A/HRC/8/7* page 19 give rise to legal questions, particularly adding “similar”, which would be unclear. In adopting this provision, the Working Group agreed to mention in the report that they understood the wording in a broad and comprehensive way that would include other international (including regional) procedures. 152. Subparagraph (d) was accepted as drafted. 153. With regard to subparagraph (e), the Chairperson suggested adding “frivolous”. Most delegations did not favour the inclusion of this word. China and India supported adding a requirement that communications could not rely mainly on second-hand information. 154. Subparagraphs (f) and (g) were accepted as drafted. 155. The United Kingdom, supported by Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden and the United States, submitted an amended version to subparagraph 2 (d) bis, as a new paragraph 3, which reads: “The Committee may decline to consider a communication where it does not appear to reveal that the author has been significantly disadvantaged”, noting that this text offered flexibility to the Committee to allocate time and resources effectively. 156. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Finland, France, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Switzerland and several non-governmental organizations did not favour proposed paragraph 3. Delegations underlined concerns raised in the first part of the session about the expression “significantly disadvantaged” (see paragraph 60 above). 157. China was concerned that, with the word “may” and with no criteria that the Committee has to apply in deciding not to consider a communication being provided for, any double standard would be to the detriment of the uniform application of the protocol. The United Kingdom said that, while it would have preferred “shall”, it considered that the Committee should be relied upon to adopt a consistent approach in the light of its workload and the prevailing circumstances. Article 5 158. With regard to paragraph 1, Brazil, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mexico and Portugal preferred the text as drafted. Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States supported including “as may be necessary in exceptional circumstances”, as suggested by the Chairperson. Finland, Switzerland, Amnesty International, ICJ and the NGO Coalition considered the amendment redundant. 159. Liechtenstein proposed replacing “for its urgent consideration a request that the State party take such interim measures” with “a request that the State party urgently consider taking such interim measures”. 160. Norway proposed adding at the end of the paragraph “bearing in mind the voluntary nature of compliance with such requests”. A number of delegations supported the proposal, while others