A/HRC/6/8 page 23 required” as stated in the Swiss proposal. Azerbaijan suggested adding in the first sentence “meet its obligations” before “respect, protect and fulfil” and replace “concerning” by “due to”. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) clarified that there had been no attempt to exclude paragraph 2. 153. Bangladesh and India expressed their support for criteria to assess the reasonableness of steps. Australia stressed the need for criteria to assess communications. Poland underlined the need to respect the margin of appreciation of States concerning the use of resources. Denmark and the United States reiterated support for the unreasonableness standard. Ethiopia objected to the use of this standard. Greece underlined the importance of including language on the reasonableness standard. Azerbaijan, Amnesty International and Russia expressed reservations about the inclusion of either “reasonable” or “unreasonable”. Russia noted that the proposal of Liechtenstein might be an alternative. Azerbaijan suggested adding “as appropriate” before “the reasonableness”. Chile, Mexico, ATD Quart Monde, the ICJ and the NGO Coalition stated that the term “effectiveness” should be added after “reasonableness” and Slovenia suggested adding the word “adequacy”. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) stressed that the notion of effectiveness relates to outcomes and goes beyond the scope of the Covenant. 154. The Netherlands and the United Kingdom suggested replacing “address” by “assess”. The ICJ suggested ending the first part of the African Group’s proposal after “Covenant”. Scope of the optional protocol (art. 2) 155. Japan and Russia supported the provision on standing in paragraph 1. 156. Bangladesh, China, India and Nepal said that only direct victims or duly authorized representatives acting on their behalf should have standing. 157. Portugal, supported by Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa and Switzerland, reiterated the proposal to add wording from OP-CEDAW (see paragraph 43 above). 158. China replied that individuals or groups of individuals who are unable to submit a communication themselves could authorize a representative to submit a communication on their behalf. Nepal noted that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies would normally ensure that a victim’s consent has been obtained. The NGO Coalition, the FIDH and Amnesty International stated that NGOs should be able to submit communications on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals, without their “express” consent in cases where it would be difficult to obtain that consent. 159. The United Kingdom suggested replacing “subject to the jurisdiction” in paragraph 1 of the draft by “under the jurisdiction”, in line with article 14 of the Covenant. Azerbaijan objected that article 14 dealt with a different issue. 160. South Africa reiterated its support for a comprehensive approach in paragraph 1. India, Nepal, Russia and Sri Lanka objected to extending the scope to Part I of the Covenant. The United Kingdom noted that Part II of the Covenant contains no self-standing rights. If a comprehensive approach were pursued, the scope of paragraph 1 could be limited to the “rights set forth in Part III read in conjunction with the provisions contained in Part II”. Russia observed