wording might be needed which would include that the victim was unaware of domestic remedies, or of their availability. It was also suggested to include the word "available" before "domestic remedies", as that would be in line with other instruments. The view was expressed that it would not be in line with the role of the Committee to judge whether domestic remedies had been exhausted. 49. With regard to the second sentence, especially the proposed power of the Committee to declare another international procedure "unreasonably prolonged", many delegations agreed that such a provision would be inappropriate as it would give the Committee the power to judge the work of other bodies. Instead, preference for existing language was expressed, such as in the Convention against Torture or in the Migrant Workers Convention, that is, that the same matter "has not been, and is not being, examined by another treaty body". Reference was also made to article 27.1 (b) of the European Convention establishing inadmissibility when a petition "is substantially the same as a matter which has already been examined by the Commission or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and if it contains no relevant new information". 50. Support was expressed for the proposed addition of two criteria, namely that a communication would be inadmissible when manifestly ill-founded; and the inclusion of a time-limit, that is, that a communication be inadmissible if deposited after 12 months from the date of the decision of the highest domestic instance, or a similar reasonable length of time. 51. The addition of the following criteria was also proposed: "Communications should be in compliance with the principles of objectivity and justice and should include legal remedies or reparations, if any, undertaken by the State party concerned." 52. Element 9 (g): The question was raised as to who would determine, and what would be considered, a "reasonable period". It was suggested that the Committee might have this responsibility. Element 10 53. Several delegations, pointing to the innovative character of element 10 on interim measures, expressed their support for its explicit inclusion in the optional protocol. They noted that that would be in line with existing practice of international, as well as regional, human rights bodies. In order to avoid irreparable harm, the Committee should be empowered to take urgent action when necessary. Noting the positive intention of the provision, other delegations suggested that it should be left to the Committee to include such a provision in its rules of procedure. Such a placement would allow the Committee more flexibility in its practical application. 54. A number of delegations, pointing to the language used in the element, considered it inappropriate to confer upon the Committee power to "request" a State party to take such measures. Instead, the Committee should be able to "recommend" interim measures. Their application should be left to the discretion of the State party. The need for a separate undertaking on the part of the State party was doubted, as States parties were already expected to act bona fide upon ratification of the instrument. 55. Several delegations noted a lack of clarity and precision in the use of the term "preservation of the status quo", suggesting that the intention for recommending such interim measures needed to be further specified. They agreed -113-