A/HRC/6/21 page 7 legal status of CESCR or to revoke an ECOSOC decision. According to the international law of treaties, all States parties to the Covenant had a right to participate in any decision as to whether to amend the Covenant so as to include provision for the CESCR. As not all States parties to the Covenant were members of the Human Rights Council, further action on this issue by the Council would not be consistent with the international law of treaties. A more appropriate forum might be a meeting of States parties to the Covenant. II. VIEWS ON OPTIONS FOR AND IMPLICATIONS OF RECTIFYING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE COMMITTEE 20. The Government of Australia noted the need for a further detailed legal analysis of the modalities for effecting the proposal to give CESCR treaty-based status. Any amendment of the Covenant would only be binding on those States parties who accepted the amendment, and this could result in parallel legal regimes (should ECOSOC resolution 1985/17 not be revoked) or in the absence of any mechanism for the consideration of reports of States parties which did not accept the amendment. Moreover, Australia considered that should an amendment of the Covenant be contemplated, the opportunity should also be taken to undertake systematic treaty body reform. 21. The Government of Canada indicated that if it was decided to give CESCR equivalent legal status to that of the other human rights treaty bodies, amendments would be required to the Covenant. In article 29 of the Covenant, States parties had already agreed to an amendment procedure, and the importance of economic, social and cultural rights in international law required that the proper legal procedure set out in article 29 be followed. However, as stipulated in article 29, paragraph 3, once amendments had come into force, they were only binding on those States parties which had accepted them. There was therefore the possibility of two bodies operating in parallel: the current Committee created by ECOSOC and, once in force, the new treaty body. Canada looked forward to receiving clarifications on measures to address issues such as different reporting requirements for States parties which did not ratify the amendments to the treaty. 22. The Government of Cuba indicated that one possible solution would be to establish the CESCR by an amendment to the Covenant through a protocol. States parties to the Covenant would then be able to become States parties to this protocol, and, once the protocol entered into force, the current Committee established by ECOSOC resolution 1985/17 would cease to function. 23. The Government of Finland indicated that when considering the way forward it would be very important to ensure that this was done in full consultation with the CESCR. It also noted the need to avoid a gap in the promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights and a two-track situation where some States parties would be monitored under the existing system and some under a new one. Finland was interested in continuing the discussion on the best ways to avoid this problematic situation and would find useful further legal views on the matter and on options available. 24. The Government of Ireland indicated that it would appear logical that the legal instrument conferring treaty status to the CESCR be an amendment of the parent treaty rather than an optional protocol. The Government noted that amendments in relation to the structure