A/HRC/6/8 page 17 Article 9 109. China, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Japan, Norway and the United Kingdom suggested that article 9 be deleted. Ethiopia and Norway noted that this procedure, although included in other instruments, has never been used. Egypt, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and the NGO Coalition supported article 9 as drafted. It was noted that such a procedure had proved to be useful in the regional human rights systems. Australia and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) reserved their position on the issue, while Egypt and Portugal mentioned that the procedure should be optional. 110. Ethiopia and France requested clarification of the notion of “exhaustion of domestic remedies” under paragraph 1, subparagraph (c). Australia, Burkina Faso and Japan highlighted the need for further discussion. Ethiopia noted the high cost of such a procedure for developing countries. Articles 10 and 11 111. Austria, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Finland, Liechtenstein, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden and the NGO Coalition supported an inquiry procedure. Finland noted it allowed a response to be made to serious violations in a timely manner. It was noted that an inquiry procedure could be used by individuals and groups facing difficulties in accessing the communication procedure or in danger of reprisal. Portugal welcomed the use of agreed language from other United Nations instruments. 112. Australia, China, Egypt, India, Russia and the United States were not in favour of an inquiry procedure, suggesting that articles 10, 11 and 20 be deleted. Nigeria and Poland expressed reservations about such a procedure. Denmark suggested limiting the application of this procedure, if retained, to cases of non-discrimination or other fundamental and well-defined principles. The United States noted that there is no equivalent provision under ICCPR-OP1. 113. Australia, Ethiopia, Italy, Poland and the United States mentioned that there could be overlaps with the work of Special Rapporteurs. Burkina Faso and Senegal noted that the work of a Special Rapporteur differed from an inquiry procedure. Norway requested information on the application of similar procedures under CEDAW and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and their added value. 114. Burkina Faso, China, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Ethiopia, Nigeria and the United States expressed concern about the term “grave and systematic violations”. 115. Brazil pointed to the need for clear human rights indicators to identify situations of grave and systematic violations which would justify an inquiry. 116. Chile and the United Kingdom stated that an absence of resources would not justify grave violations. The ICJ referred to the distinction between lack of willingness and lack of resources as a way of determining States’ failure to comply with their responsibilities. 117. Burkina Faso and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) suggested adding “provided for in article 15” at the end of article 10, paragraph 6.