A/HRC/8/7* page 28 specific corrective measures or reparation. It regretted the absence of a provision on the participation of social partners and non-governmental organizations in the procedure, and reserved the right to make further comments at a later stage. 229. Greece noted that the text contained positive elements but did not fully meet all its concerns. It would have preferred more flexibility concerning its scope and explicit language on a broad margin of appreciation. It considered requests for interim measures to be of a non-binding nature. 230. Norway regretted that article 5 did not underline the non-legally binding character of requests for interim measures, and that article 8, paragraph 4 did not clarify the State’s broad margin of appreciation. It reserved its position on the draft optional protocol as a whole. 231. Austria reiterated that the protocol needed to allow for national specificities to be taken into account in the implementation of the Covenant. The final text contained important language to guide the work of the Committee and to allow it to take into account the variety of means and choices available to States in implementing their obligations under the Covenant. 232. Guatemala considered the final draft to be the best possible text. 233. Finland reiterated its full support for an optional protocol covering all rights, contained in the Covenant. 234. The Republic of Korea stated that the draft did not fully succeed in reflecting the distinct nature of economic, social and cultural rights, nor fully accommodate the various views and concerns about how the protocol could be operationalized. 235. Sweden remained unconvinced that an optional protocol was the most effective way of promoting economic, social and cultural rights. It regretted that some of its key positions, including criteria for admissibility, were not reflected in the draft and remained sceptical about the provision on the establishment of a trust fund. It was concerned by the haste in which the negotiations had been conducted and noted that transmission of the text to the Council did not mean general acceptance of the draft protocol. 236. Belgium stated that the optional protocol filled a gap in the international human rights system. It could accept article 4, stressing the need for a strict respect for the condition “if necessary”, and article 8, paragraph 4, noting that the concept of “reasonableness” did not in any way imply a new interpretation of the Covenant. Belgium regretted the choice of an opt-in approach in article 11, having preferred the opt-out option. In a spirit of compromise, it could accept the establishment of a trust fund, noting that it should be managed by OHCHR. 237. Turkey supported an opt-out approach and expressed disappointment at the deletion of article 2, paragraph 2, noting the distinct nature of economic, social and cultural rights characterized by the principle of progressive implementation. 238. New Zealand noted how all delegations had worked in a cooperative spirit and had made compromises. It reserved its position on the text as a whole.