received concerning a State party that was not a party to the protocol, the Working Group agreed that such a provision was redundant and could be deleted. Article 2 8. Some delegations expressed support for the formulation contained in document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1, which would facilitate access to the communications procedure by a potentially broad range of complainants. It was seen as a vehicle to overcome obstacles, such as illiteracy and poverty, frequently faced by women in accessing international procedures of redress for human rights violations. Some delegations noted that the article should address two issues first, who was entitled to submit a communication, and secondly, the scope of rights within the Committee’s competence. 9. Various options for dealing with the question of who had standing were proposed. It was proposed that the article, in two subparagraphs, should address victims (i.e., those whose rights had allegedly been violated). Some delegations suggested that those rights should be directly violated. A second subparagraph should indicate who might submit communications on behalf of a victim or victims. Others suggested that the article should incorporate a third component and provide those "having sufficient interest", but who were neither direct victims of a violation nor acting on their behalf, with the right to submit a communication. 10. Some delegations favoured the approach of the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which grants standing to individuals only; others envisaged the possibility of standing for groups of individuals, which was incorporated in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, but not for groups per se. Some delegations were in favour of allowing communications from individuals and groups; others wished to include the possibility of communications from organizations. 11. Those favouring standing for individuals or groups of individuals only argued that the main purpose of an optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women should be to provide a remedy for violations of the rights of individuals. They expressed the view that groups or organizations, as such, were not the holders of human rights and could not be direct victims of a violation of the Convention. They indicated that only identifiable individuals comprising the group or organization were victims of a violation and thus be entitled to submit a communication. 12. Some delegations were of the view that organizations should be granted the right to submit communications but that the groups or organizations entitled to do so should be limited to, for example, groups or organizations with an interest in women’s rights. Others noted that such a limitation would exclude communications from many organizations that do not specialize in women’s issues but that might initiate important communications. 13. Some delegations supported the inclusion in article 2 of standing for representatives of alleged victims and suggested that there should be the possibility for communications to be submitted on behalf of a victim or victims. A number of delegations noted that there was no need to make explicit provision for representation in the optional protocol, since such a right was automatically part of the right to complain. The formulation found in other instruments providing for the submission of a communication "on behalf of" an individual or individuals encompassed situations in which the individual was not -97-