A/HRC/8/7* page 6 32. With regard to paragraph 1, several delegations suggested retaining “within” the jurisdiction, while others favoured the wording “subject to”. France supported the wording “relevant de la jurisdiction” in the French version. Amnesty International preferred excluding any reference to jurisdiction. 33. Austria, Bangladesh, Chile, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Italy, Mexico, Pakistan, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovenia and South Africa preferred the deletion of the bracketed text “direct” and “significant”. Canada, China, Poland and Sweden favoured retaining this text. New Zealand supported the reference to “significant” and sought clarification of the meaning of “direct victims”. The Netherlands and the Republic of Korea noted that the need for a reference to “significant” depended on whether paragraph 2 would be retained, while the Netherlands and the United States said that this reference might be better placed in article 4. 34. China, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Nepal and Poland favoured retaining the bracketed text “express”, while Bangladesh, Finland, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia asked for its deletion. 35. Bangladesh, Belgium, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Liechtenstein, Mexico and Portugal preferred deleting the bracketed text “Parts II and III of/Parts III read in conjunction with provisions contained in Part II”. Canada, China, Greece, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States advised retaining the text “Part III read in conjunction with provisions contained in Part II”. 36. Some delegates supported the exclusion of Part I (art. 1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, while others were for its inclusion. In this regard, Egypt requested the Chairperson to seek the views of the Committee on how it had addressed issues related to article 1 of the Covenant. 37. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Finland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal and FIAN supported the retention of “unless the author can justify acting on their behalf without such consent”. 38. With regard to paragraph 2, several delegations and non-governmental organizations called for its deletion and reiterated their support for a comprehensive scope. Other delegations supported its retention. Canada presented an alternative proposal, supported by several States, changing the paragraph from an opt-out to an opt-in clause. Other delegations favoured an opt-out approach. 39. Turkey and the United Kingdom asked for the deletion of “of articles 2 (1) and 6 to 15”, the United States proposed replacing this text with “referred to in paragraph 1 above”. 40. China, Denmark, New Zealand, Poland and the Russian Federation suggested the deletion of the bracketed last sentence. Austria, the Netherlands, the Republic of Korea and the United States supported its retention. The Netherlands preferred a time frame shorter than 10 years.