A/HRC/8/7* page 10 Article 7 72. Several delegations were in favour of retaining article 7; others preferred its deletion or its inclusion in the rules of procedure. Australia, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Indonesia, South Africa and the United Kingdom indicated preference for the original text of draft article 7. China noted that friendly settlements should be confined to inter-States procedures. 73. With regard to paragraph 1, Portugal and the Russian Federation supported the bracketed text “within a reasonable period of time”. Argentina and the United Kingdom preferred deletion of this text; Guatemala advised referring to a specific period of time. 74. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) expressed support for the bracketed text about friendly settlement, while Argentina, Portugal, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom preferred its deletion. Indonesia proposed replacing it with text referring to the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies before making use of a friendly settlement mechanism. 75. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) agreed to the bracketed text about reaching a conclusion; Argentina, Guatemala, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom preferred its deletion. 76. Several delegations were in favour of the bracketed text “[T]he terms of a friendly settlement shall be subject to review and approval by the Committee.” Poland supported giving the Committee the competence to review but not approve the terms. Australia, Austria, Germany, Ghana, the Russian Federation, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Kingdom and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) preferred its deletion. 77. On paragraph 2, Mexico, Portugal and the Russian Federation supported the insertion of the bracketed text “[T]he full implementation of”, while Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) wished to delete it. The Syrian Arab Republic preferred to delete only “full”. Poland preferred the original text providing for closure of the procedure at the moment of reaching a friendly settlement. 78. The Russian Federation and the United Kingdom favoured retaining the original language “shall be deemed to close”; France preferred replacing it with the word “closes”. 79. With regard to paragraph 3, several delegations favoured its deletion. Germany supported its retention. The Netherlands suggested inserting the word “negotiations” after the words “end the friendly settlement”. Senegal considered that the Committee should have the power to intervene only if the result of the friendly settlement had not been achieved; New Zealand considered that the Committee should not be able to terminate the process unilaterally. 80. Bangladesh, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom requested the deletion of paragraph 4. Article 8 81. Australia and New Zealand preferred the original title “Consideration of the merits”.