A/HRC/17/36 directed to children (not including their representatives) as the ultimate and relevant beneficiaries of remedies. Delegations rejected having a direct reference to article 4 of the Convention in this section. 23. In addition to its complementary nature, the Working Group considered that the preamble should also highlight the purpose of the Optional Protocol to further enhance implementation of the Convention and its two substantive Optional Protocols. In this regard, most delegations favoured the inclusion of language such as “where applicable”, reflecting the principle that only those States that are parties to one or both of the two substantive Protocols would be bound thereto. B. Competence of the Committee under the optional protocol3 24. Article 1 of the initial and revised proposals concerned the general competence of the Committee under the Optional Protocol. Some delegations suggested that this provision should refer explicitly only to the competence to receive and consider communications and not to the competence to conduct inquiries. Many delegations, however, preferred to include both procedures, even if the possibility to opt out of the inquiry procedure was ultimately maintained. As a compromise, most delegations supported referring to “the competence of the Committee as provided for by the present Protocol”. One delegation preferred to retain an explicit reference to the Committee’s competence “to receive and consider communications”. 25. Many States supported the inclusion of specific language that “the Committee shall not exercise its competence regarding a State party to the present Protocol on matters concerning violations of rights set out in an instrument to which that State is not a party”. This principle should be stated either in article 1 or in the articles bestowing a monitoring function on the Committee in order to avoid any ambiguity, as no other provision comprehensively addressed the Committee’s ratione materiae jurisdiction. There was also broad support for the inclusion of a provision to the effect that “no communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State which is not a party to the present Protocol”. This was agreed language included in similar optional protocols. One delegation suggested placing this provision under the admissibility criteria for communications. 26. Other delegations considered, however, that the inclusion of the latter paragraphs was unnecessary in the light of the general principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A consensus was reached to include the proposed paragraphs in article 1. 3 Article 1 of the revised proposal (A/HRC/WG.7/2/4): “1. A State party to the present Protocol recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications and to conduct inquiries as provided for by the provisions of the present Protocol. 2. The Committee shall not exercise its competence regarding a State party to the present Protocol on matters concerning violations of rights set forth in an instrument to which that State is not a party.” 7