A/HRC/18/12 had been discussed in its national report, as well as the current state of affairs of those issues and the State party’s efforts in relation hereto. 8. The delegation nevertheless addressed some of the specific advance questions, posted by members of the Human Rights Council. 9. With regard to the question from Belgium and Latvia on issuing a standing invitation to the special procedures, the delegation stated that the special rapporteurs had the opportunity to send out missions to Suriname after consultations with the Government. 10. As to the question from Belgium, France and the Netherlands regarding ratification of human rights treaties and Optional Protocols to which it was not yet a party, the delegation stated that it was in the process of ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. Relevant draft laws had been submitted to Parliament for approval. Furthermore, the legislative process to approve the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography had been initiated. 11. With regard to the question of Belgium on whether or not Suriname was considering accepting the individual complaints procedure under the human rights treaties to which it was a party. To this question, the delegation indicated that Suriname had the utmost regard for the rule of law and human rights. Therefore, the State offered its citizens adequate legal protection at the national level, should that citizen feel that one or more of his human rights were violated. Given its international obligations regarding the human rights treaties to which it was a party, Suriname was reviewing its national legislation and policy and was considering modifications thereof. Taking into account the importance of the mechanism of the individual complaints procedure, Suriname was considering its acceptance. 12. As for the question posted by the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, regarding steps Suriname had taken to establish a national human rights institution accredited by the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the delegation stated that, even though at the current time no such institution existed in Suriname, the State provided the existing human rights institutions with full freedom to function as such, in accordance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (Paris Principles), should they wish to do so. 13. The Czech Republic had also asked whether Suriname intended to raise the minimum age for criminal prosecution from the current age of 10 years. In that regard, the delegation stated that legislation had been drafted to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years. This draft legislation had been submitted to Parliament for approval. In the meantime, the Office of the Attorney General did not prosecute offenders younger than 12 years of age. 14. The delegation pointed out that the Czech Republic, France and the Netherlands had noted that, while Suriname had not carried out judicial executions for almost 80 years, the death penalty remained on the books for the offences of murder and treason. The Czech Republic and the United Kingdom wished to know whether Suriname intended to abolish capital punishment. In that regard, the delegation stated that a draft modification of the Penal Code, in which the death penalty was removed, had been presented to the Council of Ministers and would subsequently be presented for approval to Parliament. 15. Concerning the questions from the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom with respect to paragraph 130 of its national report, which referred to the initiatives that Maroons and indigenous people had taken against the Government of Suriname for their collective rights, the delegation stated that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled 4