inclusion of relevant information in the periodic reports States parties are required to submit under article 18 of the Convention. Article 7 (5) was adopted ad referendum. Article 10 30. Several delegations, while noting their support for an inquiry procedure, stated that, in their view, the Committee already had the power under its current mandate to deal with situations of serious or systematic violations. In this regard, they encouraged the Committee to develop its mandate under article 18 of the Convention, especially in regard to exceptional reports. It was also noted that the proposed inquiry procedure would strengthen and expand the Committee’s mandate in this regard. Some doubt about the desirability of including an inquiry procedure in the optional protocol was also voiced. 31. As to whether an inquiry procedure could be based on the Committee’s receipt of information about what was termed "serious [and] [or] systematic violation", several delegations stated that, while they preferred "or", they would also be able to accept "and". It was argued that the use of the word "or" would not achieve the objective of the inquiry procedure. Others were of the view that the reverse was the case. Single cases of violations could be serious, but they should be dealt with under the communications procedure. Those who supported the retention of "and" noted that in order for an inquiry by the Committee to be initiated, allegations of violations needed to be both serious and systematic. 32. Many delegations expressed the view that the words "with the consent of" in article 10 (2) and "the consent ... of" in article 10 (5) were redundant, while others emphasized the importance of this explicit requirement. Several delegations were of the view that a provision under this article allowing for visits to the territory of the State party should be retained, stressing that such visits could only take place with the agreement or consent of the State party. Article 11 bis 33. Recognizing that while many delegations favoured the inclusion of an inquiry procedure in the optional protocol, others were reluctant to provide the Committee with such a mandate, the Chairperson introduced a provision according to which States parties would, upon signature, ratification or accession to the optional protocol, be in a position to declare that they did not recognize the competence of the Committee under its articles 10 and 11 (the so-called opt-out clause). 34. Delegations welcomed this proposal as a good basis for further discussions on articles 10 and 11. Some delegations proposed that, instead of an opt-out procedure, an opt-in procedure should be included. While noting their preference for an opt-in procedure, some also expressed their flexibility in this regard. Other delegations noted that in principle, and to ensure the integrity of the optional protocol, such a provision should not be required at all. In this regard, some delegations noted the link between this proposal and the issue of reservations and that they could only consider an opt-out procedure on the basis of a clause precluding reservations. Others suggested that the question of the opt-out provision should not be linked to the issue of reservations. -91-