A/HRC/6/8 page 20 Article 15 131. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) proposed reformulating article 15 along the lines of CAT, article 24. Mexico suggested including follow-up to communications among the issues to be covered in the annual report. Article 16 132. India stated that the reference “and to do so in accessible formats”, if intended to address the specific needs of persons with disabilities, should be more explicit. China suggested to replace “undertakes” by “are encouraged” and to delete “and to do so in accessible formats”. Article 17 133. Finland, the Netherlands and the NGO Coalition supported the inclusion of article 17 as drafted, allowing the Committee to adopt its own rules of procedure, in accordance with the established practice of other treaty bodies. Australia reserved its position on this article until it became clear what would be included in the rules of procedure. Russia stated that the optional protocol could define elements for the rules of procedure as in article 29 of the ICCPR. China suggested that the first conference of States parties should adopt the Committee’s rules of procedure. Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland and South Africa noted that the Committee should have sufficient discretion to develop its own rules of procedure. The United States and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) underlined that the rules of procedure should not address substantive issues or create additional obligations. 134. Egypt and Nigeria suggested deleting article 17 in order not to straightjacket the Committee in developing its rules of procedure. Egypt noted that this would also avoid giving the rules of procedure a legal status, making them less binding on States. 135. France, supported by Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), proposed adding “and in no case create any additional obligations for States parties” at the end of article 17. Article 18 136. No comments were made on article 18. Article 19 137. Australia, Austria, New Zealand and Sweden suggested raising the number of required ratifications or accessions for the entry into force of the protocol to 20. Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Finland, Mexico, Portugal, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and the NGO Coalition stressed that 10 ratifications would allow the instrument to enter into force rapidly, providing space for further ratifications. Belgium underlined that procedural texts require fewer ratifications, that ICCPR-OP1 required 10 ratifications and that this protocol should be coherent with its sister instrument. New Zealand suggested amending paragraph 2 to say: “For each State ratifying or acceding to the present protocol … .”