A/HRC/17/36 hierarchy of rights that would run counter to the principle of indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. 75. Experts and non-governmental organizations were against such different treatment of economic, social and cultural rights, which had no precedent in the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In their view, this would undermine the holistic nature of the Convention, the fact that, for all rights, there were obligations to respect, protect and fulfil and the principle that all rights covered in a treaty should be protected to the same degree. Communications may involve multiple violations arising out of the same situation – violations of civil and political rights as well as of economic social and cultural rights. The Convention rights were not severable from one another. Non-governmental organizations and experts considered the proviso that “the State party may adopt a range of possible policy measures for the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights in the Convention” a commentary rather than a principle, and one that undermined article 4 of the Convention, which required States parties to take all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures, and not just policy measures, for the implementation of all Convention rights. There were situations where only one measure was possible: for example, when a State must cease a violation. 76. In response to the question posed by one delegation, the Committee members stated that the adoption of a communications procedure would not require additional sessions of the Committee. Rather, the Committee could handle its additional workload by establishing special working groups, redistributing tasks among its members and replacing consensus by vote, if need be. 77. With regard to the documentation to be consulted by the Committee when examining communications under the protocol, one delegation pointed out that such documentation may only emanate from United Nations entities “and other international organizations”. O. Follow-up to the views of the Committee 78. In the light of the potentially far-reaching measures required to implement the Committee’s views, such as changes in domestic practice or legislation, numerous delegations were in favour of a six-month time limit for the submission of follow-up responses by States parties, rather than three months as originally stated in the Chairperson’s proposal. Several delegations favoured a more flexible approach, either by making six months the general rule and three months the exception in urgent cases, or by making three months the general rule and allowing for six months in exceptional circumstances. Experts, including Committee members, preferred the latter approach. One delegation and some non-governmental organizations held the view that the three-month time limit should be retained to avoid unnecessary delays and potential harm to victims. Several delegations, non-governmental organizations and experts did not support a proposal that the State party “shall endeavour to submit its response as soon as possible within six months” owing to the legal vagueness of the wording “shall endeavour” and “as soon as possible”. Non-governmental organizations and experts suggested replacing “as soon as possible within six months” by “no later than (within) six months”. 79. One delegation considered that the faculty of the Committee to invite States parties to submit further information in their subsequent reports about any follow-up measures taken should apply to reports under article 44 of the Convention “and, where appropriate,” to reports under articles 12 or 8, respectively, of the two Optional Protocols. 20