A/HRC/6/8 page 26 179. Mexico supported the proposals previously made by Chile and Germany. The NGO Coalition and PIDHDD supported Chile’s proposal. 180. Ecuador, Portugal, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom supported inclusion of language from OP-CEDAW, article 5, as the adoption of interim measures should not prejudice the admissibility of a case. Egypt suggested that article 6 should come before article 5. 181. Egypt and the United Kingdom questioned how the Committee, meeting only twice a year, would be able to respond to urgent situations and issue requests for interim measures at any time during the year. Amnesty International and the Netherlands mentioned that it was up to the Committee to organize its work and that the Committee should be able to respond at any time during the year. 182. The United Kingdom supported the proposal that States should be able to comment on the proposed interim measures. Egypt and the Netherlands expressed doubts about this proposal as interim measures have to be taken with maximum speed. Friendly settlement (art. 7) 183. Argentina, Australia, Ecuador, Mexico, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom supported the inclusion of a friendly settlement. 184. China and Russia noted the need to look at the legal effect of a friendly settlement. Australia stated that the legal consequence of such settlement would be that the communication was no longer under consideration. 185. The NGO Coalition suggested four amendments to article 7: (a) that the Committee will make available its good offices to the parties concerned; (b) that the terms of a friendly settlement shall be subject to review and approval by the Committee; (c) that the Committee may at any time end the friendly settlement and continue with the consideration of the merits of the communication; and (d) that the Committee shall draw up a report outlining the terms of the settlement and send it to the parties concerned. Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) noted that the Committee’s review of a friendly settlement would undermine the nature of such settlement. The Netherlands favoured a specific reference to the Committee deciding that a case is closed and that the friendly settlement does justice to the obligations under the Covenant. Senegal and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) agreed that the role of the Committee should be to provide its good offices. Senegal stressed that it might be problematic to exclude the Committee from the implementation of the settlement. South Africa suggested that the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights could provide guidance on this matter. 186. The ICJ stressed that what should close a case should not be the reaching of an agreement but rather actual compliance with that agreement. Thailand suggested a new version of paragraph 2, reading: “The Committee shall close consideration of the communication under the present protocol, when an agreement on friendly settlement has been reached between the parties.”