A/HRC/17/36 Q. Follow-up to the inquiry procedure 88. A number of States expressed concern about a period of three-months for the State to report on follow-up measures and suggested a longer one. Some delegations suggested that the State should not only report on measures taken but also on those envisaged. Thus, it was proposed that the Committee “may, if necessary, after the end of the period of six months” given to the State party to submit its observations, “invite the State party concerned to inform it of the measures taken and envisaged in response to such an inquiry” or invite it to include such information in its reports under article 44 of the Convention, article 12 of the Optional Protocol on the sale of children or article 8 of the Optional Protocol on children in armed conflict, as appropriate. Some delegations favoured replacing the proposed text by the wording of the provision on follow-up to the Committee’s views. One State suggested inserting “and, where appropriate,” before referring to the Optional Protocols. R. Inter-State communications 89. The Chairperson-Rapporteur indicated that this provision, as formulated in his initial proposal, was based on article 32 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and recalled that, in practice, the inter-State communications procedure had, to date, never been used under any of the human rights treaties of the United Nations. Some delegations expressed doubts about whether this provision would serve any purpose, and one suggested the inclusion of an opt-out clause. Some delegations suggested including a good offices function of the Committee following the example of article 10 (d) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Furthermore, like in article 10 of that Optional Protocol, the modalities of the inter-State procedure should be spelled out in more detail. These suggestions were reflected in the revised proposal. No further suggestions for amendment were made during the second part of the session. S. International assistance and cooperation 90. A few delegations affirmed that they were not in favour of the creation of new funds to assist States in the implementation of recommendations under the optional protocol. Such a provision would weaken article 45 of the Convention and did not belong in a procedural instrument. UNICEF affirmed that it would extend its support concerning communications and inquiries, and stressed that new assistance mechanisms should not be needed. 91. Some States, however, alluded to the need, or were flexible to, the possibility of establishing a new mechanism/fund, especially for third-world countries. T. Standard provisions 92. The Working Group held a debate on the standard provisions relating to the Committee’s report to the General Assembly; dissemination of the protocol and access to information relating to it; signature, ratification and accession by States; notification; entry into force; amendments; denunciation; and the languages of the optional protocol. 93. A number of remarks were made by delegations. For instance, some proposed the inclusion of a separate provision clarifying that communications could only be addressed 22