A/HRC/6/8 page 19 126. India suggested deleting “for the benefit of victims of violations” in article 14, paragraph 1, to underline that the Committee’s recommendations may also refer to situations where a State party fails to comply with the Covenant due to a lack of resources. Russia preferred replacing “by decision of the General Assembly” by “in accordance with the relevant procedures of the General Assembly”, as in article 26 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OP-CAT). 127. Argentina, Belarus, Germany, Slovenia and Ukraine supported article 14. Austria, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States objected to the establishment of a special fund. Finland was not convinced that a special fund was appropriate in the protocol and found the wording “funds to provide economic assistance” too wide. Japan, Guatemala, Norway, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Russia and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) reserved their position on article 14 at this stage, while Argentina, Mexico, Slovenia and Ukraine could see the possible usefulness of a fund based on voluntary contributions. Guatemala and Italy stressed that the fund, if created, should be based on voluntary contributions. South Africa suggested that the fund could be financed by a combination of voluntary and mandatory contributions. 128. China and Egypt noted that deleting the word “voluntary” did not mean that contributions to the special fund would not become mandatory. Rather, the level of contributions would be at the discretion of States parties and be subject to the level of available resources, in accordance with the obligation set out in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The Netherlands and Ukraine noted the need to develop criteria for deciding which States could receive resources from such fund. 129. Some delegates feared that such a fund would duplicate existing funds and that it would send a wrong signal that non-compliance with the Covenant rights could be justified by a lack of international assistance. It was noted that no special fund was created under the OP-CRPD, despite the Convention’s precise language on international assistance, which could be a source of inspiration for articles 13 and 14. Equally, it was pointed out that the fund under OP-CAT has a more targeted purpose than that proposed in article 14 of the draft, that the fund was unlikely to attract sufficient funding, that it would involve high administrative costs and impose an additional burden on OHCHR, and that it was unclear how the beneficiaries of the fund would be identified and how the funds would be channelled to victims. 130. Other delegates said that the special fund would not duplicate existing funds, and that it would give effect to the legal obligation set out in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant to provide international assistance. It was noted that concerns about duplication had not been an issue when adopting article 26 of the OP-CAT, that the additional burden for OHCHR should not prevent the creation of the fund, that the implementation of the Committee’s views would require a fund which was adequately funded, that developing countries did not seek to detract from their obligations, and that shared efforts were required, as developing countries could not fully realize Covenant rights without international assistance, which was mandated by the Covenant and the Charter of the United Nations.