that a concise formulation referring to violation of rights or provisions of the Convention would be understood as including acts and the failure to act and was thus sufficient. 8. One delegation expressed the view that article 2 should include, as did the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reference to the requirement of exhaustion of available domestic remedies which would also be addressed in article 4. Article 3 9. Delegations recalled that article 3 of the draft optional protocol had been agreed by the working group ad referendum. Noting that article 1 of the first draft protocol had explicitly precluded reception of communications relating to States parties to the Convention that were not States parties to the protocol, delegations agreed to the addition of this formula in article 3 ad referendum. Article 4 10. Delegations agreed that admissibility criteria would be reflected in two separate subparagraphs of article 4, that is to say, article 4 (1) would deal with the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and article 4 (2) would reflect the remaining criteria. 11. Delegations agreed to a negative formulation according to which the Committee would not consider a communication unless it had dealt with the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, thereby making the subparagraph more succinct. Some delegations doubted whether current language on this matter as contained for example in the Convention against Torture was appropriate within the scope of the present protocol, and were in favour of a requirement that the author of a communication demonstrate the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Others noted that the exhaustion of domestic remedies was a standard provision in other human rights instruments, and its application should be determined within generally recognized principles of international law. 12. While delegations discussed various possibilities for reflecting inadmissibility because of an abuse of the right, several suggested that this element would be further specified by the addition of the criterion of vexatiousness. It was agreed to combine lack of substantiation and manifest ill-foundedness. However, both sets of criteria, as contained in article 4 (2) (iii) and (iv), remain in brackets, with the word "vexatious" also appearing in brackets. Delegations agreed to include admissibility criteria covering prior occurrence and prior, or simultaneous, consideration by another procedure of international settlement. 13. Some delegations, while emphasizing that the principles of objectivity and impartiality which they noted were important principles of international law, needed to be maintained in the consideration of communications by the Committee, suggested that, instead of those principles’ being included as an admissibility criterion, they could be moved to another place within the protocol, for example, to a new article 7 (1). Other delegations noted that, while appreciating the removal of this aspect from article 4, they could not agree to its inclusion in article 7. -88-