communications procedures incorporated such a provision. Noting that their Governments did not envisage specific reservations to the protocol, several delegations expressed serious concerns about the long-term implications of a complete prohibition of reservations in a human rights instrument. Despite these concerns, some delegations indicated a willingness to discuss a wide variety of options with respect to discouraging or otherwise limiting reservations to the protocol short of an absolute ban of the type contained in article 20. 56. A large majority of delegations argued, nevertheless, that the protocol was an exceptional case which justified a complete prohibition of reservations. Recalling that the underlying aim of the protocol was to assist women in realizing their rights under the Convention, those delegations stressed with great passion that reservations could defeat the purpose of the protocol. Articles 21, 22, 23 and 24 57. Delegations adopted these articles ad referendum. -95-