A/HRC/8/7* page 26 VI. CLOSURE OF PROCEEDINGS AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT 211. At the end of the discussion, the Chairperson noted that there was no objection to the transmission of the text to the Human Rights Council for its consideration and that the statements made by delegations would be reflected in the report. The Working Group had thus completed its mandate. 212. The text of the draft optional protocol transmitted by the Working Group to the Council is contained in annex I. 213. In their closing statements, delegations were unanimous in commending the dedicated efforts of the Chairperson and the Working Group as a collective to seek consensus solutions. 214. Algeria stated that the exclusion of Part I of the Covenant from article 2 of the optional protocol risked undermining the Covenant, and reserved its right to address this issue in the Council. 215. Chile welcomed the consensus reached on article 2. The fact that this article did not make any distinction between economic, social and cultural rights as such was consistent with the Covenant, notably article 3 and article 5, paragraph 1, and with resolutions of the Council, in which it reiterated the need to treat all human rights in an equal manner and with the same emphasis. 216. Uruguay noted that it would have preferred a protocol with a broader focus. 217. The United States noted that it continued to have concerns about a number of provisions and remained sceptical of the need for an optional protocol. It reserved its position on the text overall. While equally important, economic, social and cultural rights were, in a legal sense, fundamentally different. They were to be progressively realized in accordance with available resources and were, on their face, difficult to adjudicate, as reflected in the absence of provisions on remedies and enforcement in the Covenant. 218. India considered that the draft optional protocol was a good compromise text which had met the concerns of all parties and noted that it would take the draft for further examination with relevant Government bodies. 219. The Russian Federation stated that the draft reflected a compromise between different approaches to implementing economic, social and cultural rights. As an integral part of the system of international law, the protocol would allow States parties to make reservations compatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. The Committee would not have the competence to assess such compatibility, but should rather focus on effectively fulfilling its new role in cooperation with States parties. 220. Egypt (on behalf of the African group) expressed its overall satisfaction with the text, welcomed the inclusion of the modest but potentially beneficial provision on a trust fund and the provisions on interim and protection measures, inquiry procedure and friendly settlement. The African Group regretted that the text did not encompass all parts of the Covenant, but understood that this exclusion had no bearing or implication for the centrality accorded to the right to self-determination in the Covenant or under international human rights law in general.