A/HRC/6/8 page 13 for the Committee to request interim measures, but stressed that the issue should be addressed in the protocol. Poland considered that it was up to the State to decide on whether or not to adopt interim measures and on their character. Article 6 76. South Africa inquired whether communications found inadmissible should be transmitted to the State party concerned. Australia noted that if inadmissible communications were to be transmitted, paragraph 2 should clarify that States were not required to respond. 77. Russia welcomed the confidentiality requirement in paragraph 1. Mexico and South Africa questioned whether such confidentiality was necessary. Switzerland suggested clarifying whether the identity of victims must be kept confidential. Portugal proposed adding, “but the identity of the individual or groups of individuals concerned shall not be revealed without his, her or their express consent” (from ICERD, article 14, paragraph 6 (a)). 78. Russia inquired when computation of the six months period in paragraph 2 would start. Argentina asked whether it referred to all stages of the proceedings. France and Mexico favoured establishing time limits for the Committee to decide on the admissibility and merits of a communication. 79. France and the United Kingdom proposed inserting “and its views on the admissibility” after the words “clarifying the matter” in paragraph 2. Peru stated that the article should indicate whether it may suffice to clarify the matter without providing a remedy. Senegal stated that paragraph 2 should invite States to provide information on possible future remedies. Article 7 80. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Mexico, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) supported including article 7. Argentina and Mexico emphasized that a friendly settlement procedure should be voluntary and welcomed a reference to the fact that any settlement should be in accordance with the obligations set forth in the Covenant. Pakistan stated that the Committee’s good offices should be made available to the State party concerned. 81. China, India, Sweden and the United States noted that a friendly settlement procedure should only apply to inter-State complaints, in line with other human rights instruments. 82. Switzerland proposed inserting the words “within a reasonable period of time” after “settlement of the matter” in paragraph 1. India preferred not to indicate any time frame, as the Committee should be able to start examining a communication any time one of the parties loses interest in pursuing a friendly settlement. 83. Ethiopia suggested adding, at the end of paragraph 1, “when and if the parties concerned wish to settle the matter amicably”.