A/HRC/17/36 agreement was reached , to include a separate provision indicating that the identity of the individuals concerned in a communication should not be revealed publicly without their express consent. Such a provision would apply in general and not only in connection with the transmission of the communication to the State concerned. 67. The majority of State delegations considered a three-month time limit for submission of their observations to the Committee too short, and preferred a six-month deadline, as provided for in most other communications procedures. Federal States drew particular attention to the difficulties they faced when compiling observations from provincial/State and federal jurisdictions. A few States proposed to uphold the general rule of a six-month time limit, unless the Committee, given the urgency of the situation, requested the State party to provide its observations within three months. A majority of States favoured stating that the State party should submit its response as soon as possible within six months. A few delegations did not support the inclusion of the words “as soon as possible”, which were perceived as lacking legal certainty. A proposal to require that a State party “shall endeavour” to submit its response within such time limit was considered too vague by most delegations and non-governmental organizations. The latter recalled that a three-month limit exists in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and saw no reason not to follow that precedent. One organization suggested replacing “as soon as possible within six months” by “no later than (within] six months”. 68. One delegation sought the inclusion of wording that provided that the communication was sent to the State party in its national language. M. Friendly settlements15 69. Most delegations were in favour of including a provision regarding the possibility of dealing with communications through a friendly settlement between the parties in order to avoid re-victimization of children and to reduce the Committee’s workload. A few delegations supported changing the term “friendly settlement” to “amicable settlement”. A number of delegations held the view that the provision should be based on the language contained in article 7 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 70. The need for any friendly settlement to respect the obligations set forth in the Convention and its first two optional protocols was stressed. One delegation indicated that the optional protocol should require the Committee to encourage friendly settlements and asked until what stage of the proceedings friendly settlements could be reached. Another delegation considered it useful to allow for friendly settlements also after the merits stage had been reached. 71. A debate was held on whether a friendly settlement closed consideration of a case and whether the Committee should be able to monitor the implementation of friendly settlements. A proposal to state both in the protocol did not receive wide support. Some delegations held the view that the Committee should not have the power to reopen a case 15 18 Article 12 of the revised proposal: “1. The Committee shall make available its good offices to the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations set forth in the Convention and/or the Optional Protocols thereto. 2. An agreement on a friendly settlement closes consideration of the communication under the present Protocol. However, the Committee may, within twelve months after a friendly settlement has been reached, follow-up its implementation.”