A/HRC/6/8 page 18 118. France stressed the need to change the six-month period in article 11, paragraph 2, in line with its proposal for article 8, paragraph 6. Article 12 119. Chile, Egypt, France, Mexico, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland and Amnesty International supported the inclusion of protection measures. South Africa suggested clarifying that protection should be given to authors, individuals and groups of individuals and that the article should refer to “communications”. Switzerland proposed moving this provision after article 8. In relation to “ill-treatment or intimidation”, several delegations expressed preference for a broader reference, such as “any form of reprisal” or “victimization of any form”. Egypt suggested replacing “steps” with “measures”. Articles 13 and 14 120. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), supported by China, Belarus, Burkina Faso, India, Nepal, Peru and Senegal proposed merging articles 13 and 14 under one heading and deleting the qualifiers “special” and “voluntary” in references to the fund. 121. Russia proposed bringing article 13 closer to the wording of article 45, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), stressing that request for technical assistance or advice should come from States, not from the Committee. This point was supported by Belarus, China, Egypt, Guatemala, Peru and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) proposed amendments to stress that international assistance could not be imposed on States. Guatemala noted that any faculty given to the Committee to transmit information should be in conformity with the confidentiality requirement set out in articles 6 and 10. 122. Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom supported article 13 as drafted. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) noted that the State reporting procedure was more appropriate to identify needs for technical assistance and advice. 123. Peru proposed adding a new paragraph to highlight the importance of international assistance and cooperation for the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. 124. China, supported by Belarus and Nigeria, proposed to divide the first and second sentence of article 13 into two paragraphs, inserting “or requested by the State party concerned” after “appropriate”, adding a reference to “financial” assistance as well as a reference to “other States parties” among the addressees and deleting “each within its field of competence, on the advisability of international measures likely”. India and Nepal supported inserting “or financial” in the first sentence. Slovenia objected to this proposal. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) noted that the Committee should not transmit its recommendations to “other States parties”. 125. Austria inquired what “other competent bodies” in article 13 referred to. Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) understood this to mean bodies dealing with the provision of technical assistance.