54. The Chairperson said that informal consultations held on this matter had provided an opportunity for an interesting exchange of views concerning the way in which the Council should organize its future debate. Different positions had been expressed. One delegation had said that the Council did not have a mandate to continue with the review of the provisions of Article 27.3(b); such review could only be undertaken on the basis of a decision from a higher body, which could also give guidance in this respect. Some other delegations were of the view that the review of the provisions of Article 27.3(b) was continuing and was a topical item. There were several options for dealing with it in the future. The first would be to continue open debate as at previous meetings. The second option would be to further discuss the matter on the basis of a recapitulative list of the substantive questions raised by Members. This second approach would make it possible to have a more organized and systematic debate on the elements which delegations had stated were of fundamental importance to them. He, in his capacity as Chairperson, had recalled the main issues that had arisen in this connection. No consensus on the approach to be taken had emerged from the discussions during the informal consultations. A number of delegations had expressed themselves in favour of a more organized debate. Some delegations had said that, if the Council were to opt for such an approach, there should be additional consultations concerning the content of the list to be established. He suggested that the various options of how to approach this matter in the future could be discussed in further informal consultations.
