A/HRC/6/8 page 5 7. Egypt (on behalf of the African Group) reiterated its support for an optional protocol, stressing the importance of defining clear parameters for the examination of communications, enacting and giving full effect to international assistance and cooperation, ensuring appropriate means of communication and consultation with regional mechanisms, and avoiding setting undue precedents in the United Nations human rights system. 8. Belarus, Croatia, Ethiopia, Peru and Spain noted that the optional protocol should be comprehensive in scope. Finland stressed the need to ensure consistency among various communication procedures at the international level. 9. Azerbaijan and Chile emphasized that economic, social and cultural rights have to be considered on an equal footing with civil and political rights. Colombia and South Africa referred to the opportunity this negotiation process offers to advance the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. 10. Greece and Switzerland expressed preference for a flexible approach and Switzerland stressed the need for an opt-out clause. Turkey expressed preference for an option that would allow States to expand the scope of rights subject to an optional protocol over time. 11. China highlighted the importance of international assistance and cooperation and stated that further discussion is required on the collective and inter-State complaint mechanisms and inquiry procedure contained in the draft. 12. Australia, Japan and India mentioned that the optional protocol should establish clear criteria for assessing violations of economic, social and cultural rights. Australia stated that the specificities of such criteria should not be left to the Committee’s rules of procedures. Japan stressed that the adjudication of economic, social and cultural rights requires the elaboration of universally applicable standards which acknowledge differences amongst countries. India stated that the optional protocol should be based on a common understanding of criteria against which States’ obligations of “progressive realization” would be assessed. 13. The United States of America (the United States) expressed concern that economic, social and cultural rights have to be progressively realized in accordance with available resources and therefore do not lend themselves to quasi-judicial adjudication. Italy stressed that the optional protocol should take into account the specific nature of certain economic, social and cultural rights. 14. Nigeria emphasized that the rights of States to determine their own policy priorities should not be undermined by an optional protocol. A point also made by the United States. 15. The Russian Federation (Russia) expressed satisfaction that the work of the Working Group was moving into a practical phase. 16. Several States underscored the need to build broad support for an optional protocol, France stating that the Working Group needs to look for the broadest consensus possible.