22. Several delegations expressed their support for the retention of the substance of article 6 (3) in the optional protocol. Other delegations suggested that the current language of article 6 (3) was inappropriate in a human rights instrument. Several noted that the provision suggested that the Committee had an arbitral role which they considered inappropriate. Others underlined that the thrust of this provision was to encourage reconciliation and mediation, rather than arbitration or quasi-judicial proceedings. 23. The Working Group agreed to retain article 6 (1), with the term "confidentially" remaining in brackets. Article 6 (2) was adopted ad referendum. Article 6 (3) remains unchanged. Articles 7, 8 and 9 24. Many delegations suggested the deletion of the requirement that only written information may be used by the Committee in considering a communication, pointing in particular to the constraints that women in developing countries might face in this regard. Some suggested an explicit reference to recorded information. Others maintained that the procedure should be based on written information. While several delegations were of the view that the Committee should be entitled to receive information from "other sources" which would be transmitted to the State party and the author of the communication, others pointed to the importance of verifying these sources. Some delegations indicated that they could accept other sources if these were further specified. 25. Article 7 (2) had been agreed to ad referendum in 1997. 26. Some delegations expressed the view that article 7 (2) bis would encourage the dialogue between the Committee and the State party, and argued that a State party was entitled to be present at proceedings of the Committee involving that particular State party. Other delegations noted the resource implications of such a provision, which would also preclude authors of communications and their representatives’ taking advantage of a similar opportunity. Several delegations noted that the Human Rights Committee did not grant States parties or complainants access to its proceedings. 27. Article 7 (3) was adopted ad referendum in a shortened version. 28. As many delegations recognized the desirability of setting out provisions on follow-up currently contained in articles 7 (3), 8 and 9, including alternatives, in a streamlined form, it was agreed to merge these articles and to delete the original drafts. Recognizing the need for both short- and long-term follow-up to the Committee’s views and recommendations, if any, many delegations agreed that the State party should provide a first follow-up response to the Committee’s views within six months on any action taken. In light of constraints that might be present in a State party, some delegations requested a qualification of the six-month time period. Others pointed out that since no detailed reply on completed actions would be required at this short-term stage, but that an indication of initiated action and planned steps would suffice, they could not agree to such a qualification. Delegations also affirmed that this article, including the time period for the submission of information to the Committee, would apply only to the follow-up phase after the Committee’s adoption of views, and was not linked to article 5. 29. Delegations agreed that the Committee would have a long-term role in monitoring follow-up to its views on communications, including through the -90-