seeking domestic jurisdiction. At any rate, the party should be able to demonstrate a standing association with the society concerned. We would interpret ‘consent’ as not acting contrary to the wishes of the victim and without violating her right to privacy should she so desire. “In article 4 (1), ‘unreasonably prolonged’ should be interpreted in the light of the normal speed of justice in the country concerned. It should generally be able to establish that the delay itself is discriminatory. In article 4 (2), the Committee in interpreting subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) should guard itself, in particular, against insufficiently substantiated and politically motivated complaints, particularly when such motivation has an international character intended to exploit the procedure for ends unrelated to the protection of the rights of women. “In seeking responses from States Parties, in article 7 (4), the Committee should take into account the logistical difficulties some, particularly developing, countries can face in obtaining information from far flung places and through various layers of language and case-history. “On article 10, we have gone along with the ‘opt-out’ provision in a spirit of compromise. In our view, the protocol combines two distinct procedures, that of a ‘complaints’ mechanism and an ‘inquiry’ mechanism, that should really have been two separate protocols rather than one integral one. Alternatively, the inquiry mechanism could be regarded as an ‘additional’ protocol. An ‘opt-in’ procedure would have captured this ‘additionality’ or separate layer, better. “We have no reservations to the protocol as finally drafted. For this reason, and because this protocol relates to women, we have been able to go along with article 17 on ‘no reservations’. However, our willingness to deviate from the established conventions international law on this should not be seen as a compromise in principle and cannot be used as a precedent for any future instrument.” Indonesia “I have the honour to express Indonesia’s interpretation on the application of the optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, in particular concerning articles 2 and 11. “First, I should like to state that the Indonesian delegation accepts the draft of the optional protocol as it stands, and that it is our earnest hope that the language of the draft will encourage the expeditious adoption and ratification of the optional protocol. In implementing article 2, I would like to note that it is the position of the Indonesian Government that it will adhere to the principle requiring the consent of the victims. In that regard, it is our view that victims must have the ability to choose for themselves whether or not to pursue redress through an international mechanism established by the United Nations under the optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. This freedom of choice must be respected. Furthermore, in order for women to be fully informed of their rights, the Government, together with non-governmental organizations, have the responsibility to disseminate major United Nations human rights conventions and United Nations human rights supervisory mechanisms, including the mechanism under the optional protocol to the CEDAW. “I would note that while draft article 2 establishes those procedures for individual communications to be received by the United Nations, with the consent of the victims, 65