At the fourth session the Chairperson said that, taking into account the arguments that had been put forward, he believed that the establishment of a separate committee constituted the best solution.

One of the five permanent members has also said that it would like there to be 20 or 20 plus members of the Security Council.

Mr. Motomura (Japan) considered that the criterion of zero nominal growth should have governed the preparation of the programme budget.

The CHAIRPERSON thought that it would be preferable to consider any changes to the order of the operative paragraphs after discussing the text.

Mr. SUJATMIKO (Indonesia) said he could accept the draft resolution as a whole, but thought that the proposal by Pakistan on operative paragraph 4 was neutral and should be adopted.

In his view, the opposite should be the case.

Mr. Minihan (Australia) said he was also in favour of leaving the paragraph as it stood but he could accept the wording applicable rules of law since he saw no real difference in meaning between the two options.

Tom said he saw nothing.

Mr. Herrera López (Mexico), supporting the statement made by the representative of Peru on behalf of the Rio Group, considered that apart from the new presentation, the proposed budget differed little from its predecessors.

Mr. Boulet (Belgium) said he saw no reason for explicit derogation to be required provided that a clear distinction was drawn by the parties between the terms agreed and the provisions of the draft convention.

Mr. Mwaala (Namibia) observed that, while others were questioning justification for the Special Committee, his delegation believed that its mandate was still valid and that it was doing commendable work under very difficult conditions.

In his view, all international conventions must contain a minimum number of provisions from which parties could not derogate.

Instead, this author takes the view that we are dealing with a negotiation which gave rise to an international agreement.

That aspect of draft article 2, paragraph 2, should, in his view, be clarified in the commentary.

Mr. D'Allaire (Canada) said he understood that the Japanese delegation considered that it should be possible to limit the application of draft article 9, paragraphs 4 and 5, to arbitration agreements and that the convention as drafted would not allow such flexibility.

Only one had the guts to stand up and say that he found the new procedure degrading.

The Chairman said he took it that the Commission wished to delete the word mandatory .

The Chairman said he took it that the Committee wished to take note of the report.

The Chairman observed that there seemed to be little support for the position taken by the Belgian delegation.

For the Lord said to me, Go, set a watchman. Let him declare what he sees.

Therefore he says also in another psalm, 'You will not allow your Holy One to see decay.'

For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Go, set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth.

Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

While he agreed that there was a need for a system wide approach, the link between the problem and the proposed solution was not evident.

Mr. Lavalle (Guatemala) questioned the need to include the abbreviation EDI in brackets after electronic data interchange , given that the term did not appear elsewhere in the text.

The representative of Australia also considered it inappropriate to discuss the establishment of an independent expert on cultural rights at this stage.

On the question of the Trusteeship Council, Iraq took the view that it would be premature to change the Council's status or to abolish it.

The Chairman said he took it that the Commission accepted that an appropriate clarification should be included in the commentary.

The CHAIRPERSON said he took it that the Committee wished to adopt paragraph (b) as revised.

Who said that? It's totally wrong!

In his view, exclusions should not be permitted where consensus had been reached on a draft article.

Ambassador Staehelin said that his personal opinion was that there was always a dilemma caused by the legitimate right to security and consequence in other areas.

Mr. Wieruszewski said that he saw no discrepancy between the position of the various United Nations treaty bodies or of the European human rights bodies on the question that was the substance of article 27 of the Covenant.

Mr. Mustafa (Sudan) said Sudan considered the adoption of Security Council resolution 1590 (2005) a milestone.

Mr. SUJATMIKO (Indonesia) said his position was flexible, but he thought that the proposal originally made by Pakistan was perfectly neutral.

The Chairman said he took it that the Commission did not wish to support either of the German proposals.

The Chairman said he took it that the Commission wished to approve the text of draft paragraph 2.

The CHAIRPERSON thought that appropriate action was rather vague.

He says in his heart, God has forgotten. He hides his face. He will never see it.

He hath said in his heart, God hath forgotten he hideth his face he will never see it.

On point 4, Mr. Alfonso Martínez stated that he could not see the problem with the reference to remedies as it was a reference to the identification of appropriate remedies in the case of specific violations, but was open to alternative wording.

It's great! he said.

The Chairman said that the proposal had been noted.

At first, this seems surprising, since he said before the referendum that he would abide by its outcome.

Mr. Shearer said that he, too, wished to know exactly how many executions had been carried out.