A/HRC/8/7* page 14 108. Senegal and the NGO Coalition noted that the title “International assistance and cooperation” should be referred to in the text of article 13. 109. With regard to paragraph 1, Argentina, Bangladesh, France, Guatemala, India, the Netherlands and Poland supported the wording “and with the consent of the State party concerned”. 110. Argentina, France and Poland favoured the inclusion of “and other States parties”; Guatemala, Japan, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea and Sweden sought its deletion. Indonesia noted that article 22 of the Covenant made no reference to “other States parties”. India inquired whether this reference implied that all information would be automatically transmitted to other States parties. 111. Argentina, France, the Netherlands, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Sweden and Switzerland preferred deleting the word “financial” before “assistance”, while China and Nepal supported its retention. 112. Egypt noted that the focus of international assistance in article 13 should be on technical advice to avoid duplication with article 14. 113. With regard to article 13, paragraph 2, Guatemala favoured retaining “each within its field of competence”. Australia, Egypt and the Netherlands suggested including a reference to “with the consent of the State Party”, while China proposed referring to “with prior knowledge of” and Indonesia to “with prior notification of” the State concerned. Article 14 114. Several delegations, including Canada, Denmark and the United States, opposed or expressed concerns about the establishment of a fund, noting the danger of linking violations to funding, the risks of duplicating existing United Nations funds and the practical difficulties in managing such a fund. The raison d’être of the fund was also questioned, as, in many cases, no violation of the Covenant would be found if the non-fulfilment of a right was caused by a lack of resources. 115. Argentina, Bangladesh and Egypt argued that the optional protocol was the right place for establishing a fund and referred to the precedent in the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. 116. Australia noted that, if the article was retained, there would be a need for strict criteria for the use of the fund. Switzerland noted that there was a need to clarify what proportion of funding would be made available to individual victims and to Governments respectively. 117. Sweden and Switzerland inquired how the fund would benefit victims. While stating a strong preference for not establishing a fund, Sweden proposed compromise language for a fund exclusively geared towards assisting individuals to submit communications. Several delegates favoured using the fund for supporting victims’ access to the procedure or for providing effective remedies for victims. Algeria, Bangladesh and Egypt were against such a limited use of the fund. Poland noted, that if established, the fund should support financing technical assistance only.