A/HRC/6/8 page 12 Amnesty International, ESCR-Net, FIAN and the ICJ favoured retaining article 5. The function of interim measures to prevent irreparable harm was of such importance that the matter should not be deferred to the Committee’s rules of procedure. Ethiopia, Finland, South Africa and the United States stated that requests for interim measures should only be issued in exceptional or grave circumstances. Denmark, Japan, Sweden and Turkey noted that further discussion and clarification were needed. 68. Ecuador, Italy, India, New Zealand and Russia suggested that interim measures should only be granted after a communication has been declared admissible. Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Peru, Portugal, ESCR-Net, FIAN and the NGO Coalition stressed that interim measures, serving the purpose of an urgent response to prevent irreparable damage, should not be limited by admissibility criteria. 69. Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Italy, New Zealand, Peru, Poland, Spain, Russia and the NGO Coalition suggested adding a second paragraph “Where the Committee exercises its discretion under paragraph 1 of the present article, this does not imply a determination on admissibility or on the merits of the communication.” in line with OP-CEDAW, article 5, paragraph 2. Italy stressed the importance of taking into account the specific nature of economic, social and cultural rights in the adoption of interim measures. 70. China and the United States proposed that the Committee should “transmit” requests for interim measures by victims of alleged violations rather than making such requests at its own initiative. Colombia, Uruguay, ESCR-Net, FIAN and the NGO Coalition suggested requiring States parties to give “urgent consideration” to these requests. 71. The NGO Coalition stated that article 5 should include an obligation to take all necessary steps to give effect to interim measures. 72. Ethiopia, Germany and New Zealand proposed adding “and before any decision on the merits” after “communication”. Several States supported adding “exceptional circumstances to avoid irreparable harm”. Ethiopia proposed adding “and reasonable, based on resources available” after “necessary”, while India proposed adding “taking into account the availability of resources” after “interim protection”. Belgium, France and Switzerland opposed referring to resource availability as States are obliged to avoid possible irreparable damage at all times. 73. Several States and NGOs suggested referring to “victims” in the plural. 74. Brazil and Mexico recommended including a provision allowing States to comment on the requested interim measures and submit information. Several States noted that the Committee could act “based on the request of the victims, individuals, groups of individuals or representatives”. France proposed a reference to ���reliable information” at the end of the article. 75. Germany suggested replacing the request to take measures with “to transmit for its urgent consideration a request that”. Finland noted that article 5 did not clearly express whether a State party would be required only to refrain from action or also to take positive action to prevent possible irreparable damage. Norway expressed general scepticism about including a mandate