A/HRC/17/36 the Committee in cases where interim measures had been sought. Thus, such decisions should be adopted within six months of the receipt of the State party’s observations, or no later than at the following session of the Committee, unless the request was lifted in the meantime. Another delegation was against introducing such time limits. Some delegations suggested the insertion of language by which the Committee would have to seek the State party’s observations on the Committee’s request for interim measures. Other delegations and non-governmental organizations argued that an additional layer of correspondence would only prolong the proceedings and was inconsistent with agreed language in other optional protocols. 63. Some delegations proposed requiring that a request for interim measures be transmitted to the State party for its urgent consideration and appropriate action. Another delegation stated that, while States parties had an obligation to consider interim measure requests in good faith, there was no obligation to take any action on such requests. 64. Other delegations and non-governmental organizations suggested that the protocol should include an obligation for the State concerned to comply with the request for interim measures. In this respect, non-governmental organizations stated that the authority of the Committee to issue requests for interim measures was an indispensable component of the dispute mechanism, and stressed the recognition of their obligatory nature. Experts, including Committee members, highlighted the essential role played by the Committee in issuing requests for interim measures, and the need for States to commit to respect such requests. L. Transmission of communications to the State concerned14 65. Most delegations agreed with the principle of confidentiality of the procedure. Many delegations, however, were against the anonymous transmittal of a communication to the State party concerned, as they felt that States would not be in a position to consider it or to offer an adequate relief thereof. Most States favoured wording suggesting that the identity of the child or children was not public, and was revealed to the State party only for the purpose of the procedure. 66. Some non-governmental organizations supported the anonymous transmittal of communications to State parties as a necessary safeguard for the protection of the interests of children. Some, on the other hand, supported the suggestion, made by several States, to include the possibility of withholding the identity of the victim in exceptional circumstances. Experts drew a distinction between anonymity and confidentiality, and stressed that the transmittal should be confidential, that is, not public, which did not mean anonymous; however, anonymity could be used, if needed, in exceptional circumstances. They recalled the need to uphold the general principle of confidentiality, in accordance with article 16 of the Convention. The general rule should therefore be that the child’s identity should be preserved; there may be situations, however, where publicizing certain cases may have a particular interest, to the extent that the children involved consent, for instance in order to persuade States to change their laws, policies or practices. As stated above, an 14 Article 11 of the revised proposal: “1. Unless the Committee considers a communication inadmissible without reference to the State party concerned, the Committee shall bring any communication submitted to it under the present Protocol confidentially to the attention of the State party concerned as soon as possible. 2. The State party shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that it may have provided. The State party shall endeavour to submit its response as soon as possible within six months.” 17