A/HRC/8/7* page 20 preferred not to add such wording. Some delegates noted that the proposal was not necessary because of the voluntary nature of such requests. Mexico, Portugal and Switzerland considered it incompatible with the purpose of preventing irreparable harm. Several delegates and non-governmental organizations mentioned that it would imply a retrogression in relation to Optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the jurisprudence of regional human rights systems. Norway argued that clarification of the voluntary nature was necessary, since other treaty bodies interpreted interim measure requests to be binding on States. Canada agreed that it would be helpful to state that requests for interim measures were non-binding, even if that was already clear from the words “request” and “urgent consideration”, and further proposed adding at the end of the paragraph “and shall invite the State party concerned to make submissions regarding the request if it so wishes”. Liechtenstein considered that States parties had an obligation to consider urgently taking action on interim measure requests. 161. Japan favoured reinserting “when the risk of such damage is sufficiently substantiated” at the end of paragraph 1. Canada preferred that interim measures be dealt within the rules of procedure. Article 6 162. Article 6 was accepted as drafted. Article 7 163. Article 7 was accepted as drafted. Article 8 164. Portugal and the Russian Federation suggested using uniform terminology to streamline “examine/examination” and “consider/consideration”. Some delegates cautioned against deviating from standard language. 165. Paragraph 1 was approved as modified, replacing “consider” with “examine”, “made available to it” by “submitted to it” and “information” by “documentation” twice. Discussions were held in relation to the proposal of Canada to insert “written” before information to ensure consistency with the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 5 (1), but delegations noted that “written” was not contained in other instruments. China, Pakistan and the Russian Federation expressed concern about replacing “provided that this information is transmitted to the Parties concerned” with “by the Parties concerned”. 166. Paragraph 2 was approved as drafted. 167. Paragraph 3 was approved as amended after some discussion, adding references to “United Nations specialized agencies, funds, programmes and mechanisms”, “other international organizations” and “any observations and comments by the State party concerned”. 168. With regard to paragraph 4, the Chairperson suggested the insertion of “and appropriateness” after “reasonableness”, and the deletion of the last sentence. Some delegations supported the insertion of “appropriateness”, while others did not. A few noted that the