A/HRC/6/8 page 24 that “any of the rights set forth in the Covenant” in paragraph 1 only referred to Part III of the Covenant. Portugal objected that other optional protocols did not limit the scope to specific articles. Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka reserved their position on the scope, pending a decision on the criteria in article 8, paragraph 4. 161. Italy and Switzerland suggested adding text from article 1 of ICCPR-OP1 (see paragraph 32 above) at the end of paragraph 1. Japan, Russia, South Africa, Turkey and the United Kingdom suggested inserting this text as a new article 1 bis. Azerbaijan considered the amendment redundant. Belgium expressed concern that it could exclude cases with transborder effects. 162. Russia suggested that a new paragraph 3 could list the rights that must be accepted. Austria inquired into the relationship between paragraph 2 and article 2, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, and the Netherlands stated that the opt-out option should not apply to the principle of non-discrimination. International assistance and cooperation and establishment of a fund (arts. 13 and 14) 163. China and South Africa reiterated the proposal to add “to other States parties” in article 13. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) referred to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) and noted that the Committee should only transmit a communication if requested to do so by the State party. Portugal suggested adding that the Committee “could” make recommendations available to other States. 164. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), India, Nigeria and South Africa encouraged States to be innovative in their approach, emphasizing that international assistance was a legally binding obligation. In this regard, Bangladesh and Nepal expressed support for wording suggested in the previous proposals made by China, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and Ethiopia. 165. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) and Nigeria reiterated that articles 13 and 14 should be merged and that the word “voluntary” should be deleted. Guatemala and the United Kingdom stated they would not be able to accept an obligatory fund. 166. The Netherlands considered it unfortunate to have a fund linked to individual communications, giving the impression that international cooperation is only necessary when related to successful communications. 167. Austria, Australia, Belgium, Germany, France and the United Kingdom reiterated their support for article 13 as drafted. The United Kingdom said they would alternatively consider the proposal of Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). 168. In relation to article 14, the United Kingdom questioned the compatibility of a fund for remedies for individual victims and providing assistance to a State that lacks resources, or worse, a State that has committed a violation. Austria, Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom questioned the practicality and effectiveness of the fund proposed in article 14.