A/HRC/17/36 according to their domestic law, children should not be directly involved in legal proceedings and that the optional protocol should similarly reflect the fact that it is only where they are represented by their parents, legal guardian or relevant third party that a communication on their behalf should be accepted by the Committee. Alternatively, one delegation suggested requiring legal representation for children below the age of 16. Other delegations stated that a child must be entitled to bring a communication on his or her own, and asked that a provision on assistance for children submitting communications on their own should be included in the optional protocol or in the Committee’s rules of procedure. Some delegations stated that the optional protocol should refer to the relevant national legislation for identifying the persons and entities entitled to represent a child. One delegation warned that legal representatives were often among those responsible for violations of the rights of a child, if only by omission. Some delegations preferred to clearly state who was entitled to submit a communication on behalf of a child either in the optional protocol or in the Committee’s rules of procedure. One delegation suggested referring to the representatives mentioned in article 5 of the Convention. Another delegation was against any closed definition of legal representatives. One delegation expressed the view that the appointment of a legal guardian would best protect the interests of the child, while another delegation favoured restricting the right to submit a communication to the child and the child’s parents or legal guardians. Another delegation considered that the draft optional protocol should address situations where children, such as street children, have no legal guardian and where conflicts of interest may arise when a child is represented by the child’s parents or legal guardians. 40. Some delegations suggested that the issue of legal representation should be dealt with in the Committee’s rules of procedure and that the Committee should deal with this matter on a case-by-case basis. It was proposed that a provision should be included to the effect that the Committee should determine whether such representation was in the best interest of the child or group of children. Some delegations argued that the Committee should always determine whether or not the consideration of a communication was in the best interest of the child, irrespective of legal representation. Other delegations considered that the best interests of the child were sufficiently covered as a general principle in the optional protocol. One delegation preferred reflecting that principle in the article dealing with the modalities of consideration of communications. Several delegations supported reverting the wording of the proposal by stating that the Committee may decline considering a communication if such consideration was not in the best interests of the child. Another delegation suggested that the Committee’s rules of procedure should contain criteria for defining the best interests of the child. Two delegations asked for deletion of any reference to the best interests of groups of children in the absence of a legally defined concept. 41. Experts, including Committee members, indicated that the optional protocol should uphold the legal personality of children and not reproduce hurdles of legal representation contained in domestic systems. They cautioned against an automatic assumption that the interests of parents are always identical with the best interests of the child and emphasized that the right of a child to participate in the proceedings must not be restricted. 42. Non-governmental organizations indicated that the notion of “legal capacity” existed at the national level, but not at the regional or international levels. Introducing this concept, or a reference to national legislation, or establishing a system of obligatory representation of child victims would reproduce the obstacles that children face at the national level and run contrary to the rationale of the optional protocol. 43. One delegation sought clarification as to when the author of a communication submitted on behalf of an individual or group of individuals could justify acting on their behalf without their consent. 11