E/1999/27 E/CN.6/1999/10 “(b) We, the delegations referred to above, in accordance with general principles of International Law, understand the reference to ‘violation’ in the first sentence of article 2 and the reference to ‘violations’ in the first paragraph of article 8 of any of the rights set forth in the Convention to include an act as well as a failure to act by the State Party concerned.” Ghana (also on behalf of Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe) “We, like all other delegations, came to this meeting with our own national positions. We recognized that there was willingness among delegations to conclude work on the optional protocol during this session as well as a willingness to adopt the draft by consensus. Some of our delegations compromised our own positions in the interest of achieving such consensus. The draft we have adopted today is far from being a perfect text. It falls far beyond the threshold we would have liked to set for a mechanism that deals with matters as peculiar and far-reaching as providing legal remedies for violation of women’s rights. “Our main concern in the text is that article 2, as it is now worded could place the burden of proof on the victim. Considering the realities in our countries, and the fact that legal illiteracy is high, that the majority of women are not aware of their rights within their own national jurisdictions, let alone those contained in international human rights instruments. The article makes the accessibility to this optional protocol for these women even more difficult. “Having said that, we would like to place on record our understanding of some of the articles contained in the optional protocol: “Article 2: “We understand that the question of consent would have been resolved through the exhaustion of domestic remedies and in any event would not preclude the victims of violations who may not be capable of giving legal consent from being represented. “It is also our understanding that the second sentence of article 2 will be interpreted in the light of the practice of existing human rights treaty bodies, and that the Committee, when developing its own rules of procedure will take into account the peculiarities of the Convention. “Article 8: “The phrase ‘grave or systematic’ will be construed broadly so as not to impede the effective functions of the Committee. “Article 9: “The interpretation of this article will not preclude dialogue between the Committee and concerned States parties.” India “In article 2, we recognize the need for a broad ‘standing’ to provide for cases of violations of rights or discrimination against women where women are not able to bring complaints to the Committee themselves for various reasons. Our understanding of this article is that, particularly where there exists a tradition of a civil society and rule of law, those acting on behalf of an alleged victim of the violations of the rights set forth in the Convention, should be able to demonstrate sufficient interest to justify acting on behalf of the victim. This would also mean that, except in the case of a legal 64