suggested that it be left to the Committee to include that matter in its rules of procedure. 33. Many delegations expressed a preference for language which would enable the Committee to "recommend" such measures, as opposed to requesting them, as currently formulated in document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1. Other delegations pointed out that the use of the term "recommend" would differ from the language used in the practice of other treaty bodies and, therefore, the term "request" should be retained. Several delegations noted that interim measures were of an extraordinary nature, similar to comparable measures in many domestic legal systems and, as such, were likely to be used sparingly. 34. Many delegations suggested deletion of the term "preservation of the status quo" as it was unclear and implicitly contained in the concept of avoidance of irreparable harm. Other delegations argued that the preservation of the status quo was a well-known concept in domestic law, which complemented the concept of avoidance of irreparable harm. Several delegations noted that other treaty bodies used the term "damage", as opposed to the term "harm" in document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1, and suggested that the two terms be clarified further. 35. A number of delegations noted that a request for interim measures might suggest prejudgment of the outcome of the consideration of a communication. Some delegations noted that a request for interim measures would not in any way imply a determination on the merits of a communication or, as the case may be, of its admissibility. They proposed the addition of a paragraph which would make that explicit. 36. As to the inclusion of a provision which would call on the State party to act in accordance with the Committee’s request for interim measures (article 5 (2)), many delegations considered that the formulation for such a provision would need to be carefully considered. Many delegations expressed a preference for deleting the provision altogether, rather than for a reformulation of the existing language. Article 6 37. The Committee resource person noted the vulnerability of complainants of violations of rights and the particular risks to women in that regard. Some delegations expressed support for the formulation as contained in article 6 (1) of document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1. Other delegations recognized the need to reveal the victim’s identity to the State party concerned in order to enable the State party to provide explanations to the Committee and a remedy to the complainant. Therefore they suggested that the revelation of the person’s identity should be the rule, as knowledge of the identity of the author by the State party was essential for providing an effective remedy. Some delegations stated that the complainant’s express consent prior to revealing her identity was essential to the procedure, especially to ensure the petitioner’s safety and to protect her from reprisals. Other delegations noted that the need for protecting the victim could be addressed by withholding her identity temporarily during the period of interim measures. Others considered that permanent withholding of the author’s identity would need to be the exception. Some delegations suggested that such exception could be addressed in the Committee’s rules of procedure. 38. Some delegations proposed that, rather than requiring the victim’s express consent prior to revealing her identity to the State party, the victim should be required to object to the revelation of her identity expressly. -101-