A/HRC/13/43 the European Convention on Human Rights made a reservation to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which limits the Human Rights Committee’s competence to examine complaints which have already been examined by the European Court of Human Rights. Other treaty bodies are barred from examining communications which have already been decided by relevant international organs. 79. With regard to the question of the standing of children and the question of collective complaints, which were also raised by delegations in their discussions, these should be dealt with at the drafting stage. It was obvious that plausible and pragmatic rules should be elaborated concerning representation of children. 80. On exhaustion of domestic remedies, which had been raised by delegations on a number of occasions, the Secretariat noted that, as far as existing treaty-bodies practice examining individual communications is concerned, the prolonged nature of domestic remedies must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Addressing the concern expressed by a number of delegations that the Committee might become another instance in proceedings initiated at the domestic level, the OHCHR representative noted that treaty bodies did not act as a “fourth instance” and did not normally examine facts and evidence dealt with by national courts. 81. Concerning the additional workload of the Committee if it were to examine individual communications, and relying on the practice of existing treaty bodies, the Secretariat observed that, because of, inter alia, the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies, it was improbable that the Committees would receive many communications immediately after the entry into force of the optional protocol. 82. As for Secretariat resources, it was noted that a programme budget implications (PBI) statement should be tabled in due course, in order to ensure additional resources which would allow the Committee to carry out its activities under the optional protocol. 83. In her replies to the questions raised by delegations, Ms. Lee reiterated that the Committee would build on best practices of other treaty bodies. On the legal expertise of Committee members, she recalled that the composition of the Committee was the responsibility of States parties. Both Ms. Lee and Mr. Zermatten reiterated the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in dealing with issues regarding children, as it was already the case at the national level. In this regard, the OHCHR representative noted the useful contributions made by members with no legal expertise in the Committees which currently examined individual communications. 84. Following the presentation by the Secretariat, delegations asked additional questions concerning: statistics and reasons for inadmissibility of communications before and after being registered; reasons for the low percentage of communications involving children; time for dealing with communications since their registration; and estimation of the percentage of additional communications with which the OHCHR Secretariat could deal with in its current status. 85. The Secretariat replied that a high percentage of the communications received are rejected prior to registration. After the case is registered, an additional 40 to 50 per cent of communications are declared inadmissible. The main reasons for the inadmissibility of a communication include non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, incompatibility with the provisions of the relevant treaty, insufficient substantiation or lack of standing as a victim of the alleged violation. In the case of the Human Rights Committee, the average time for a communication to be processed, from its registration, was three and a half to four years. 86. Mr. Newell concluded the discussion on the topic by providing a few examples of child representation in the European Court of Human Rights. He suggested that the rules of 16 GE.10-10385