proposed by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and those contained in the Maastricht draft would be useful in the work ahead. 16. Reference was made to procedures under a number of treaty-based and Charter-based human rights mechanisms. It was noted that the different nature of the communications procedure of the Commission on the Status of Women would not overlap with an optional protocol. The view was expressed that an optional protocol should not establish an essentially different approach from the one contained in the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, further comparison with the mandates and jurisprudence of existing machinery would help to identify where further work was needed to support the realization of women’s rights. 17. The question of the justiciability of rights contained in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women under an optional protocol on the right to petition was addressed by many delegations. Several delegations pointed to the diverse nature of States parties’ obligations under the various provisions of the Convention, and the implications for their justiciability. It was suggested that some provisions were clearly suited to be the subject of a petition procedure, while other provisions were of a more programmatic nature for which a different procedure might be required. Thus, work on an optional protocol would need to proceed in the light of the various types of provisions contained in the Convention. On the other hand, a number of delegations expressed the view that all substantive provisions of the Convention should be considered justiciable under an optional protocol. 18. Several delegations commended the important work done by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The need to strengthen the Committee through, inter alia, an increase in resources and meeting time was expressed. Concern was expressed by some delegations that despite the recent proposal to extend the Committee’s meeting time, this might not be sufficient to deal both with the existing backlog in report consideration and with the task of considering communications. 19. Some delegations expressed concern with regard to possible financial implications resulting from the adoption of an optional protocol. The costs involved would need to be estimated. Some delegations expressed the view that the elaboration of an optional protocol might not be the best use of resources for maximizing the effectiveness of women’s enjoyment of their rights. Instead, the achievement of universal ratification and better implementation of the Convention should be pursued, including through better and more timely reporting to the Committee. B. In-depth consideration of major aspects to be covered by an optional protocol, following the elements contained in suggestion 7 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women 20. The Chairperson invited the Working Group, in addressing the specific elements proposed by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, to take into consideration the cross-cutting themes that had emerged during the general exchange of views, such as the question of overlapping with existing procedures, and the question of justiciability, as applicable. She informed the Working Group of her intention to call also on non-governmental organizations to make their comments on specific elements. -108-