Element 27 102. Several delegations suggested that it might be necessary to specify the number of ratifications that would be required for the optional protocol to enter into force. While it was proposed that it could enter into force after five instruments of ratification had been deposited, other delegations suggested that the intention should be to have as many States parties as possible ratify the optional protocol upon adoption. Other delegations also considered that it was necessary to encourage as many ratifications as possible and suggested that a higher threshold for entry into force might facilitate this. Element 28 103. While some delegations proposed that ratifying States parties should be required to accept both procedures covered in an optional protocol, others suggested that, similar to article 28 of the Convention against Torture, States parties should have the opportunity to "opt out" of one of the two procedures. It was suggested that any "opt out" provisions applied only to the inquiry, and not to the communications procedure. It was recommended that, even if the possibility existed, ratification of the optional protocol ought to be without reservations as it dealt with procedural matters; others stated that reservations might be needed to achieve a large number of ratifications, but that reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the optional protocol should not be allowed, in accordance with established principles of international law. It was noted that the first Optional Protocol did not contain a no-reservations clause. Delegations also referred to the discussion on reservations held under element 5. C. Discussion on justiciability 104. In addition to its consideration during the general exchange of views and of the elements contained in suggestion 7, the Working Group held a further discussion on the question of justiciability. Statements were heard by two members of the Human Rights Committee on this matter, followed by an exchange of views with the Working Group. 105. Some delegations argued that all the provisions of the Convention should be covered by an optional protocol, and that the question of justiciability should not be an obstacle to its preparation. While noting different degrees of specificity, in the Convention, of rights and of States parties’ obligations to grant rights, undertake activities and take appropriate measures, they pointed to the legal character of the treaty, which needed to be executed in good faith by States parties. They argued that it should be left to the treaty body to determine in each case, and in a reasonable way, whether a provision was justiciable or not, and whether a State party had fulfilled its treaty obligations. Those delegations considered that the objective of the Convention, namely equality of women and men in the enjoyment of rights and the elimination of discrimination, and the purpose of an optional protocol, namely to make the Convention more effective, would make it possible for the supervisory body, on the basis of concrete cases, to determine State party compliance. While noting a State party’s margin of discretion in implementing its obligations and determining measures to be taken, it was also pointed out that a State party’s actions in implementing its treaty obligations were subject to meaningful scrutiny by a treaty body. The important role of the optional protocol as a means of recourse for women, and to strengthen enforcement of women’s rights, was stressed. -121-