A/HRC/8/7* page 11 82. On paragraph 1, the Russian Federation and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) supported the original text, while India asked to reinsert “by the parties concerned”. Algeria, Bangladesh, Germany, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Liechtenstein and Spain agreed with the text proposed in bold font, while Egypt, India, and Norway asked for its deletion. Australia, Chile, Denmark, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the United States proposed deleting only the text “after the communication has been declared admissible”. 83. New Zealand proposed adding “written” before the word “information”. Poland suggested replacing the text in bold with “[P]arties concerned shall be invited to submit statements or observations in regard to this information within the time limit set by the Committee.”. 84. With regard to paragraph 3, Argentina, Finland, Mexico, Sweden and the Netherlands preferred reverting to the original wording. Liechtenstein and the United States proposed replacing “may” with “shall”, while Chile proposed including “shall” in relation to United Nations mechanisms and “may” to regional mechanisms. Several delegations preferred the wording “may consult” with regard to both United Nations and regional human rights mechanisms. Liechtenstein preferred deleting the reference to regional mechanisms. Azerbaijan and Egypt suggested referring to “United Nations treaty bodies”. Some delegations preferred deleting the paragraph or leaving it for the rules of procedure. Slovenia and the United Kingdom preferred reverting to “decisions and recommendations” instead of “work carried out”. 85. On paragraph 4, Argentina, Bangladesh, Finland and the Russian Federation preferred the original text, while Costa Rica, India, Mexico, Portugal and Sri Lanka highlighted the importance of closely reflecting the language of the Covenant. 86. Delegates proposed a number of amendments. Germany proposed replacing the word “shall” with “may” before the word “focus”. Canada, Denmark, Germany, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Spain and the NGO Coalition suggested the deletion of words “respect, protect and fulfil”. Azerbaijan and Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) supported its retention. 87. Canada, Liechtenstein and Mexico proposed merging the first and second sentences, deleting the bracketed text in the first sentence. 88. With regard to the second sentence, Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Guatemala, India, Liechtenstein, Mexico and Sri Lanka sought deletion of the terms “reasonableness”, “unreasonableness”, “effectiveness” and “adequacy”. Australia, Austria, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden supported the inclusion of “reasonableness”, while Denmark, Japan, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States preferred the term “unreasonableness”. The United Kingdom proposed an annex for the criteria for the text of unreasonableness. Chile and Slovenia supported the inclusion of the term “effectiveness”. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Guatemala, Liechtenstein and Mexico supported wording closer to article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 89. Liechtenstein proposed the text “[…] the Committee shall assess the steps taken by the State Party, to the maximum of its available resources and with a view to achieving the full realization of the right or rights referred to in the communication by all appropriate means, in accordance with its obligations under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant”.