A/HRC/13/43 particular regarding individual complaints, where she was unable to act on many instances because the issues involved, although related to children, were not covered by her mandate. 35. The Special Rapporteur welcomed the idea of an optional protocol setting up a communications procedure. In her view, the procedure would complement both her and the Committee’s mandates, would result in a better protection of children’s rights and would strengthen the international human rights protection system. She stressed that cooperation between the special procedures and treaty bodies in general was essential. As far as the Committee on the Rights of the Child and her mandate were concerned, cooperation existed mainly in the form of exchange of information. 36. From the perspective of her mandate, the Special Rapporteur provided the following reasons as to why the new procedure was necessary: (a) the main flow of information she received came from NGOs, and thus there was a problem of full visibility and accessibility for children; (b) the scope of her mandate was limited; and (c) there was no effective follow-up procedure under her mandate. In order for the new procedure to be effective, its accessibility by children or those working with children should be guaranteed. Confidentiality and respect of the children’s private life should also be taken into account. 37. A number of delegations posed questions about the possible examination of identical complaints by different mechanisms. Some observed that if an optional protocol was adopted it would attract most of the children-related complaints. 38. It was also stressed that the existing special procedures are already open to children. However, given the specificity of their respective mandates, the special procedures can only ensure a fragmented protection of children’s rights. Thus, the establishment of the optional protocol would provide an added value to the existing system. 39. Representatives of non-governmental organizations stressed the current lack of a body with full competence to deal with children’s rights. Even if some treaty bodies received complaints from children, their respective mandates remained limited. 40. When summing up the debate on the topic the Chairperson-Rapporteur noted that the effectiveness of the procedure would depend to a large extent on its accessibility by children. Accordingly, children, their representatives, those working on children’s issues and other stakeholders should be aware of its existence. Information in that regard should be made available in schools and other appropriate institutions. The Chairperson further noted that the issues of complementarity and overlapping were often referred to. However, it was clear that the existing treaty bodies and special procedures systems offered only a fragmented protection regarding children’s rights and they could not ensure the same level of protection as the one provided under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. VI. Efficiency in protection of the rights of the child under mechanisms existing at the national and regional levels: best practices and deficiencies 41. The topic on efficiency in protection of the rights of the child under mechanisms existing at the national and regional levels was introduced by Peter Newell, who referred to the existing gap between the obligations taken on by States in ratifying the Convention and the extent to which children’s rights are realized and enjoyed in reality. He stressed that many States were still far from providing effective remedies and focused on the need to take measures in order to ensure: (a) the availability of child friendly information, advice and advocacy, including support for self-advocacy; (b) easy access by children to independent complaints procedures in all settings of their lives; (c) access by children and their representatives, like all other rights holders, to courts when other remedies failed to GE.10-10385 9