A/HRC/6/8 page 15 92. Article 2 bis, proposed by the African Group, considered together with article 8, paragraph 4, aimed at providing a methodology for examining communications, specifying that the Committee shall (a) “focus, in principle, on allegations of violations concerning the failure of a State party ... to respect or protect the rights set forth in the Covenant”, and (b) “address, where and as required, the reasonableness of the steps taken by the State party in conformity with article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, in relation to the subject matter of a communication”. 93. Germany, Slovenia and Sweden stated that they did not see the rationale for this proposal. Australia, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom expressed concern about the wording “in principle”. Australia and the United Kingdom suggested replacing the word “address” by “assess”. The United Kingdom further proposed inserting “in this context” to replace “where and as required”. Argentina, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Slovenia stressed the importance of covering violations of the obligation to fulfil. Egypt clarified that the intention was not to exclude the fulfil dimension which was covered in the second paragraph of the proposal. Amnesty International and the ICJ expressed concern that various amendments were referring to concepts that are not in the Covenant. 94. Belgium, Chile, Finland, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain supported article 8, paragraph 4, as drafted. Azerbaijan, Denmark, Nigeria, Norway and Russia expressed concern about the term “reasonableness”. The United Kingdom said that reasonableness was a familiar concept in some legal systems and proposed that its meaning could be defined in an explanatory annex. 95. The United States proposed an amendment to paragraph 4, replacing the term “reasonableness” with the concept of “unreasonableness” and adding a reference to “the broad margin of appreciation of the State party to determine the optimum use of its resources”. Belgium, Ethiopia, Mexico, Portugal, Slovenia, Amnesty International, FIAN, the ICJ and the NGO Coalition expressed concern that this proposal came close to amending the Covenant. Egypt, Ethiopia, Portugal, Slovenia, the ICJ and the NGO Coalition expressed concern about the restrictiveness of the term “unreasonable”. China, India, Japan, Norway, Poland and the United Kingdom expressed support or interest in such “unreasonableness” criteria. 96. Egypt, Norway, Poland and Sweden appreciated the reference to “a broad margin of appreciation” in the proposal of the United States. 97. Poland proposed an amendment of paragraph 4 referring to “unreasonableness” and the “broad margin of appreciation” and indicating that compliance would be monitored in the light of article 2, paragraph 1. 98. Switzerland proposed an amendment of paragraph 4, to modify the proposal of the African Group by removing the words “in principle” and adding a sentence on “the broad margin of appreciation” of States. 99. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) mentioned its openness to the various suggestions made for revisions to its initial proposal.