A/HRC/6/8 page 7 26. The United Kingdom proposed a reference to the origin of CESCR, adding “established under Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) resolution 1985/17”. Denmark, Egypt, Peru and Poland supported such a reference. South Africa suggested this could be solved with a footnote. The NGO Coalition stated that a reference to the legal status of CESCR was unnecessary. Belgium noted that a discussion on its legal status was beyond the Working Group’s mandate. 27. The United Kingdom proposed incorporating “as amended or replaced from time to time” after the reference to the ECOSOC resolution. Egypt, India, Morocco and Nigeria objected to this proposal. 28. Russia suggested that the best solution would be for the preamble to include only the present paragraph 5. 29. Colombia, Egypt, India, Nigeria and Peru, proposed an additional preambular paragraph, in line with article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, referring to the obligation to take steps to the maximum of available resources. Article 1 30. Ethiopia and India favoured deletion of the titles used for each article in the draft. 31. China, Colombia, Denmark, India, Japan and Russia expressed reservations concerning the competence of the Committee to conduct inquiries. China, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Russia, Switzerland and Turkey suggested bracketing this text pending discussions on articles 2, 3, 10 and 11. 32. Chile, Mexico and Spain supported the text as drafted. Australia, Ecuador, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Turkey, the United States and the United Kingdom suggested adding text from ICCPR-OP1, article 1: “No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State party to the Covenant which is not a Party to the present Protocol.” Article 2 33. Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Ethiopia, Finland, France, Guatemala, Italy, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Amnesty International, CETIM, FIAN, the ICJ, the NGO Coalition and International Women’s Rights Action Watch (IWRAW) Asia-Pacific supported a comprehensive approach and the deletion of paragraph 2. It was noted that an à la carte approach would establish a hierarchy among human rights, disregard the interrelatedness of Covenant articles, amend the substance of the Covenant, disregard the interest of the victims, and defy the purpose of the optional protocol to strengthen the implementation of all economic, social and cultural rights. 34. Sweden proposed to insert a threshold in paragraph 1, limiting the scope to “substantial” or “significant” violations. Italy stressed that the optional protocol should recognize the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights.