A/HRC/6/8 page 14 84. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) suggested adding a new sentence to paragraph 1 to underline that only the parties, and not the Committee, would be able to determine when the process of reaching a friendly settlement had concluded. 85. Australia, Ethiopia, France and the United States favoured replacing the words “shall be considered to close” in paragraph 2 by “closes” to underline that a friendly settlement automatically closes consideration. 86. Denmark suggested vesting the Committee with the competence, similar to that enjoyed by the European Court of Human Rights, to assess whether a friendly settlement is based on respect for Covenant rights. Brazil and Switzerland warned that no communication should be closed before a friendly settlement has been fully implemented. 87. Mexico said the Committee would need to follow up on the implementation of friendly settlements. Finland and Spain stated that the Committee should have the power to review friendly settlements. Australia, China, the United States and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) opposed this view. Article 8 88. Ecuador, Germany, Slovenia and Spain supported article 8 as drafted. Ethiopia proposed amending the title to read “examination of communications”. 89. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Spain and Turkey proposed inserting the words “after having been declared admissible” at the end of paragraph 1. Italy, Japan, Ethiopia and Mexico suggested inserting text from OP-CEDAW, article 7, paragraph 5, at the end: “provided that this information is transmitted to the parties concerned”. Turkey asked for the deletion of “received under articles 2 and 3”. China, Egypt, India, Russia and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) asked for the reference to article 3 to be deleted. Switzerland suggested deleting the phrase “made available to it by the parties concerned”. 90. Regarding paragraph 3, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Germany, Italy, Nigeria, Poland, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland supported the draft text. Poland mentioned that the paragraph could also be left to the rules of procedure. Azerbaijan, India and Russia proposed its deletion. Nigeria wanted to avoid establishing a hierarchy between regional and international mechanisms. Liechtenstein suggested substituting “relevant decisions and recommendations” with “relevant work carried out by”. 91. China, Finland, Russia and Turkey suggested that the word “shall”, in paragraph 3, should be replaced by “may”. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) wished to clarify the word “relevant” and suggested using similar wording to that of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, article 45, paragraph 1 (c), replacing “as well as of bodies belonging to regional human rights systems” by “and should consult, as appropriate, regional human rights systems, when examining communications under the present Protocol”. France, Liechtenstein and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) suggested deleting the reference to regional human rights systems given their different nature. Ethiopia proposed adding a reference to the recommendations of United Nations specialized agencies.