A/HRC/17/36 that had been the object of a friendly settlement between the parties, because such a scenario would run against legal predictability and certainty. One delegation proposed that the Committee be able to reopen a friendly settlement only if the relevant State party failed to honour its obligations under the deed of such a settlement. Other delegations considered that the Committee should be able to examine whether friendly settlements were consistent with the Convention and in the best interests of the child. Those proposals were supported by non-governmental organizations and experts, including Committee members, who stated that the consideration of a communication should not be closed until satisfactory implementation of a friendly settlement, and that such settlement must ensure respect for the rights set forth in the Convention. One delegation argued that the Committee should be able to invite a State party to submit further information about any measures taken to implement a friendly settlement, including in its subsequent reports under the Convention or its Optional Protocols, similar to the procedure for follow-up on the Committee’s views. Several delegations preferred leaving the modalities of the follow-up on friendly settlements to the Committee’s rules of procedure. N. Consideration of the merits16 72. One delegation held the view that the optional protocol should allow for exceptions to the rule that the Committee should examine communications in closed meetings, when they were in the best interests of the child. One national institution considered that closed proceedings would result in lack of transparency and make amicus curiae interventions very difficult. 73. Several delegations and experts, including Committee members, were in favour of inserting a clause requiring the Committee to consider communications as quickly as possible, in particular in cases where it had requested interim measures. Some delegations considered such a clause redundant. 74. Many delegations were in favour of adding a provision similar to article 8, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights with a view to limiting the Committee’s scope of review when examining alleged violations of economic, social and cultural rights protected under the Convention to a reasonableness test and granting States parties discretion to “adopt a range of possible policy measures for the implementation of the economic, social and cultural rights in the Convention”. Such an inclusion was perceived by many delegations as adequately reflecting the principle of progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights as set forth in articles 4 and 28 of the Convention. A number of States, however, opposed the inclusion of such a provision, on the grounds that it would create a 16 Article 13 of the revised proposal: “1. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications received under the present Protocol. 2. The Committee shall consider communications received under the present Protocol as quickly as possible, in the light of all documentation submitted to it, provided that this documentation is transmitted to the parties concerned. 3. When examining a communication under the present Protocol, the Committee may consult, as appropriate, relevant documentation emanating from other United Nations bodies, specialized agencies, funds, programmes and mechanisms, and other bodies, including from regional human rights systems, and any observations or comments by the State party concerned. 4. After examining a communication, the Committee shall, without delay, transmit its views on the communication, together with its recommendations, if any, to the parties concerned.” 19