A/HRC/8/7* page 13 99. With regard to article 10, paragraph 6, Australia noted that States should be able to provide comments on the report before it was made public. 100. On article 11, Canada and New Zealand preferred its deletion, as follow-up issues could be dealt with in the rules of procedure. If retained, New Zealand suggested that the non-binding nature of the procedure be clarified by adding the words “if any” between the words “taken” and “in response”. 101. Several delegations expressed flexibility or support for an inquiry procedure, as long as it remained optional, as provided for in article 11 bis. Others were of the view that the procedure should not be optional, but expressed flexibility on this point. Some delegates suggested replacing the opt-out mechanism with an opt-in one, while others cautioned against this change. The Russian Federation favoured merging articles 10 and 11 bis to make clear that the procedure was optional. 102. The Russian Federation expressed concern at the power given to the Committee to launch an inquiry. India requested clarification as to whether an inquiry procedure could be triggered in the absence of a communication and, if so, on which grounds. Article 12 103. Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United States and Amnesty International supported the retention of article 12. Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Switzerland preferred reverting to the initial draft, in line with article 11 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. 104. Australia, Belgium, Canada and Switzerland noted that reference to “individuals” only would be sufficient. New Zealand inquired whether the word “authors” would not cover all situations. 105. Australia, Belgium, Canada and Switzerland underlined that the words “ill-treatment” and “intimidation” covered various threats. France emphasized that the words “form of ill-treatment, reprisal, victimization or intimidation” should cover any restrictions to access remedies. Amnesty International proposed amending the text to read “any threats, intimidation or denial of any human rights or fundamental freedom”. COHRE proposed replacing these words with “any form of pressure”. The United States noted that the words “subject to its jurisdiction” should be made consistent with article 2, paragraph 1. 106. The Netherlands suggested that article 12 could become article 8 ter as it related to the individual communication procedure. Articles 13 107. Algeria, Austria, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), the Russian Federation and the United States supported article 13. Italy, Liechtenstein, Sweden and Switzerland preferred the original language. Canada and Liechtenstein considered that article 22 of the Covenant provided a better mechanism for identifying international assistance needs and Canada sought the deletion of article 13.