A/HRC/17/36 C. General principles guiding the functions of the Committee4 27. Many delegations and non-governmental organizations were in favour of including a provision requiring the Committee to exercise the functions conferred on it by the Optional Protocol “in a manner that respects the rights of the child, including the right to express their views freely in all matters affecting them” and referring to “the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”, as well as to the need to ensure “that the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in all actions concerning the child”. One delegation suggested placing the provision under the article dealing with the Committee’s competence. Several delegations criticized the use of obligations-based language to describe the Committee’s guiding principles and either asked for the provision to be deleted and reflected in the preamble or for it to be reworded, using agreed language from the Convention. One delegation suggested replacing “in all actions concerning the child” by “in its actions concerning the child” in order to distinguish actions of the Committee from those of States parties. Some delegations and experts considered it important to keep a reference to the best interests of the child in the operative part of the Protocol. 28. One expert indicated that the best interest principle should not be given precedence over the rights of the child and favoured the wording contained in article 2 of the Chairperson’s revised proposal.5 D. Rules of procedure 29. A proposal was made during the first part of the session to include a provision that would refer to procedural aspects and make reference to the Committee’s power to elaborate rules of procedure under the protocol.6 Those rules should include, for instance, the need to have child-friendly and child-sensitive procedures. Views were expressed on the distinction between these terms and which of them would be more appropriate in this context. Committee members indicated that, in the light of the new guidelines on childfriendly justice, the latter term would be appropriate. 30. One delegation suggested that States parties should be able to participate in the process of elaboration of the rules of procedure by the Committee. This position was shared by another delegation. Many delegations did not share this view. The Committee members recalled that article 43, paragraph 8, of the Convention provided for the adoption by the Committee of its rules of procedure, namely, with no external participation envisioned. Furthermore, that requirement would undermine the Committee’s independence and professionalism and would be without precedent in any other human rights treaty. One delegation supported the view that ongoing interaction between the Committee and States 4 5 6 8 Article 2 of the revised proposal read as follows: “The Committee shall exercise the functions conferred on it by the present Protocol in a manner that respects the rights of the child and the views of the child, and ensures that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all actions concerning the child.” Article 2 of the revised proposal: “The Committee shall exercise the functions conferred on it by the present Protocol in a manner that respects the rights of the child and the views of the child, and ensures that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all actions concerning the child.” As a result of the discussion, article 3 was introduced in the revised proposal, reading “The Committee shall adopt rules of procedure to be followed when exercising the functions conferred on it by the present Protocol. In doing so, it shall have regard, in particular, to article 2 of the present Protocol in order to guarantee child-sensitive procedures, where relevant.”