A/HRC/17/36 allowing States to opt in “at any time” and not just at the moment of ratification or accession. Some delegations, UNICEF, national human rights institutions and nongovernmental organizations were against any optional clauses. Some considered that “recurring violations” was not a sufficiently defined concept. Numerous delegations maintained that they could not support a collective communications procedure, even as an opt-in provision. I. Admissibility11 51. Most delegations expressed the view that communications should be submitted to the Committee in writing. Others suggested that other forms of communication, such as videotapes, should be accepted, as many children were not in a position to make written submissions. Several delegations stated that the initial submission should be in writing in order to verify, inter alia, the author’s identity, the authorization to submit a communication on behalf of the victim and the authenticity of a communication; however, additional evidence should be admitted also in non-written formats. One delegation questioned whether the Committee had the necessary resources to ascertain the authenticity of nonwritten evidence. 52. Many delegations upheld the principle that complainants should have the possibility of submitting evidential material in a non-written form. While several delegations, nongovernmental organizations and experts held the view that this principle should be stated in the protocol, other delegations proposed to leave it to the rules of procedure. In the view of one delegation, the provision according to which the Committee should consider communications “in the light of all documentation submitted to it” sufficiently covered the possibility of receiving non-written evidence. A few delegations wondered whether the Committee would hold oral hearings. 53. Experts, including Committee members, expected that the vast majority of communications would be received in writing. However, they observed that the Committee would not wish to close the door on other possible formats, as children without assistance might need more flexible accommodation. The Committee should therefore not be bound by a strict admissibility requirement of submission in writing. It was recalled that the 11 14 Article 9 of the revised proposal: “The Committee shall consider a communication inadmissible when: (a) The communication is anonymous; (b) The communication is not in writing. This is without prejudice to non written materials that could be submitted in support of the allegations contained in the communication; (c) The communication constitutes an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and/or the Optional Protocols thereto; (d) The same matter has already been examined by the Committee or has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; (e) All available domestic remedies have not been exhausted. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to provide effective reparation. The Committee shall interpret the application of the remedies in a manner sensitive to the impact that delays may cause to a child’s well-being and development; (f) The communication is manifestly ill-founded or not sufficiently substantiated; (g) The facts that are the subject of the communication occurred prior to the entry into force of the present Protocol for the State party concerned, unless those facts continued after that date. (h) The communication is not submitted within one year after the exhaustion of domestic remedies, except in cases where the author can demonstrate that it had not been possible to submit the communication within that time limit.”