Element 21 96. Some delegations noted a lack of clarity in the meaning of the term "satisfactory outcome". Some delegations raised the question as to the Committee’s attitude in case a State party would not provide the requested information. Element 22 97. Some delegations raised the question whether the Committee, at the completion of the process, would be empowered to publish its report even without the agreement of the State party in the Committee’s annual report. The practice of the Convention against Torture was noted, which consulted the State party, but was not required to obtain agreement from the State party. Element 23 98. The requirement that a State party undertake to assist the Committee was considered redundant as such cooperation was expected to result from ratification. Element 24 99. Several delegations emphasized the need to publicize widely the optional protocol, and the following additions, or alternative formulations, were proposed: "... making the provision of the optional protocol widely known in their countries", or "the communication and inquiry procedure should be made public as widely as possible". While the role and participation of United Nations bodies and agencies in such efforts were stressed, some delegations were of the opinion that this should be addressed in a resolution rather than in the optional protocol itself. Element 26 100. With reference to a recent amendment to the Convention regarding the Committee’s meeting time, it was suggested that that matter should be left to the Committee to decide in its rules of procedure. Other delegations inquired whether there might be a need for additional annual sessions and sought clarification on the amount of time that might be necessary for the Committee to discharge its duties under an optional protocol. Regarding possible sources of funding for the Committee’s work under an optional protocol, the question was raised whether it would be funded from the regular budget of the United Nations, or by the States parties to the Convention, or by the State parties to the optional protocol. It was noted that all human rights treaty bodies were funded from the regular budget of the United Nations. 101. Several delegations noted a lack of clarity regarding the scope of the "expert legal advice", referred to in the element. Questions were also raised regarding the composition of the Committee, in particular concerning the need for greater legal expertise to be included in its membership. It was noted that, upon the adoption of the optional protocol, States parties would need to review such expertise when electing members of the Committee. While the Secretariat would be expected to support the work of the Committee, the expertise would also be needed in the Committee itself. -120-