A/HRC/8/7* page 8 50. Several delegations asked for the deletion of the bracketed last sentence. No delegate supported its retention, but some pointed out that, if retained, the sentence should end after the word “established”. 51. On paragraph 2, proposals were made to replace “where” with “if” or “when” in the chapeau. Egypt, Liechtenstein and the Netherlands suggested inserting “or” at the end of subparagraph (f) to underline the non-cumulative nature of the list of inadmissibility criteria. 52. With regard to subparagraph (a), Mexico and the NGO Coalition supported replacing “six months” with “a reasonable period”. Several delegations noted their preference for a fixed time limit of six months or longer. 53. With regard to subparagraph (b), several delegations favoured the new wording proposed in line with the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Islamic Republic of Iran suggested deleting “after that date”. A proposal was made to replace “those facts” with “the alleged violation”. 54. With regard to subparagraph (c), several delegates supported retaining “matter”, in line with the language used in all the other communication mechanisms. Germany preferred the word “violation”, while Belgium, France, Indonesia and Japan preferred “alleged violation”. 55. A number of delegations preferred deletion of “of the same nature” at the end of the subparagraph, while Mexico proposed retaining this wording, also used in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Egypt suggested “of a similar legal character” as an alternative. 56. With regard to subparagraph (d), several delegates preferred deletion of the bracketed text “or inconsistent with applicable instruments in the field of human rights”. 57. With regard to subparagraph (e), several delegates preferred the deletion of the bracketed text “or dependent mainly on second hand information”. China and the Islamic Republic of Iran supported its retention. 58. With regard to subparagraph (g), some delegations favoured deleting the bracketed text about confidentiality of the information to protect the victim. Other delegates noted that the text should be placed under article 6 or dealt with in the rules of procedure. France and several non-governmental organizations preferred keeping the text, replacing “victims” with “authors”. 59. Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom proposed a new subparagraph (d) bis referring to a threshold of “significant disadvantage”, unless the communication raised a serious issue of general importance. A number of delegates supported the inclusion of such a new criterion, noting that it would allow the Committee not to deal with complaints of minor importance. Other delegations opposed the proposal, noting that it would require the Committee to undertake an examination of the merits at the admissibility stage and would seem to imply that some violations could be considered insignificant, which was unacceptable.