A/HRC/17/36 proposed alternatives such as “confidentiality”. The decision was finally taken to deal with the matter in the provision on protection measures. G. Individual communications9 36. A debate was held on whether the optional protocol should apply in connection with the Convention and its two existing Optional Protocols or whether States, when ratifying the protocol, could choose not to recognize the competence of the Committee to examine communications alleging violations of the rights set forth under either of the two existing Protocols. Many delegations, UNICEF, non-governmental organizations, experts, including members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children, indicated that no such distinction should be made because it would mean establishing a hierarchy of norms and different implementation regimes. Others welcomed the flexibility involved in opting or the expressed readiness to go along if needed to reach a maximum adhesion to the text. One delegation, supported by others, suggested that the Committee’s jurisdiction should extend to violations of any of the rights set forth in any of the above instruments to which the State party concerned is a party. 37. Some delegations suggested the inclusion of a provision clarifying the competence of the Committee in connection with States that were parties to the first two Optional Protocols but not to the Convention itself. 38. Numerous delegations and UNICEF held the view that the right to submit a communication should pertain to “individuals or groups of individuals”, which was more inclusive than the wording “children or groups of children” proposed by other delegations. The Chairperson withdrew his proposal, based on statements from some participants, to explicitly include individuals or groups of individuals claiming “to have been victims while they were children” of a violation. The proposal was rejected by most delegations as being either redundant or retroactive or incompatible with national statutes of limitations. 39. Some delegations were in favour of restricting the right to submit a communication to child victims or their legal representatives. The issue of representation of children and consent were the object of considerable discussion. A number of delegations recalled that, 9 10 Article 6 of the revised proposal: “1. Communications may be submitted by or on behalf of an individual or group of individuals, within the jurisdiction of a State party, claiming to be victims or to have been victims while they were children, of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in: (a) The Convention; (b) The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; (c) The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict. [2. A State party may, at the time of signature or ratification of the present Protocol or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in subparagraph 1 (b) and/or (c) of the present article. 3. Any State party having made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article may, at any time, amend or withdraw this declaration by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.] 4. Where a communication is submitted on behalf of an individual or group of individuals, this shall be with their consent unless the author can justify acting on their behalf without such consent. 5. Where the author of a communication is acting on behalf of a child as defined in article 1 of the Convention, or a group of children, the Committee shall determine whether it is in the best interests of the child or group of children concerned to consider the communication. 6. The Committee shall include in its rules of procedure safeguards to prevent the manipulation of children by those who represent them and to protect their rights under the present Protocol.”