A/HRC/6/8 page 16 100. Mexico, Amnesty International, the ICJ and the NGO Coalition expressed concern about referring to the “broad margin of appreciation”, noting that while a margin of appreciation is implicit in the Covenant it is not always broad, depending on the specific context and right in question. Austria suggested a reference to the “margin of appreciation” in the preamble as a potential avenue for compromise. 101. Liechtenstein proposed an amendment to paragraph 4 referring to “communication” in the singular, replacing “will” with “shall”, and leaving out the term “reasonableness”. Ecuador supported this proposal. Russia considered it a good basis for further negotiations. 102. France tabled another proposal for paragraph 4, introducing the “respect, protect, fulfil” typology of obligations and requiring the Committee to examine the reasonableness of the measures taken by the State party in the light of available resources. 103. Greece underlined its support to the essence of the proposals made by the African Group, the United States, Poland and Switzerland. China and India noted that several amendments only referred to article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, while other articles, including article 2, paragraph 2, were equally important. Belgium and Russia expressed concern that some amendments would amount to a reinterpretation of the Covenant. Ethiopia expressed concern about micromanaging the work of the Committee through an optional protocol. 104. Chile, Amnesty International, FIAN and the NGO Coalition suggested adding the term “effective” after “reasonable” in paragraph 4. 105. Regarding paragraph 5, the United Kingdom proposed to move the words “to the parties concerned” after “transmit” and to add “relevant to the specific communication and parties concerned”. Australia, Ecuador, Greece, Italy, Nigeria, Poland, Spain and Turkey supported the proposal. Argentina, China and Sweden remained open to it. Poland indicated that the meaning of mesures correctives (remedies) should be clarified in the protocol. The ICJ favoured the paragraph as drafted, emphasizing that adding “relevant to the parties concerned” was problematic, as remedies can have relevance to other parties, notably to prevent future violations. 106. On paragraph 6, France and the NGO Coalition, proposed reviewing the six-month period, considered to be too short for implementing recommendations. 107. Concerning paragraph 7, Finland, Mexico and Slovenia favoured the text as drafted. Finland and Slovenia supported the possibility of oral hearings with basic rules included in the protocol, while Ethiopia suggested that such hearings were better dealt with in the rules of procedure. 108. Ethiopia suggested splitting article 8 into two articles, with paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 forming a new article 8 bis dealing with follow-up. The NGO Coalition suggested taking paragraphs 6 and 7 of article 8 to form a new article entitled “Follow-up to the Communication Procedure”.