A/HRC/17/36 against a State that was a party to the instrument under which the communication was presented. 94. With regard to dissemination and information on the optional protocol, several delegations, non-governmental organizations and experts indicated that information about the protocol and the views and recommendations of the Committee be disseminated “by appropriate, accessible and active means to adults and children alike, including those with disabilities”. A suggestion to replace “including those with disabilities” with “irrespective of their personal skills, impairments and economic resources” was not supported. Numerous delegations were in favour of adding “and formats” after “active means”, in line with the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Some delegations suggested including a reference to child-friendly means. One delegation suggested adding “and other disadvantaged persons” at the end of the provision. Two delegations were in favour of adding an additional sentence providing that “States should strive, in particular, to facilitate access for children to information regarding the activities and the functioning of the Committee”. 95. A proposal was made to include an article limiting the Committee’s ratione temporis competence to violations occurring after the entry into force of the optional protocol for the State party concerned. Some delegations were in favour of this inclusion for the sake of clarity. Other delegations, non-governmental organizations and experts, including Committee members, considered, however, that such an article would be redundant, as this matter was sufficiently covered in the admissibility criteria and in the general provisions. Some stressed that it would even be contrary to the provision according to which the Committee could declare a communication inadmissible when the facts had occurred prior to the entry into force of the protocol for the State concerned unless those facts continued after that date. The proposed article potentially undermined the latter provision by not taking into account continuous or ongoing violations that started prior to the entry into force of the protocol. U. Reservations17 96. Numerous delegations did not favour the inclusion of a provision stating that no reservations to the protocol should be permitted; they considered that such a provision would discourage many States from adhering to the protocol and that the reservations regime governed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which only prohibits reservations that are incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty, was sufficient. A number of delegations, experts, including Committee members, and non-governmental organizations supported such a prohibition, as no reservations should be permissible to a procedural instrument that does not create any new substantive rights. They recalled that the Vienna Convention explicitly allowed for the prohibition of reservations in a treaty. It was also recalled that an explicit prohibition was in line with article 17 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and article 30 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In the case of those Optional Protocols, the prohibition of reservations had not adversely affected the number of ratifications. Reservations to procedural instruments were per se incompatible with their object and purpose. 17 Article 24 of the revised proposal: “No reservations to the present Protocol shall be permitted.” 23