The content of article 7 was meant to be tentative and expository.

The proviso is not strictly necessary but is none the less useful in an expository draft.

The Special Rapporteur explained that while not strictly necessary, draft article 11 was useful in an expository draft.

While closely linked to articles 3 and 4, the draft article was primarily expository and could accordingly be excluded.

The Special Rapporteur characterized draft article 3 as being primarily expository in nature in light of the wording of subsequent articles, particularly draft article 4, it was not strictly necessary.

While he noted that doubts had been expressed, he nonetheless felt that there seemed to be general support for the basic concept of article 7, namely that it was merely expository in character and that it was intended only to create a rebuttable presumption.