information, which could make the process potentially overwhelming; the formulation thus needed to be considered further. 45. The Working Group agreed ad referendum on article 7 (2) of document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1. 46. While many delegations expressed support for the formulation contained in article 7 (3) of document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1, other delegations noted that no reference should be made either to the adoption by the Committee of its views or to its recommendations. In that regard it was noted by some delegations that the current formulation reflected the sequence of actions taken by the Committee and established practice of other treaty bodies. They also pointed out that the paragraph dealt with the conclusion of the Committee’s examination of a communication - that is, after the State party had been given the opportunity to submit its comments and information to the Committee. 47. Some delegations proposed the addition of a paragraph which would allow the State party concerned to participate in proceedings before the Committee, in accordance with the practice under certain international conventions. Other delegations noted that the procedures referred to were of a different type that is, inter-State procedures, rather than communications procedures. They could therefore not support such a proposal. They emphasized that the practice of similar mechanisms was essentially written in nature. Some delegations noted that if there were to be a provision allowing oral presentation by the State party, the same right would need to be granted to the petitioner in order to ensure equality. Article 8 48. While several delegations expressed support for the article as contained in document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1, other delegations considered that the inclusion of such a provision in the optional protocol would represent a major step which needed careful consideration. Still other delegations considered the article to be redundant and proposed its deletion, doubting the appropriateness of a provision which would allow the Committee to request States parties to take specific remedial measures. Several delegations noted that States parties were, in any case, under an obligation to remedy violations, and therefore saw no reason for explicitly including such a provision in the optional protocol. 49. Some delegations noted that the essence of article 8 (1) was already reflected in article 7 (3) of document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1 and should therefore be merged with it. It was also suggested by some delegations that the question of remedial measures should be regulated in the Committee’s rules of procedure and left to the practice of the Committee. 50. Several delegations were in favour of maintaining explicit language regarding the State party’s obligation to provide an appropriate remedy, including adequate reparation. They pointed out that the inclusion of such a provision in the optional protocol would be a contribution by the Working Group to the progressive development of international law with regard to the right to reparation for human rights violations. 51. Many delegations expressed support for the intent reflected in article 8 (3) of document E/CN.6/1997/WG/L.1, which would build on the existing practice under similar existing procedures of continuing dialogue between the Committee and the State party after the determination of a communication and the -103-