62. With regard to the confidential nature of the report on a settlement, some delegations emphasized the importance of a transparent procedure, which would encourage other States parties to take relevant action, and which would build up the Committee’s case law. While the name of the author could be withheld, the results of the settlement should be made public in the report of the Committee, if the author and the State party so wished. 63. It was proposed to divide element 11 into two separate elements, whereby the second element would consist of the last sentence. 64. Some delegations pointed out that a State party needed to be informed of the full substance of a communication, and not simply of "the nature of the communication", as suggested in element 11. Thus, it was proposed to state that "the communication as such" be transmitted to the State party. In fact, both parties, that is the State party and the complainant, needed to have the full documentation of a case. 65. Some delegations proposed that the State party be represented in meetings of the Committee when matters affecting it were under consideration. It was suggested that any means which facilitated the full and active participation of the State party would be acceptable. Such a concept could be contained either in the optional protocol, or in the rules of procedure. Other delegations found that it would be inappropriate for the parties to be present at the consideration of a communication. If there were an exception, then it could be only at the specific request of the Committee. The representative of the Centre for Human Rights informed the Working Group that it was not the practice of the Human Rights Committee to have representatives of the State party present during the consideration of a communication. Element 12 66. With regard to a provision that the Committee would examine a communication in the light of information received, inter alia, "from other relevant sources", most delegations emphasized that only information submitted by the author and the State party should be considered. With reference to element 7, it was stated that, as only victims should have the right to submit communications, it would be only the victim and the State party that could provide information on a case. 67. Other delegations pointed out that other relevant sources of information could shed further light on cases where women were disempowered or unable to provide information. Any such information, which could be derived from sources such as reports or deliberations of other United Nations mechanisms, would need to be made available to the parties concerned. Regarding other sources of information it was noted that, as communications would be confidential vis-à-vis third parties during consideration, only general background information could be made available to the Committee. Such information might be more usefully provided in the framework of the reporting procedure under article 18 of the Convention. 68. Many delegations agreed that a visit to the territory in the examination of a communication would be inappropriate. It was pointed out that such a provision would belong to elements 17-23. Some suggested that, on an exceptional and case-by-case basis, this could be envisaged. There was, however, no need to include such a provision in the optional protocol. That aspect was important, as demonstrated by the successful use of the method under the European system. It was also available in the inter-American system. It -115-