Article 18 68. Many delegations were of the view that the optional protocol should enter into force after the fifth instrument of ratification or accession was lodged with the Secretary-General so that victims would be able to take early advantage of its procedures. Others suggested that wide acceptance of the optional protocol was of value and that the threshold should be 10 States parties, while a number were of the view that 20 should be required. Article 19 69. Some delegations suggested that article 19 inappropriately sought to extend the jurisdictional reach of the Convention and should therefore be deleted. It was suggested that it be reformulated to indicate that the provisions of the protocol extend to the jurisdiction of a State party without any limitations or exceptions, while a number of delegations suggested that the formulation in document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1 was acceptable. Some delegations doubted the necessity for the article, and many delegations requested further information on the legal implications of the proposal. Article 20 70. A number of delegations pointed out that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allowed reservations but prohibited any reservation which was contrary to the object and purpose of a treaty. A number of delegations supported the inclusion of article 20, which precluded any reservations to the optional protocol, noting that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties permitted such an article. It was suggested that the inclusion of the article was consistent with existing international practice and would be appropriate for a modern instrument designed for the twenty-first century. It was pointed out that the opportunity of States parties to choose not to submit to the inquiry procedure envisaged in articles 10 and 11 of document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1 could be addressed by way of an opt-out provision. Several delegations suggested that the optional protocol should not include an article concerning reservations. It was pointed out that, in any event, reservations to the protocol could not affect the obligations undertaken by a State party as party to the Convention. Some delegations argued for a more specific provision, which would allow specified reservations only or prohibit specified reservations. Article 21 71. Delegations agreed with article 21 ad referendum as reflected in E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1, which concerned amendments to the optional protocol. It was suggested that further consideration be given to paragraph 3 of article 21, which might not encompass procedural amendments which did not affect all States parties. Article 22 72. Delegations agreed with article 22 as contained in document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1 with a proviso on the inquiry procedure, providing for denunciation of the protocol in principle and suggested that its language be revised to follow that of article 13 of the first Optional Protocol to the -107-