A/HRC/17/36 97. One delegation challenged that all reservations to the Protocol would be impermissible. As a compromise, it suggested deleting all opt-in and opt-out clauses in return for the deletion of the proposed prohibition of reservations. Several delegations were against reducing the flexibility for States by deleting the opt-in and opt-out provisions. IV. Closure of proceedings and adoption of the report 98. At the last meeting of the Working Group, on 16 February 2011, the Chairperson tabled for adoption a text of a draft optional protocol previously distributed to delegations. In introducing the draft, the Chairperson proposed oral amendments and indicated that the draft, as orally amended, reflected the result of the negotiations of the Working Group. The oral amendments proposed (a) the deletion of the provision allowing States parties not to recognize the competence of the Committee to consider communications under the first two Optional Protocols; (b) the deletion of the article allowing the Committee to consider collective communications; (c) the deletion of the article allowing the Committee to decline consideration of a communication that did not reveal a clear disadvantage; and (d) the deletion of the article regarding reservations. 99. After making his statement, the Chairperson noted that there was no objection to the transmission of the text, as orally amended, to the Human Rights Council for its consideration. He also noted that the text would be included in the report of the second session to be submitted to the Council. 100. The Working Group adopted the text of the draft optional protocol by consensus and thus completed its mandate. 101. Without prejudice to the consensus reached, the Russian Federation stated that it was essential to consider the inclusion in article 5 of the draft text of a definition of the persons who are able to represent a child in the proceedings before the Committee. 102. France welcomed the efforts to reach a consensus and recalled that it was now up to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly to adopt the draft optional protocol. 103. Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that although it would not oppose the consensus, it still had objections to some articles. In particular, it would have preferred that the protocol allow a State to choose, when ratifying, not to recognize the competence of the Committee to examine communications alleging violations of either of the first two Optional Protocols to which that State was a party. Nigeria also underlined the right of each State to make reservations. 104. China did not oppose the consensus but, like the Russian Federation, expressed concern about the absence in article 5 of a definition of the persons able to represent a child. 105. Iran (Islamic Republic of) shared the view of Nigeria regarding the first two Optional Protocols (see paragraph 103 above). With regard to paragraph 2 of article 5, it should read: “Where a communication is submitted on behalf of an individual or group of individuals, this shall be with their consent”. 106. Uruguay stated that the concessions were necessary for the sake of reaching consensus, but regretted that the innovative proposals that they had made had not been retained. It expressed the hope that the compromise text would be adopted by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. 107. The Chairperson of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, while welcoming the adoption of a draft optional protocol recognizing the right of children to submit 24