that it could not mean that an alleged violation be preserved, but rather its termination and avoidance of irreparable harm, or the prevention of a violation. It was proposed to reword the element to give the Committee the right to recommend, or suggest, interim measures so as not to aggravate the situation. It was also proposed to distinguish between interim measures at the admissibility stage, and during the proceedings on the merits of a communication, in accordance with the practice of the Committee against Torture. 56. It was suggested that it might be necessary to monitor the application of such interim measures at the national level. 57. The requirement, contained in the element, that no inference could be drawn from the recommendation of interim measures for the Committee’s decision on the merits was emphasized. Element 11 58. With regard to the formulation that the State party would be "informed confidentially", several delegations emphasized that, in the light of the purpose of the procedure as individual procedure, the identity of the author would need to be revealed to the State party to enable it to investigate the allegations, remedy the situation and provide full information to the Committee to determine admissibility, including the exhaustion of domestic remedies. It was also stated that the State party would be able to implement any recommendations of the Committee only if it knew the identity of the complainant. It was further stated that only in exceptional cases, when there appeared to be danger for the author, could this requirement be waived or other cautionary measures taken, such as interim measures. In that sense, confidentiality in the element would seem to refer to confidentiality vis-à-vis third parties. 59. While some delegations, pointing to a similar provision in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, emphasized the need to obtain the person’s consent before revealing her identity to the State party, they agreed that in most cases, the State party would need to know the author’s identity to assume its responsibilities. The representative of the Centre for Human Rights stated that experience with the above Convention showed that of seven cases, in only one had the identity of the author not been revealed to the State party on an exceptional basis. 60. While some delegations proposed that it should be left to the Committee to determine, in its rules of procedure, a reasonable time period for the State party to provide replies, other delegations supported the inclusion of a specified period of time. Reference was made to the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (six months) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (three months). Several delegations expressed a preference for a six-month time-limit. 61. Several delegations welcomed the proposals for mediation contained in element 11. It was, however, stressed that the terms of any settlement would need to be in accordance and compatible with the State party’s obligation under the Convention; be acceptable to both parties; and be arrived at without pressure on the author to settle. Those concerns would need to be addressed in relevant provisions of the optional protocol or in the rules of procedure. -114-