A/HRC/8/7* page 7 41. The Working Group then turned to new proposals included in bracketed article 2, paragraph 1, subparagraphs 1 bis and 1 ter. 42. With regard to subparagraph 1 bis, several delegates supported giving further consideration to the inclusion of a provision allowing the Committee to grant amicus standing to non-governmental organizations. Specific proposals were made to add references to national human rights institutions and/or trade unions and employers’ organizations. 43. Some delegations expressed concern about subparagraph 1 bis, noting that non-governmental organizations could already participate as third parties under article 2, paragraph 1, and that such a procedure was not found under other similar instruments. 44. With regard to subparagraph 1 ter, most delegates preferred its deletion, expressing, inter alia, concerns about allowing for communications without identified victims and preventing a flood of communications. Ecuador, the Netherlands and the NGO Coalition preferred its retention. Article 3 45. Several delegations supported the deletion of this article. The Netherlands and Poland supported its retention but expressed flexibility to the position of the majority of delegates. Article 4 46. Austria stated that the autonomy of the Committee to interpret admissibility criteria should not be overregulated. Amnesty International and COHRE cautioned against admissibility criteria that were overly restrictive. 47. On paragraph 1, several delegations and non-governmental organizations favoured retaining the original language “all available domestic remedies” used in other similar instruments. Denmark, Greece, New Zealand, Poland and the United Kingdom preferred keeping the bracketed text “judicial, administrative and other”. A proposal to insert “effective” after “all available”, supported by Chile, the United Kingdom, Mexico and the Netherlands, was opposed by Bangladesh, China, Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Poland, the Russian Federation and the United States. 48. Several delegates and non-governmental organizations supported keeping the bracketed text “unreasonably prolonged” used in all similar communications. China, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Islamic Republic of Iran supported its deletion. 49. Several delegations and non-governmental organizations advised keeping the text in brackets “or unlikely to bring effective relief”, which is agreed language from the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Canada, the United States and China preferred its deletion.