A/HRC/13/43 be strengthened. One delegation suggested that the needs of vulnerable groups of children be considered as well. Another delegation proposed to create a database containing information on good practices. 52. One delegation emphasized the need to clarify issues regarding delays and length of proceedings, for example, how to address the situation where a case is submitted by a minor who, at the time the Committee takes its final decision, has reached the age of majority. Several delegations addressed the issue of children’s accessibility to the communications procedure, and one wondered about options for a disabled child to lodge a complaint at the international level. 53. Representatives of NGOs expressed the view that the new mechanism would guide national courts in dealing with children’s issues. Several countries do not have a childspecific mechanism of complaints, and children, in general, have limited access to the existing ones. Existing regional mechanisms may only ensure limited protection to children, as they cannot deal with all rights protected under the Convention. In any case, there is no conflict between the existing mechanisms and the one envisaged. When they fail to obtain redress at the national or regional levels, children must have the opportunity to seek remedy at the international level. 54. In reaction to the different interventions, Mr. Newell acknowledged that both the Inter-American system and the European Court of Human Rights had made a positive use of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in interpreting the American and European Conventions on Human Rights. Both systems had also taken into consideration the Committee’s general comments. In spite of that, a number of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights had been criticized for not being fully consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In his view, regional mechanisms could only welcome the establishment of a new communications procedure. 55. The expert further pointed out that a standard limitation so that the same matter could only be considered by one mechanism at a time would solve the issue of overlapping. The choice of forum would depend mainly on the rights and allegations invoked by the victims. He did not believe that the future optional protocol should include provisions on the role of national human rights institutions regarding complaints, as this issue had already been dealt with in the Principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of human rights (Paris Principles) and in the Committee’s general comment No. 2. 56. On the length of proceedings, Mr. Newell explained that existing treaty bodies that examine communications had established their own rules regarding deadlines for the parties to provide observations. The new procedure should find a balance between the rights and interests of complainants and States parties in this regard. 57. The expert further indicated that, in his opinion, empowering the Committee with the possibility to issue requests for interim measures of protection would be of crucial importance for its work on individual communications. 58. On the issue of representation, and with reference to the “best interest of the child” principle, the expert suggested that it could be a differentiated treatment depending on the age of the children and their capacity to give consent in order to have their case examined by the Committee. 59. The Chairperson-Rapporteur in his summary of that debate emphasized: the need for the procedure to be child-friendly and for the communications to be dealt with expeditiously; the need to ensure that children have access to courts; the importance of taking into account best practices at the national level; the fact that regional and international mechanisms do not overlap but rather complement each other; the idea that GE.10-10385 11