A/HRC/6/8 page 21 Article 20 138. Several States suggested moving article 20 after article 11. India objected to an opt-out only for article 11, since articles 10 and 11 come as a package. South Africa underlined its principled opposition to reservations and opt-out clauses. The NGO Coalition proposed deleting article 20. Article 21 139. Several States noted that a final decision on article 21 depended on the decision on the scope of the protocol in article 2. Australia, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom stated that reservations should not be used to limit the scope of the optional protocol. Denmark considered more States would ratify the instrument if reservations were allowed. 140. Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Portugal, South Africa and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) opposed the possibility of reservations and stressed that reservations were not compatible with a procedural instrument. India suggested deletion of the article. Greece, Poland and Turkey stated that the optional protocol should remain silent on the issue and leave it to be determined by the principles of international law. 141. Egypt, supported by China, expressed the view that reservations should be allowed. Egypt stated that reservations could not be used to limit the scope of rights covered by the procedure, but only to clarify how a State would go about implementing its obligations under the protocol. 142. The NGO Coalition emphasized that, as also stated by the Human Rights Committee, reservations by their nature are incompatible with the object and purpose of a procedural instrument and that all recently negotiated instruments of a similar nature have explicitly excluded reservations. Article 22 143. No comments were made on article 22. Article 23 144. Denmark, Egypt, France, India, Mexico, Russia, Spain and the United Kingdom deemed this article unnecessary, and Germany asked for clarification on its objective. Several States noted that the inclusion of a similar provision in the ICPPED had been a political compromise with a particular history and was not relevant in the context of this protocol. Article 24 145. Egypt suggested adding articles “10 and 11” after “9” in paragraph 2. India sought clarification on the benefits of an extended time frame of one year, which differs from ICCPR-OP1 and OP-CEDAW.