A/HRC/17/36 parties was desirable. The Chairperson-Rapporteur reminded delegations that the regular meetings of States parties and their participation in inter-committee meetings provided them with ample opportunities to table their views on the working methods of treaty bodies. E. Protection measures 31. There was a consensus among delegations to support the inclusion of a provision allowing the Committee to request States parties to adopt protection measures to ensure that individuals under their jurisdiction are not subjected to any form of pressure for having submitted communications or information to the Committee under the Optional Protocol.7 Views were expressed that such measures should cover not only child victims but also children otherwise involved in a communication procedure, family members as well as their representatives bringing a communication before the Committee, including organizations. 32. The criteria for requesting protection measures were also debated. The initial proposal only contemplated situations of ill-treatment or intimidation. However, this was considered insufficient by a number of delegations and non-governmental organizations, which supported the inclusion of situations of human rights violations in general, in addition to ill-treatment or intimidation, which could also extend to those committed by non-State actors. One delegation proposed a more detailed formulation that would refer to threats, pressure, intimidation or sanctions. 33. Some delegations favoured strengthening the provision on protection measures by replacing “appropriate steps” by “necessary steps”. One delegation suggested replacing “shall take all appropriate steps to ensure” by “shall ensure”. F. Non-publication of identity 34. Most delegations favoured the inclusion of a provision capturing the principle that the identity of the child submitting a communication would be revealed to the State party for the purpose of the communication, but would not otherwise be publicized, unless this was expressly consented to by those concerned.8 A broad description of beneficiaries was favoured by many delegations in order to cover not only children but also representatives potentially presenting a communication on their behalf. 35. Some suggested that the provision in question should make it clear that the identity of the individual or individuals concerned must be revealed to the State party. Others were of the view that, in exceptional situations, it might not be appropriate to reveal the identity to the State and that language should be added to that effect. A number of delegations suggested that this provision be merged with the article on protection measures. Some delegations preferred to keep the two provisions separate. One delegation considered that protection measures were directed at States parties, whereas the principle of nonpublication of identity was directed at both States parties and the Committee. Some delegations disagreed with the title of the provision (“non-publication of identity”) and 7 8 Article 4 of the revised proposal: “A State party shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that individuals under its jurisdiction are not subjected to any human rights violation, ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of communications or cooperation with the Committee pursuant to the present Protocol.” Article 5 of the revised proposal: “The identity of any individual or group of individuals submitting a communication shall not be revealed publicly without the express consent of the individual or individuals concerned.” 9