in a position to submit a communication. Some delegations suggested that the right of communication should be confined to victims and that submission of communications on behalf of victims should be allowed in exceptional cases only. Other delegations suggested that the question of whether victims could be represented by third parties in the absence of their consent should be considered. 14. Some delegations suggested that allowing groups with sufficient interest to submit communications would address situations where groups of women - for example, women who had been trafficked - had suffered violations. It was also suggested that such a procedure could also be of value in the light of the many obstacles women faced in effectively using available means for claiming their rights. A number of delegations were doubtful whether those with "sufficient interest" in the matter but who were not directly affected or acting on behalf of an individual or individuals directly affected should be entitled to submit communications. 15. Some delegations favoured the inclusion of standing for groups with sufficient interest in order to address systemic and widespread situations of violations of women’s rights. Such communications could potentially benefit large numbers of women, without identifying a specific group of victims. Others noted that, in their view, the main purpose of a communications procedure was to deal with violations of the rights of individuals and thus they did not favour such an expansion of standing. Such situations, it was felt, might be better addressed through an inquiry procedure. 16. Many delegations supported the view that communications would need to allege a violation of rights contained in the Convention. Other delegations were in favour of adding that failure of the State party to comply with its obligations under the Convention should also provide a basis for submitting a communication. Some delegations suggested that that would emphasize the comprehensive framework of the Convention which covered a broad range of rights, thus making it a tool for addressing systemic and structural causes of discrimination. 17. Some delegations argued that failure to comply with the obligations in the Convention was a violation of rights and therefore saw no need for its explicit inclusion. The point was made that it was unusual for individuals to submit communications regarding the failure of States parties to comply with obligations under the Convention. 18. Some delegations pointed out that the scope of the Convention covered more than clearly identifiable rights of individuals. Inclusion of a failure-tocomply provision would make it clear that the Committee was empowered to deal not only with situations of direct violations but also with the failure of States parties to take measures to implement the Convention. It was also noted that, instead of referring to failure of States parties to comply with obligations, reference to the fact that violations could arise from either acts or omissions would be sufficient to cover that concern. 19. A number of delegations noted that only victims subject to the jurisdiction of the State party should be entitled to submit a communication. Many delegations stressed the fact that women refugees and migrant women would be included within that category. 20. While some delegations favoured the inclusion of a reference in article 2 to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies as a precondition for the -98-