39. While some delegations argued for deletion of the first part of article 6 (1) as being superfluous, other delegations noted that the sentence reflected a carefully balanced sequence in the timing of the steps the Committee would take in the consideration of communications. 40. It was pointed out that in a number of articles of document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1 reference was made to "the author", whereas similar instruments use the terms "individual" or "petitioner", and it was suggested that those terms be used. Some delegations suggested that "victim" be used either in addition to or instead of "author". It was noted that the decision on the question of standing in article 2 would determine which term should be used consistently throughout the protocol. 41. As to time limits for the submission of information by the State party to the Committee on a transmitted communication, some delegations were in favour of three months, whereas others expressed a preference for six months. 42. Some delegations welcomed the explicit inclusion of a provision in the optional protocol allowing a settlement at any time before a decision on the merits by the Committee. Noting the comments of the Committee resource person with regard to the constructive role of the Committee, some delegations welcomed the inclusion of such a provision as a modern means of dispute resolution and as encouraging a friendly settlement between the parties. While a settlement would be based on a full disclosure of facts by both parties, there would be no expression of views by the Committee but instead a statement of a successful resolution of an issue. Other delegations pointed out that the Committee’s potential role as mediator might prevent it from playing its proper role under a communications procedure. They suggested that it should be left to the Committee to address such a role in its rules of procedure. Support was expressed for the addition of language which would allow the Committee to indicate clearly that a settlement had been reached on a matter. Article 7 43. Some delegations proposed the deletion of any reference to "other sources" of information. Some noted that other sources of information could, if so desired, be channelled into the process through cooperation with either the State party or the author, thus making broadening access to other sources of information unnecessary. It was suggested that that could be left to the Committee to include in its rules of procedure, as was the case with other treaty bodies. Other delegations pointed out that a certain specificity with regard to such other sources of information might be necessary and proposed to limit it to information available from United Nations sources - for example, the reports of special rapporteurs in the field of human rights. Still other delegations expressed support for maintaining the paragraph in its current formulation, without restrictions, referring in particular to the explanations of the committee resource person in that regard. They noted that any information obtained from other sources would, in any case, be transmitted to both parties for comment. 44. While many delegations favoured the use of written information only in the examination of a communication, some suggested that that issue should be left to the Committee to determine. Oral testimony should be permitted, if the Committee so decided. The point was made that the formulation that information would be made available to the Committee by "or on behalf of" the author and the State party suggested that unrelated third parties would be entitled to provide -102-