A/HRC/8/7* page 24 established in accordance with the relevant procedures of the General Assembly, to be administered in accordance with the financial regulations and rules of the United Nations.” 191. The Netherlands and New Zealand proposed replacing “legal aid” and “presentation of the case” with “assistance” and “submissions of communication” respectively. The Russian Federation also preferred a general reference, avoiding the term “legal aid”. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) did not favour the use of “legal aid” and “case”, and favoured the deletion of all reference to assistance to individuals. Some delegations preferred referring to “States parties” rather than to “Governments”. 192. With regard to the beneficiaries of the fund, the Russian Federation supported granting assistance to both victims and States. Poland supported technical assistance to Governments but was concerned about granting legal aid to individuals without clear eligibility criteria. Senegal emphasized the importance of ensuring compensation for the victims and for supporting States in building capacity to implement their obligations. 193. New Zealand considered linking the provision of assistance to victims to a determination of admissibility, and suggested inserting “assistance in preparation of the submission of the communication” instead of “presentation of the case”. 194. The Netherlands favoured omitting “alleged” and suggested reference to “author” or “individuals or groups of individuals claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant”. Argentina and the Russian Federation supported the retention of “alleged”. The Russian Federation added that assistance would be provided only when a violation had been found by the Committee. 195. In relation to the administration of the fund, the Russian Federation suggested inserting “as the Committee may recommend appropriate” to clarify (a) that the provision of assistance is not an automatic procedure, and (b) that a final decision in this regard should be made by the Committee. 196. A suggestion was made to use language from article 7, paragraph 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. 197. The Russian Federation considered that article 13, paragraph 4 was not necessary. 198. CETIM pointed out that concerns could be solved by applying the criteria adopted by the Committee to distinguish States’ inability and lack of political will and by granting assistance to victims only in cases where complaints had been declared admissible. Article 15 199. The Working Group approved the article as drafted. Article 16 200. The Working Group agreed on the article as drafted, after some discussion on “accessibility” and whether to end the article after the word “formats”.