Some delegations also suggested that the preamble should make reference to the Beijing Platform for Action. Others suggested that these documents be addressed in a resolution. Article 2 2. The Chairperson of the Working Group submitted a new draft of article 2 which was accepted by the Working Group as the basis for its further negotiations on this article. 3. Delegations agreed that the optional protocol should entitle individuals and groups of individuals to submit communications to the Committee. Some delegations were of the view that groups should be entitled to submit communications, while several suggested that organizations, including non-governmental organizations, should also be entitled to do so, as they also can be victims of human rights violations. Other delegations expressed the view that groups and organizations might participate in other human rights mechanisms. 4. Many delegations referred to the communications procedures in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families which entitle communications to be submitted on behalf of complainants. The practice of the Human Rights Committee, reflected in its rules of procedure, was to receive communications submitted on behalf of victims. Many delegations took note of the explanation of the representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with regard to the existing procedures under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture in relation to communications submitted in cases where victims are unable to submit communications themselves, or when victims give consent for the submission of communications by others. These delegations were of the view that this protocol should explicitly provide that communications could be submitted on behalf of complainants and that this element could be specified in the Committee’s rules of procedure. 5. Several delegations were of the view that the parameters of the phrase "on behalf of" required clarification so as to preclude communications from unauthorized representatives with neither the consent of, nor a link to, victims. Several delegations suggested that clarification could be provided by limiting those who could claim submission of communications "on behalf of" victims to designated representatives. 6. Delegations agreed that it was important to indicate that the protocol would reflect existing communications procedures and provide that claimants should be subject to the jurisdiction of the relevant State party. Some suggested that designated representatives should also be subject to the State party’s jurisdiction, while others suggested that this requirement was inappropriate. 7. Many delegations suggested that it was important to provide for communications concerning violation of rights set forth in the Convention through an act or failure to act by the State party. Other delegations were of the view that communications should be able to address violations of all the provisions of the Convention. Several delegations expressed the view that violation of rights of the Convention encompassed both acts and omissions and -87-