14. Delegations agreed to retain article 4 (1) and (2) as set out in document E/CN.6/1998/WG/L.2 with two sets of brackets in article 4 (1) and one set in the chapeau of article 4 (2), in addition to the sets of brackets around article 4 (2) (iii) and (iv). Several delegations suggested that a further paragraph should be added to the article that would provide for the consent of the victim of the violation for representative communications. Article 5 15. Some delegations considered it inappropriate for the Committee to request a State party to take interim measures, while many pointed out that this was in accordance with established practice of human rights treaty bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee. A formulation according to which the Committee may transmit to a State party a request for interim measures was acceptable to all delegations, especially since a similar approach was used in article 7 (transmittal of views). Delegations also noted that a State party was under a general bona fide obligation to give consideration to such a request of the Committee, and that this could be reflected in a shortened article 5 (1) with the deletion of article 5 (2). 16. While some delegations expressed a preference for the deletion of all three bracketed qualifications of situations that might justify the request for interim measures, all delegations agreed to the retention of the words "as may be necessary". Delegations agreed that a reference to the preservation of the status quo could be ambiguous, indicating preservation of a violation, and should therefore be deleted. While some delegations expressed a preference for the term "harm" in English, others pointed out that for translation into other languages, the use in English of the term "damage" would be preferable. 17. Delegations agreed that the use of interim measures did not imply a determination on the merits of a case, nor on its admissibility, and that this should be reflected in article 5 (2). 18. Article 5 (1) and (2) was retained by the Working Group, with the word "urgent" in article 5 (1) remaining in brackets. Article 6 19. Many delegations expressed the view that the identity of the complainant should be revealed to the State party. It was noted that practical considerations required that the State party be informed of the identity of those submitting communications to allow for the provision of information to the Committee. Several delegations suggested that claimants should be able to decide whether their identities should be revealed to the State party. 20. Several delegations noted the changing practice of the Human Rights Committee in regard to confidentiality. Some delegations expressed a preference for deleting the confidentiality requirement from article 6 (1), but others expressed the view that, while a communication was pending, only the State party, the complainant and the Committee should be apprised of the proceedings and their content. 21. While some delegations expressed a preference for a three-month time limit for submission of information by the State party, all delegations agreed on a six-month period. -89-