A/HRC/6/8 page 25 169. France, Mexico, Portugal and Spain welcomed the balance in the draft text, but remained open to improving the wording. South Africa said they would consider elements of all proposals. 170. Amnesty International and ICJ emphasized that international cooperation and assistance are an essential part of the Covenant. 171. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) noted that a State could also mention what kinds of international cooperation it requires in its reports to the Committee. In line with resolution 2625 (XXV), States must cooperate amongst themselves. However, States should decide what cooperation they would accept and under what terms. Admissibility criteria (art. 4) 172. The Netherlands and Mexico supported the draft text, but were open to considering other proposals, bearing in mind precedents from other instruments. 173. Australia and the Netherlands stressed that there was a distinction between the admissibility stage and the consideration of the merits and raised concern about the resource demands on governments if both procedures were considered simultaneously. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) asked whether the Committee could consider the two issues separately. 174. On paragraph 1, the United Kingdom mentioned exhaustion of all forms of domestic remedies. Bangladesh, Belgium and the Netherlands objected to this. The Netherlands noted that the term “domestic remedies” includes all domestic remedies as long as these are effective, and hence there was no need to refer to administrative and other remedies. The United Kingdom suggested that the term “and” in its proposal could be replaced by “or”, in order not to create additional obstacles. 175. On paragraph 2, subparagraph (a), Bangladesh, Italy, Amnesty International and the Inter-American Platform for Human Rights, Development and Democracy (PIDHDD) asked for the deletion of the six-month time limit. South Africa and the NGO Coalition suggested replacing it by a “reasonable time limit”. Greece, Russia and Switzerland favoured fixing a time limit but were flexible on this point. 176. The United Kingdom mentioned that paragraph 2, subparagraph (c), should mention that a matter examined by a regional procedure should not be examined by the Committee under the optional protocol. Belgium and Greece supported this proposal. The Netherlands mentioned that the term “international” encompassed universal and regional mechanisms and therefore met the concerns expressed by the United Kingdom. 177. Switzerland and the NGO Coalition proposed adding, at the end of paragraph 2, subparagraph (g), “without prejudice of the possibility for victims to request that information revealing their identity be withheld and its confidentiality preserved”. Interim measures (art. 5) 178. Argentina and Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) supported the inclusion of article 5.