A/HRC/8/7* page 21 combined use of reasonableness and appropriateness could cause confusion. Canada and New Zealand cautioned against selective reference to article 2, paragraph 1 of the Covenant and proposed referring to Part II of the Covenant instead. Austria proposed replacing “as long as they are consistent” with “in compliance with”. 169. Germany, Mexico, Portugal and several non-governmental organizations proposed deleting paragraph 4, while Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) preferred retaining it. 170. Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Greece, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States supported a “reasonableness” test. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Peru and the NGO Coalition preferred that the word “reasonableness” not be used. 171. Several delegations favoured maintaining a reference to the “[broad] margin of appreciation” as suggested in the first revised draft and also referred to in the Committee’s statement of May 2007 (E/C.12/2007/1), while several others, including non-governmental organizations, preferred deleting the reference to a “margin of appreciation”. Portugal feared that it would undermine the core objective of the protocol and increase the burden of proof on victims; Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) objected because it could undermine State’s sovereignty. Some delegates requested further clarification of “reasonableness” and “margin of appreciation”. The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights cautioned against selectively adopting jurisprudential principles from the European system while ignoring those from other regional systems. 172. Guatemala, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mexico, Peru and Poland expressed support for the proposal of Liechtenstein from the first part of the session. 173. Canada proposed revising the paragraph so that it would include the wording “whether steps were reasonable, in conformity with Part II of the Covenant” and “appropriate policy measures and the optimum use of its resources in accordance with its domestic priorities, provided it does so in a manner consistent with its obligations under the Covenant”. Australia, Denmark and Ireland supported these amendments. 174. Canada and China found the wording “where relevant” unclear. The Chairperson noted that States had obligations to implement the Covenant immediately, such as in application of the right to non-discrimination. China noted that action taken to eliminate existing discrimination required financial and other resources. China also pointed out that article 2, paragraph 1 of the Covenant provides for “the rights recognized in the present Covenant” without any distinction between them. 175. Delegates discussed the proposal by the International Labour Organization (ILO) to add a paragraph 5. Several delegations preferred not to add a paragraph specifically related to ILO, since paragraph 3 already refers to information from all specialized agencies. ILO withdrew its proposal on its understanding that it would be accommodated in the practice of the Committee. Article 8 bis 176. After some discussion, the Working Group agreed to use language from article 7, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All