E/1999/27 E/CN.6/1999/10 “1. As regards article 2, it is our understanding that, when communications are submitted ‘on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals’, a broad-based approach will be taken in determining who will be entitled to submit such communications, in order to ensure effective access to justice; “2. With respect to the question of consent, referred to in the second part of article 2, we assume that the personal, social and cultural conditions of women who have suffered the alleged violation of their rights will be taken into account; “3. We take it that the term ‘violation’ in the first sentence of article 2 refers to omissions as well as acts of the State party. The same interpretation holds true for article 8; “4. In article 4, the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies will be understood as being of benefit to States and accordingly may be waived. “We wish to emphasize the importance of incorporating the inquiry procedure in the optional protocol. The existence of such a procedure in the Inter-American system is proving its worth as a form of collaboration with States in the fulfilment of their international obligations. “We end by stating that the efforts undertaken during the past few years with a view to the adoption of the optional protocol reflect the commitment of our States to improving the status of women and eliminating all forms of discrimination.” Denmark (also on behalf of Finland, Iceland and Norway) “I speak on behalf of Finland, Norway, Iceland and Denmark. While fully associating ourselves with the statement made by the Presidency of the European Union, we would like to offer the following additional interpretative observations to the protocol that we have adopted today. “From the outset of the negotiations three years ago, we have strongly supported the idea of giving NGOs a separate standing in the protocol, by including a reference to the NGOs in article 2, and allowing for the possibility that they in their own right could bring a communication to the attention of the Committee. While accepting that it was not possible to agree on this proposal, we nevertheless take comfort in the wording found in article 2, ‘groups of individuals’ which we take to mean that NGOs alleging to be victims of a violation can bring a communication to the attention of the Committee. “Another issue that to our delegations has been of the utmost importance, has been the retention of the word ‘provisions’ in article 2 of the protocol. We take this to mean that the communication procedure as well as the inquiry procedure will encompass the full Convention, and that the Committee will accept communications concerning each and every substantive provision set forth in the Convention. “We have taken great comfort in the converging statements to the effect that the word ‘rights’ in the text be interpreted in accordance with established practice from other human rights instruments and encompass the full Convention. In this connection, we should in particular like to refer to the CERD Convention, article 14, and the practice of the CERD Committee. It is therefore our expectation that the CEDAW Committee when entertaining a communication or embarking on an inquiry procedure will uphold this broad and generally accepted interpretation. Only in so far as the Committee accepts the principle that obligations of the State confer rights on individuals and groups of individuals will the Committee be an effective instrument in the 62