A/HRC/17/36 80. Some delegations proposed that States should not only report on measures taken in the light of the views and recommendations, but also on measures envisaged. P. Inquiry procedure for grave or systematic violations 81. Most delegations reaffirmed the key importance of the inquiry procedure mechanism. However, some expressed concern at the risk of duplication. A proposal was made in that respect that would exclude the Committee’s competence when the same situation was being considered under another similar international inquiry mechanism. 82. One delegation considered “grave or systematic violations” a vague threshold. Another delegation stated that the reference to the Convention and its two Optional Protocols for describing the Committee’s ratione materiae competence should be worded similarly as for the other procedures under the protocol. 83. Representatives of national human rights institutions and experts suggested including an explicit reference to those institutions as sources of information. 84. One delegation stated that, together with its findings, the Committee should only transmit “relevant” comments and recommendations to the State party concerned. 85. Many delegations expressed concern over the brevity of a three-month time limit for States to provide their observations to the Committee, and preferred a six-month time limit instead. Different compromise proposals were made, including one to the effect that the State party concerned “shall, as soon as possible within six months of receiving the findings, comments and recommendations transmitted by the Committee, submit its observations to the Committee”. While one delegation welcomed the extension of the time frame from three to six months, another delegation suggested deleting “as soon as possible”, as it was a legally uncertain concept. Some delegations stated that this time frame should be aligned with those stipulated for the other procedures under the protocol. It was also suggested that a State party’s observations shall be reflected, in case that the State party agreed to include a summary account of the results of the inquiry in the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly. 86. Numerous delegations supported the inclusion of an opt-out provision with regard to the inquiry procedure to promote wider acceptance of the protocol. Apart from withdrawal, one delegation suggested allowing States to amend their opt-out declaration. Several delegations favoured replacing the opt-out by an opt-in clause, following the example of the inter-State procedure. Many delegations, non-governmental organizations and experts, including Committee members, argued that the Committee’s competence to conduct inquiries into grave or systematic violations must not be optional and asked for the deletion of any possibility for States to opt-in or opt-out of this procedure. Another delegation suggested reformulating the provisions on the inquiry procedure based on articles 11 and 12 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 87. Responding to questions regarding the management of inquiries, Committee members noted that this procedure could be dealt with by a working group of the Committee. On questions regarding the concept of “reliable information” and the characterization of “grave or systematic violations”, they responded that the criteria should be included in the rules of procedure and be based on the Committee’s experience and jurisprudence on the matter. 21