1 As amended by decision 26 COM 11, following the discussions.
2 A separate budget line is recommended in the proposed revised Budget Structure WHC-02/CONF.202/13D Rev.
th See paragraph 65 of the Operational Guidelines allowing the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre to request "complementary data" subsequent to the submission of the nomination.
st Bureau meeting in April; Committee session in June
3 C4 Medium-Term Strategy of UNESCO
C5 Programme and Budget of UNESCO
4 Two other general decisions were taken; decision 26 COM 21.1 following the discussion on Byblos (Lebanon) and decision 26 COM 21.2 following the discussions on Meidan Emam, Esfahan (Iran) and Colonia del Sacramento (Uruguay)
5 The discussions are presented following the alphabetical order of the States Parties submitting the nominations. In the future, the World Heritage Centre and the Rapporteur suggest to list them in the same order as the discussions during the Committee session.
6 The new system of separate numbered decisions as suggested by the Committee (see decision 26 COM 3.2) is intended to facilitate this process.
7 See debate concerning agenda item 26.
8 For the debate on the new format of the report, see agenda item 3 where it was discussed.
9 For a better understanding of the final decisions, those discussions are integrated at the end of the relevant agenda item.