A/HRC/6/8 page 9 their concern about this proposal, as it might be difficult to obtain express consent in certain cases. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) noted that “express” consent did not require a written signature. Instead of requiring “express” consent, Brazil, Chile, Portugal and Uruguay proposed to formulate paragraph 1 along the lines of article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (OP-CEDAW) by inserting “unless the author can justify acting on their behalf without such consent”. Ecuador suggested inserting “or invoking a legitimate interest”. 44. The NGO Coalition stressed the importance of granting national and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) the standing to submit communications on behalf of alleged victims. Bolivia stated that the Committee should decide whether a person or group had the standing to submit a communication on behalf of an alleged victim. 45. Guatemala asked whether “groups of individuals” in paragraph 1 (grupos de personas in the Spanish translation) included collective entities such as unions. China sought clarification as to the difference between communications submitted by groups of individuals and collective communications. Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Ethiopia, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Peru, Russia, South Africa and Uruguay suggested deleting the word “individual” in the title of article 2, as the article also dealt with communications by groups of individuals. 46. Ethiopia and the United Kingdom proposed replacing the words “subject to the jurisdiction” in the first sentence of paragraph 1 with the words “within [the] jurisdiction” used in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Egypt and Nigeria favoured retaining the language of the draft. Article 3 47. Algeria, Australia, Belarus, Burkina Faso, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Greece, India, Japan, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Russia, Senegal, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, the United States and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) called for the deletion of article 3. Brazil supported the deletion of paragraph 2. Denmark and New Zealand stated that article 3 should be deleted if it allows anyone without a concrete link to a victim to submit a communication. Belgium and Turkey stated that the lack of a victim requirement would require further elaboration. 48. Argentina, Brazil, Denmark, Ecuador, New Zealand, Poland, Turkey, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland stressed that the scope of article 3 required further study. Slovenia, South Africa and Spain stated that additional debate on the potential benefits of this article was necessary. Finland stressed the need to give further consideration to the article as a means of complementing article 2. 49. Argentina, Ecuador, Poland and Turkey noted that the meaning of “unsatisfactory application” in paragraph 1 needed further clarification. Brazil, Ecuador and Ethiopia proposed to replace this term by “violations”. Germany suggested referring to “substantial violations”.