text: to challenge the humanitarian character of camps and justify an attack.' Sucl| a link Would also place a heaiyy responsibility on the asylum country' to guarantee the character of a camp. The emphasis should therefore be placed On condemning any such attack, regardless Of the underlying reasons therefor. 83. In his delegation's view, the draft principles set forth in the report of the Sub-Committee of the Whole on International Protection côulci'.pï*ovide a valid basis for a balanced form of wording.which would recoricila those two lines of thought. VJhile it was not in favour of an open discussion of* such a delicate issue in the Executive Committeewhiuh would hardly be conducive to a solution, it thought that efforts couid be pursued in informal consultations during the session to arrive at an acceptable text. If such efforts failed, his delegation would support any other action by the Executive Committee which would make it possible to achieve an acceptable text. 84. Lastly, expressing satisfaction at the way in which the High Commissioner had.iiupiemented a number of measures in accordance with the ideas set forth in the so-called consensus paper (EC/S.2/15), he said that those ideas attested" to the close co-operation between the. High Commissioner and the ÈJcecutive Committee. The meetinjg rose at 6.2Ô p.m. 
analysis: The text appears to discuss a sensitive topic related to refugee camps and the responsibility of countries in providing humanitarian aid and protection. The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting a discussion within an international organization or committee. The text mentions the High Commissioner, the Executive Committee, and the Sub-Committee of the Whole on International Protection, which further supports this hypothesis.