A/HRC/8/7* page 23 Committee was not the appropriate body to administer the fund, while Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) clarified that the fund would not be administered by the Committee alone. 184. With regard to paragraph 3, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Germany, India, Sweden and Switzerland indicated their support for providing assistance to victims. Bangladesh and Sweden suggested replacing “legal aid” with “aid” or “assistance”. Belgium and Switzerland proposed replacing “alleged victim” with “victim or victims of alleged violations”. Australia favoured retaining “alleged victim”. Canada and France stated that the fund should not be used to compensate victims of violations, a duty of the State party. Belgium, Canada and the United States did not favour making assistance to victim(s) dependent on “the consent of the State party concerned”, while India favoured this clause. 185. Canada, China, Egypt and the United States expressed concerns at a legal aid fund that had no precedent in other instruments. The United States considered that the Committee was not in a position to fund complaints that it would be reviewing, while Switzerland disagreed. 186. Australia, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States cautioned against the wording “technical assistance to Governments” being understood as yet another development fund. The United Kingdom and India argued that the fund could only be linked to the implementation of the optional protocol, in line with article 7 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. Germany proposed replacing the last part of paragraph 3 with “and to provide expert and technical assistance to States parties to develop new and to further contribute to existing national human rights capacities in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, as the Committee may consider appropriate”. 187. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), supported by Bangladesh and the Islamic Republic of Iran, proposed replacing “separate project within an existing Trust Fund of the OHCHR” with “mechanism” and amending the objectives to read: “(a) to provide expert and technical assistance to Governments for the implementation of the rights recognized in the Covenant; (b) to grant aid to a victim of a violation, after having examined the communication and made a determination on the merits, in connection with the presentation of the case”. Belgium and Switzerland preferred the deletion of “as the Committee may consider appropriate”. 188. Belgium, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Senegal and Switzerland considered that legal aid should be available to potential victims once a communication had been declared admissible. 189. Liechtenstein cautioned against a two-class system between States parties to the protocol and States parties to the Covenant only in terms of receiving assistance from the fund. CETIM underlined the importance of international assistance and cooperation in the implementation of the Covenant. 190. The Russian Federation pointed out that a reference to technical assistance was already reflected in article 13, paragraph 2. Liechtenstein, in support of that argument, emphasized the need to clarify the relationship between paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, suggested deleting paragraph 3 and adding the following sentence at the end of paragraph 1: “For the provision of such technical advice or assistance by the OHCHR, a separate project, within an existing Trust Fund, shall be