Article 19 49. Several delegations were of the view that this provision was a restatement of article 29 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and suggested its retention. A number of delegations noted that an equivalent provision was not to be found in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Delegations agreed to delete this article from the protocol. Article 20 50. Many delegations recalled that reservations to human rights treaties, consistent with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty, were permissible under international law and might be appropriate in certain circumstances. 51. Recognizing that the purpose of the protocol would be to assist women in realizing their rights under the Convention, but that there were, however, a large number of reservations to the Convention itself, many delegations supported the inclusion of an explicit provision prohibiting reservations, which they noted was also compatible with international law. The optional and procedural nature of the protocol was stressed, as well as the interrelationship among the provisions of the protocol, the effective functioning of which would be undermined if reservations to any of its provisions were permitted. 52. A number of delegations noted that, while several provisions of the protocol, such as article 11 bis, had been drafted to address the concerns of some delegations that might otherwise have resulted in reservations, several provisions of the protocol had been agreed to by a number of States on the understanding that a provision prohibiting reservations would be included. Some delegations expressed the view that if reservations were permitted, then article 11 bis, about which there was no agreement, would not be necessary, and more States might accept the competence of the Committee to conduct inquiries. 53. A number of delegations indicated that a prohibition of reservations could only be accepted when the balance of the protocol had been agreed. Several suggested that a provision prohibiting reservations might discourage States from ratifying or acceding to the protocol. Some delegations argued that certain States might be willing to accept all substantive obligations established by the protocol, but unable to accept minor obligations. In such cases, a provision precluding reservations would prevent such States from becoming party to the protocol. These delegations suggested the inclusion of a provision allowing for reservations permissible under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties or the setting out of no provision relating to the issue, which would subject the protocol to the regime of that Convention and preclude reservations that were inconsistent with the protocol’s object and purpose. 54. Several delegations acknowledged difficulties in respect of examining the question of reservations at the present stage of consideration of the protocol, but expressed the wish to address the issue once the draft protocol was consolidated. Several took note of the strong sentiments expressed in the Working Group with respect to the prohibition of reservations in light of the subject matter of the Convention and agreed to take these sentiments into account as the draft reached finalization. 55. A number of delegations noted that human rights treaties rarely contained explicit prohibitions of reservations and that no instruments establishing -94-