A/HRC/8/7* page 22 Forms of Discrimination against Women. Ethiopia suggested moving paragraph 1 to article 8, and dealing with paragraphs 2 and 3 in the rules of procedure. Canada noted that such matters could be dealt with in the rules of procedure, and suggested deleting paragraphs 2 and 3. The Netherlands and New Zealand requested adding “views on the admissibility” rather than only referring to “views on the merits”. China suggested using wording from paragraph 1, article 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to read “views on the communications and recommendations”. Mexico noted that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same article were also useful here. Article 9 177. The Russian Federation reiterated its reservations about this article and its possible application, asking that the entire article be put in brackets, and to defer a final decision on it. 178. The United Kingdom proposed similar admissibility criteria in paragraph (c) as those in article 4, paragraph 1, and favoured deletion of “invoked” and “in the matter” and “or unlikely to bring effective relief” at the end of the first sentence. Bangladesh and India preferred keeping the word “invoked” to ensure consistency with other instruments. Articles 10, 11 and 11 bis 179. Several delegations expressed similar concerns as those discussed during the first part of the session. Egypt requested further clarification on the fact that the inter-State procedure was an opt-in clause while the inquiry procedure was an opt-out provision. The Russian Federation noted that the legal basis for having both approaches in this particular instrument was unclear, and suggested a similar approach to both procedures. Canada suggested that articles 2, paragraph 1, and 10 should have the same scope and refer to the “rights set forth in Part III read in conjunction with Part II. Article 12 180. The Working Group accepted the text as drafted. Articles 13 and 14 181. The Chairperson mentioned her proposal for an additional paragraph in article 13 and the deletion of article 14. 182. Several States agreed to merge articles 13 and 14. Some States expressed concern about the purpose and administration of a trust fund and requested the insertion of wording on its voluntary nature, as in article 26, paragraph 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Argentina, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland stated that they could accept most of paragraph 3. Germany, while being sceptical about the establishment of a fund as such, welcomed the reference to “a separate project within an existing trust fund”. 183. Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Japan and Sweden did not favour merging articles 13 and 14. Australia, Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom stated that a fund should not be created by means of the optional protocol. Belgium, Canada, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States considered that the