A/HRC/6/8 page 22 Article 25 146. No comments were made on article 25. Article 26 147. No comments were made on article 26. IV. DEEPENING OF THE DISCUSSIONS 148. Upon conclusion of the first reading of the draft, the Working Group focused the ensuing discussion on three topics: (a) the criteria to be used by the Committee in examining communications (arts. 2 bis and 8, para. 4); (b) the scope of the optional protocol (art. 2); (c) international assistance and cooperation and the proposal for the establishment of a fund (arts. 13 and 14); (d) admissibility criteria (art. 4); (e) interim measures (art. 5); (f) friendly settlement (art. 7); and (g) other issues considered of particular importance in the draft optional protocol. Criteria to be used by the Committee in examining communications (art. 8, para. 4) 149. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) and Nigeria proposed a revised version of article 2 bis, to replace article 8, paragraph 4: “When examining communications the Committee shall consider allegations of violations concerning the failure of the State Party to respect, protect and fulfil rights set forth in the Covenant, article 2, paragraph 1. In doing so the Committee shall address the reasonableness of the steps taken by the State party, to the maximum of its available resources, in relation to the subject matter of a communication under consideration.” 150. The United Kingdom expressed preference for the Chair’s proposal, removing the reference to article 2, paragraph 1, as the Committee should use the test of reasonableness on all communications. Belgium expressed concern that it went beyond the Covenant. Mexico stated that a possible compromise would be to rely on more general language and paragraph 4 as drafted, mentioning that it could also support Liechtenstein’s proposal with Russia’s amendments. Germany supported the paragraph as drafted, stating that it could also support the proposal of Liechtenstein. 151. The Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom questioned the added value of the first part of the African Group’s proposal. Norway, Portugal, Russia, the United Kingdom, Amnesty International and the NGO Coalition expressed concerns over the reference to “respect, protect and fulfil”. Amnesty International and the NGO Coalition suggested replacing this with “realize”, Mexico with “guarantee” and Poland with “guarantee the exercise of the rights provided for in the Covenant”. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) noted that this typology is based on the jurisprudence of the Committee. 152. Azerbaijan, India, Mexico, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the NGO Coalition expressed concern that the proposal excluded article 2, paragraph 2, of the Covenant and other interpretative articles in Part II. Russia suggested adding “where and as