text: colleagues, he felt that the only changes in the rules of procedure needed at the present time were of the kind adopted at the preceding meeting. 74. Mrs. WARZAZI said that she had a number of objections to draft resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/L.7. The Sub-Commission should adopt new tactics on the lines of resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/L.4. The main concern now seemed to be the question of explanation of votes. Rather than risk rejection of the draft resolution, she felt that it would be better to postpone study of the problem until the following year. 75. Mr. EIDE recognized that there were problems and weaknesses in the way the Sub-Commission worked and there was need for improvement. But improvements could be made without changing the rules of procedure: all that was needed was to apply them. Consideration was already being given to that problem in the working group chaired by Mr. van Boven. He saw no need for a resolution and agreed with Mrs. Warzazi that it would be better to postpone the problem until the following year. He could accept the draft resolution only with Mr~ Joinet's amendments. Otherwise he would vote against it. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/SR.24 page 10 76. Mr. ILKAHANAF disagreed with the second preambular paragraph. In his opinion there was nothing wrong with the rules of procedure. He agreed with Mrs. Warzazi that it would be better to postpone the matter and await the decision by the Economic and Social Council on the proposals in resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/L.4. 77. Mrs. KSENTINI found the draft resolution very interesting, since it would enable the Sub-Commission to deal with its perennial problem of the rules of procedure to apply to organs composed of independent experts. She did not agree with the idea of postponing consideration and thus losing a year. If the Economic and Social Council took a long time to respond, the 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a meeting of the Sub-Commission, a UN body, and the resolution being debated is related to the rules of procedure. The language used is formal and technical, suggesting a specialized or expert context. The discussion does not seem to be related to any specific economic or social issue, but rather focuses on the internal workings of the Sub-Commission.