A/HRC/6/8 page 11 59. Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Poland and the United States suggested deleting “unlikely to bring effective relief”. Ecuador suggested adding “the requirement of exhausting domestic remedies does not apply when no such remedies have been established in national legislation”. 60. The United Kingdom suggested referring to “all available judicial, administrative and other remedies”, as there may be different options for realizing economic, social and cultural rights. Italy and Greece supported this proposal. 61. Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Mexico and Russia agreed with the six-month time limit in paragraph 2, subparagraph (b). Finland noted that it was flexible concerning a possible one year time limit. Netherlands, Peru, South Africa and Spain proposed extending the time limit to one or three years. Ethiopia and the NGO Coalition recommended excluding such a time limit, noting it was not included in any other United Nations human rights instrument and that it would be an unnecessary barrier to access to the procedure. The NGO Coalition suggested using text similar to article 56 (6) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights if a time limit were retained. 62. The United Kingdom proposed considering exhaustion of regional remedies in paragraph 2, subparagraph (a). Portugal, supported by Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Norway, Peru, the NGO Coalition, ICJ, Amnesty International and ESCR-Net, stated that such a criterion, combined with the prohibition to admit matters already examined, would prevent victims from accessing the system, establishing a hierarchy between international and regional mechanisms. 63. In relation to subparagraph (b), Australia, Azerbaijan and the United Kingdom suggested adding “continuing” before “violation of the Covenant”. Japan suggested using wording from OP-CEDAW, article 4, paragraph 2 (e). 64. Concerning subparagraph (c), France proposed replacing the word “matter” with “violation”, a proposal which met with general agreement. Belgium suggested adding “equivalent” before “procedure of international investigation ...”. Greece noted that it might be interpreted as excluding collective procedures under the European system. Amnesty International suggested adding wording from article 31 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED): “of the same nature”. 65. Thailand recommended adding to paragraph 2, subparagraph (d), “or inconsistent with applicable instruments in the field of human rights”. 66. Denmark requested further clarification on subparagraph (e). China and India proposed adding a criterion that no allegations based on second hand sources should be admitted. Article 5 67. Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, France, Finland, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) highlighted the need for interim measures to be included in the optional protocol. Germany, the Republic of Korea and Switzerland proposed their inclusion in the rules of procedures. Poland, South Africa, Uruguay,