57. While agreeing on the need for a clear and simple mechanism, delegations also highlighted the need to strive for an effective mechanism which would include follow-up on the steps taken by States parties in the light of views and recommendations adopted by the Committee regarding a communication. Articles 10 and 11 58. Many delegations expressed support for articles 10 and 11, noting that the procedure would allow the Committee to focus on the root causes of discrimination and would be valuable in those cases where individual victims who suffered over and above other women could not be identified. Some delegations suggested the inclusion of an article that, like article 20 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, would allow the Committee, with the agreement of the State party, to visit its territory. While several delegations suggested that the time-frame in which the State party should be obliged to respond with its observations to the Committee should be six months, most delegations envisaged a three-month period. 59. Several delegations indicated that any protocol to the Convention should be confined to providing an individual communications procedure only and not contain the inquiry procedure envisaged in articles 10 and 11 of document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1. In so doing they suggested that the procedure could be unnecessarily confrontational, could require significant human and financial resources, and was appropriate only in the context of torture. Some delegations questioned the efficacy of an inquiry procedure of a legal nature under an optional protocol to deal with serious and/or systematic violations. They suggested that such situations might require a more political approach - for example, through the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights and the Commission on the Status of Women. 60. Some delegations requested further clarification on the sources of information that would trigger the process and how the veracity of that information would be assessed. Others pointed to the capacity of the procedure to encourage dialogue between the State party and the Committee, and suggested that the notion of the "cooperation" of the State party should be incorporated into the procedure. 61. A number of delegations suggested that the procedure should be available where the violation was both serious and systematic. Some argued in favour of a provision in the protocol that would allow the State party to "opt out" of an obligation to submit itself to the inquiry procedure, whereas others did not favour such a provision. Article 12 62. Although some delegations were of the view that article 12 of document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1 was not required in the protocol because any State that had ratified or acceded to the Convention and the protocol would be obliged to ensure that the procedures in the protocol could be accessed by all persons under its jurisdiction, most delegations supported the inclusion of an article that captured the spirit of article 12. Many delegations supported the reformulation of the provision in article 12 (a) in a positive way so as to promote the relationship of the Committee and States parties. -105-