finding of a violation. At the same time, several delegations suggested that the intent of the provision be added to article 7, in a new article 7 (4), rather than remaining in article 8. 52. Several delegations expressed their concern that the proposal on follow-up to concluded communications might establish a parallel procedure to the reporting procedure in article 18 of the Convention and that that should be avoided. They suggested that the State party ought to be given an opportunity to provide its comments on the Committee’s views with regard to a concluded communication, so as to allow for a reflection of a State party’s potential disagreement with the Committee’s views in the Committee’s annual report. Other delegations noted that States parties would be requested to provide their comments and information at all the various stages of the consideration of a communication. 53. Some delegations suggested that any follow-up, including follow-up on measures taken by the State party, should be included in the periodic reports of that State party. Other delegations noted that the reporting procedure and the communications procedure under an optional protocol, including any follow-up to the views of the Committee, were two separate procedures which ought to be kept separate. The long period of time between periodic reports would make any follow-up to communications through the reporting process less meaningful. Article 9 54. Several delegations underlined the importance of including a complete follow-up mechanism in the optional protocol, noting that the absence of such a mechanism was considered a weakness in similar existing procedures. The Committee resource person stressed the importance of a continuing and constructive dialogue between the Committee and the State party. 55. As to the differences between the provisions contained in articles 8 (3) and 9 (2), it was pointed out that article 8 (3) dealt with the short-term follow-up, whereas 9 (2) would cover ongoing and long-term monitoring by the Committee in the framework of the reporting procedure of a situation that had given rise to a violation. In that regard, some delegations noted that parallel overlapping procedures should be avoided and that follow-up to the communications procedure should be limited to the steps proposed in article 9 (2), with the deletion of article 8 (3). Noting the different objectives of articles 8 (3), 9 (1) and 9 (2), several delegations supported the separate retention of the three provisions. 56. Several delegations were in favour of retaining the provisions of article 9 and stressed the importance of a dialogue between the Committee and the State party as a means of ensuring added protection to the individual in the short and long term. Some noted that the term "discuss" used in article 9 (1) was not entirely clear as it seemed to suggest an oral discussion between the Committee and the State party, which was not considered to be desirable or intended. Several delegations pointed out that article 8 (3) should be maintained as a mandatory short-term follow-up to the Committee’s views on a communication, whereas article 9 (1) and (2) would cover further dialogue, if appropriate, possibly in the framework of the reporting procedure. Some delegations suggested deletion of article 9 (1), in the light of doubts raised in conjunction with the appropriateness of article 8 and because it raised major issues of jurisdiction and sovereignty. -104-