submission of a communication, others argued that all admissibility criteria ought to be contained in a later article - namely, article 4. Article 3 21. Many delegations expressed support for the formulation proposed in document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1 as it was similar to language used in comparable existing international procedures. Some delegations noted that inclusion of language requiring transmission of admissible communications to the State party concerned was dealt with in a later article and thus did not need to be addressed at the current stage. The Working Group adopted the article ad referendum. Article 4 22. In considering admissibility criteria, many delegations expressed support for an approach which would place the optional protocol on an equal footing with similar international procedures. They noted that a higher admissibility threshold than in other procedures would be discriminatory to women. 23. The Working Group considered the possibility of combining all admissibility criteria - that is, articles 3 and 4 - into one single article. It was, however, found that the criteria contained in article 3 were preconditions of receivability of a communication rather than admissibility criteria strictu sensu. 24. The Working Group attempted to combine the admissibility criteria of article 4 under one chapeau but found that to be difficult. Many delegations expressed support for the formulation contained in article 4 (1) of document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1. It was noted that a formulation which would require the Committee itself to ascertain whether certain criteria were met was potentially too burdensome. Therefore, a formulation should be sought in the chapeau which would lead to a declaration of inadmissibility on the face of the communication. 25. The Working Group agreed ad referendum on the inclusion of a number of admissibility criteria, including the following: that a communication not be incompatible with the provisions of the Convention; that it not be an abuse of the right to submit a communication; and that available domestic remedies be exhausted. Some delegations suggested the addition to the last-mentioned criterion of the notion that such exhaustion be determined in accordance with generally recognized rules of international law, whereas others felt that a more specific qualification should be added which would cover the ineffectiveness or undue prolongation of such domestic remedies. Others were of the opinion that no qualification should be added. It was also suggested that it should be the duty of the petitioner to establish the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies. 26. Some delegations suggested that a criterion covering manifestly ill-founded communications be included. A number of delegations noted that such a criterion, while found in a number of regional instruments, was not to be found in any comparable international procedure. While some delegations proposed the addition of obviously political motivation as a criterion of inadmissibility, many others suggested that that was a particular example of an abuse of the right to submit a communication and argued that specificity was unnecessary. Other delegations argued that the submission of unfounded accusations and distorted facts formed the core of an abuse of the right to petition granted -99-