Remarks of a committee on the interpretation of a human rights convention that is competent to make such statements have significant weight, but they are not binding under international law for international or national courts (cf. ICJ, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo [Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo]), I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 639, <663 and 664>, para. 66; Supreme Court of Ireland, Kavanagh v. Governor of Mountjoy Prison and the Attorney General, Judgment of 1 March 2002, p. 14 and 15; Tribunal Constitucional [Spain], STC 070/2002, recurso de amparo núm. 3787-2001, Judgment of 3 April 2002, II. para. 7 a); Conseil d’État [France], Juge des référés of 11 October 2001, No. 238849, ECLI:FR:CEORD:2001:238849.20011011, p. 4; further on the opinions under the Optional Protocol on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 33, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/33 of 5 November 2008, no. 13). These committees do not have the competence to further advance international conventions beyond the agreements and practice of the signatory states (cf. Art. 31 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969, UNTS 1155, 331 <340>, BGBl II 1985 p. 926, citing customary international law; cf. ICJ, LaGrand [Germany v. USA], I.C.J. Reports 2001, S. 466 <501> para. 99; in this respect BVerfGE 90, 286 <362 et seq.>; Mark Villiger, Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2009, Art. 31 para. 37 with further references). It can remain undecided whether statements which were made with regard to other international agreements apply to all statements of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities accordingly. In any case, according to Art. 34 et seq. CRPD, the Committee has not been given the mandate to bindingly interpret the text of the Convention. When interpreting the Convention, a national court should, however, deal in an argumentative way and in good faith with the opinions of a competent international treaty body; it does not, however, have to endorse them (cf. – on decisions of international courts, however – BVerfGE 111, 307 <317 and 318>; 128, 326 <366 et seq., 370>; established case-law; Christian Tomuschat, Human Rights Committee, The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. IV, 2012, p. 1058 <1061> para. 14).