(11th meeting) Reconvened concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes
5 Aug 2024 10:00h - 13:00h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Debate over human rights language in draft convention sparks mixed reactions at negotiation session
During the session, the Chair, with assistance from the Vice Chair of Brazil and their team, presented a new proposal aimed at reconciling differences on contentious articles of the draft Convention. The proposal included amendments to Articles 6, 23, 24, and 40, as well as the scope of the convention, additional protocols, and the title. The Chair’s proposal for Article 6.2 suggested adding the phrase “and in a manner consistent with applicable international human rights law” to address concerns about human rights safeguards.
The proposal received mixed reactions. India, supported by several delegations, proposed replacing “suppression” with “restriction” in Article 6.2. Egypt, aligning with over 35 states, called for the deletion of the listed rights in Article 6.2 and proposed additional language to reflect duties and responsibilities associated with certain rights as per international human rights law. Other countries, including Malaysia and Pakistan, also suggested revisions to Article 6.2, advocating for a more general statement on human rights without a detailed list.
Several delegations, including New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Liechtenstein, the United States, and Switzerland, expressed a preference for retaining the original language of Article 6.2 as set out in the updated draft (Rev. 3). They emphasized that the broad scope of the convention must be balanced with equivalent safeguards, and any weakening of these safeguards was a cause for concern.
The Chair encouraged delegates to engage constructively and propose concrete language changes to reach a consensus. The session concluded with the Chair scheduling a continuation of the discussion for the afternoon, with the intention of finalising the text to meet the procedural requirement of a 48-hour notice before adoption. The list of speakers for the afternoon session remained open, with several countries, including Namibia, Mexico, the European Union, Chile, Singapore, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Kingdom, Austria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Japan, Costa Rica, Georgia, Vietnam, Yemen, and Moldova, scheduled to speak.
Throughout the session, the Chair’s commitment to an inclusive and transparent negotiation process was evident, despite some delegates’ concerns about the consultation process and the representation of their positions in the draft text. The Chair’s neutrality and facilitative role were crucial in navigating the diverse perspectives and seeking a balanced resolution that could garner widespread support.
Session transcript
Chair:
Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I hope you rested well during the weekend with my dear colleague, Vice Chairman of Brazil. We spent the weekend trying to come up with the best possible language. As announced previously, we will continue with Agenda Item 3, the updated draft text of the Convention. And as I announced last week, I have had the assistance of some vice presidents and delegates who have been conducting informal consultations. We still haven’t been able to reach complete agreement. As announced on Friday, I would like to share the results of these efforts with you, the Committee. I’d like to express my sincere thanks for their support in order to try and reach consensus. I would like to start by inviting Ms. Prakashni Adethi, Counselor at the Permanent Mission of South Africa at the United Nations Office in Vienna, to join me on the podium. I have asked her to conduct informal consultations on Article 2 of the draft Convention. Madam Adethi, please join me here if you’re ready. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I give you the floor.
Vice Chair:
Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, colleagues. So I’m pleased to report on the discussions that took place in the group on terminologies, which has consistently met since the first session of the committee. Firstly, I’d like to express appreciation to Vice Chair Eric for his able leadership and guidance on leading discussions on terminologies since the first session. So Madam Chair, there has been a good progress on reaching common understanding and consensus on most of the terms. During this session, we convened one full set of consultations and several informals with a view to address concerns raised by delegations. However, Madam Chair, there are still some elements that are outstanding. In this regard, it is proposed that the plenary looks at the following terms, which did reach consensus in the informals during the previous session. So Madam Chair, that would be letter J, K, L, M. And then, Madam Chair, we could begin at the top of the list and we could move down. And then we’ll take it from there, Madam Chair. And then I will report thereafter on some of the terms that are still requiring some further consideration.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Distinguished Representative of South Africa. Many thanks for your efforts. So we still have those paragraphs pending, J, K, M. Some differences to resolve, but we’re very close. And I congratulate you and thank you for your commitment and for these positive results. Thank you very much indeed. Oh, I’m sorry, by the paragraph which we, I give you the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair. So as indicated, we had reached consensus in the informals during the previous session. So can we please start with Jay first? So this one is on proceeds of crime. You heard the Vice-Chair on Jay. If there’s no objection, can we adopt this paragraph at referendum? Thank you very much. The Secretariat agreed at referendum, please. Prakashni?
Vice Chair:
Madam Chair, then we would move on to K, freezing or seizure. Is there any comments on this?
Chair:
Any objection to adopting that paragraph at referendum? I see no objections. Thank you very much. Secretariat agreed at referendum.
Vice Chair:
The next term is L, confiscation.
Chair:
Any objections to adopting it at referendum? I see none. Secretariat, please agreed at referendum. Pragashni on M.
Vice Chair:
Chair, so M, predicate offense.
Chair:
Any objections to adopting it at referendum? The Democratic Republic of Congo.
Democratic Republic of Congo:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We have asked for the floor. Because we’re a little lost. Since we don’t have the text in French. So we really often don’t know where to land on this issue. Thank you very much.
Chair:
As you know, informal consultations are held only in English. Unfortunately, that’s been the case for years now. That’s the language for negotiations. The final version, of course, will be provided in French. And you will have an opportunity to come up with comments on this paragraph then. Thank you. Any objections to adopting this paragraph at referendum? None. Thank you very much, Secretariat.
Vice Chair:
Now the suggestion would be to start at the top of the list. So Madam Chair, we’ll begin with A.
Chair:
Is the committee prepared to agree at referendum on paragraph A? I see no objection. Thank you very much. Secretariat? Agreed at referendum. Paragraph B? Yes. Can we consider that the committee is prepared to adopt paragraph B of Article 2 at referendum? I see no objection. Secretariat? Agreed at referendum.
Vice Chair:
Traffic data?
Chair:
Is the committee prepared to adopt it at referendum? Agree at referendum. I see no objection. Thank you very much. Secretariat? Agreed at referendum.
Vice Chair:
Madam Chair, D, content data. Content data was agreed at referendum in the last session. Madam Chair, I would propose that we skip F for now. Sorry, we can do F, subscriber information.
Chair:
Yes. You have F on the screen. Subparagraph F of Article 2. Is the committee prepared to adopt it at referendum? Yes. I see no objections. Secretariat, please adopt at referendum.
Vice Chair:
G, personal data.
Chair:
Any objections to adopting this at referendum, subparagraph G of Article 2? I see none. Thank you. The Secretariat agreed at referendum.
Vice Chair:
Subparagraph H, serious crime?
Chair:
Subparagraph H, Article 2. Any objections to adopting this at referendum? We have a little list now, United Kingdom and then Canada.
United Kingdom:
Thank you, Madam Chair. When H relates to ongoing discussions on scope of the Convention, the UK would prefer if we could leave this definition for now and pending conclusion of those discussions on the broader scope. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Okay, merci. Thank you. Canada?
Canada:
Thanks, Madam Chair. We rescind our request for the floor in light of the UK’s statement.
Chair:
Right, we’ll leave subparagraph H for the time being and we will come back later. I have Nigeria, then Vietnam.
Nigeria:
Good morning, Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues. For serious crime, I think we’re looking at the word maximum deprivation. I think, I don’t know if that’s a typo, but it should read minimum deprivation of at least four years, or a more serious penalty, because maximum says you’re capping it. So.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup, Nigeria. Thank you very much, Nigeria. We’ll set that aside for the time being. Vietnam?
Vietnam:
Good morning, Chair, to our colleagues. With regard to the definition of property, we just want to resist this in the ad hoc committee’s meeting that Vietnam would consider the exact scope of virtual asset will be defined in domestic law. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Je comprends que vous, I understand that you do not reject this subparagraph. You could join the consensus for the time being, but you just need to consult, is that right? I understand. Very well then. Yemen.
Yemen:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding this paragraph, it is indeed a minimum, not a maximum, and we add to it the timeframe stipulated in national legislation. Sometimes the minimum is three years and not four, so we’re talking here about the minimum.
Chair:
We have decided in any event to set aside subparagraph H, so thank you very much. Iran?
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, colleagues. Again, I would like to state that when we have… agreed languages. It’s why we want to change these agreed languages and reinvent again will, again. So on this issue we have precedent of UNCAC and UNTUC as by our Bibles in transnational organized crime. So and we support to keep the precedent which we have in UNCAC and UNTUC. And maximum deprivation of liberty, I think it’s not make a reference to the years of. It is about the kind of imprisonment. So I think the interpretation of some delegations is maybe is not in a right direction. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. As I was saying for Yemen, and I’ll repeat, H has been set aside for the time being. Pakistan, if it’s on H, it’s already been set aside. We haven’t decided to adopt it. So thank you. Turning now to I, subparagraph I. Property, are there any objections? I see none. Secretariat, could you add, agree to add referendum?
Vice Chair:
So then we’ll move on to N, regional economic integration. Thank you.
Chair:
Any objections? Morocco.
Morocco:
Colleagues, as it has been indicated during the informal informals and by our dear press, this is still an opera in which we didn’t have. have, again, an agreement. We requested during the informals to go back to the most recent language that we have adopted in BBNG. We see that this paragraph has to end on approve or accede to this convention. We have compared, and according to what we have received from capital, this language existed in UNCAC. But again, that’s 2003. So if we are going ahead, it has to be with what the member states have agreed on most recently, which is BBNG. So this is also getting more complicated to agree on, since we have seen that on the chair’s proposal circulated last night or early morning. The new article 61BIS makes reference to regional economic integration organization. So on the sake of consensus, the most lenient way to agree eye to eye is, again, to align the language with what we have agreed on most recently in BBNG. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. So we’ll leave N open. Thank you. Iran?
Iran:
Madam Chair, first of all, I would like to thank my friend President Gump for making a lot of efforts to reach a consensus on this paragraph. Our position has not been changed. We do believe that the economic integration should be taken out from the text, because the nature and context of this convention, as some delegations mentioned, are different in two conventions. In one convention, we have this definition. And in UNCTAD, I think there is no any definition on regional economic integration organization. I think if we put economic integration, definition is vague and we don’t know which organization will be included. So it will include some regional organizations to join the convention. So we strongly believe that economic integration should be taken out not in this definition, also in the whole text and to put it only regional organization or remove this definition. And also in the second part, Iran would like to fully support the statement made by distinguished delegation of Morocco to remove the second part of this paragraph. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you. As I said after Morocco’s statement, subparagraph N remains open. Well, so it’s good to hear everyone but we should also think about streamlining our work and having enough time to discuss and negotiate what’s actually pending. European Union please.
European Union:
Thank you very much Madam Chair. We would like to refer back to article 2 paragraph 11 or letter 11 rather. I would like to thank very much the delegation of Morocco for its suggestions. However, we would insist on maintaining the last half sentence of the letter. This is important. Firstly, we recall that this is to be found in UNTOC so it’s nothing new but its importance doesn’t stem from that. It stems from the fact that it clarifies what the obligations and powers are of regional organizations that are parties to the agreement. This is particularly important not only for the powers that it gives to the organization but also with regard to the responsibilities. If that were to be not to be found there, there would be a certain lack of clarity in the agreement raising questions that would have to be answered through interpretation. be not useful for the overall implementation of the agreement. So for this reason, we would insist on maintaining the text as is right now. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much. I repeat that N is still open. It is not adopted. Thank you. During informal consultations, I expect that you will discuss amongst yourselves to find a solution. Agnieszka, please.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Madam Chair. So O, emergency.
Chair:
We have India and then Iran. India.
India:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in this para O, we had requested for insertion of a phrase at the end of the sentence which states as it should be applicable to a critical information infrastructure also. So I will read the entire para. Emergency shall mean a situation in which there is significant and imminent risk to the life or safety of any natural person or to a critical information infrastructure. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, India. So we’ll leave O open. Iran, please.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. In accordance with what the Distinguished Delegation of India mentioned that we want to insert that phrase. Of course, we propose to insert all digital infrastructure of information system that requires urgent action, but we can go along with the proposal made by Distinguished Delegation of India because we do believe that in many cases that the significant risk will be posed to infrastructure which will indirectly also pose risk. to the safety and life of natural persons. It is very important to have also critical infrastructure in that paragraph. So we would like to support the proposal made by India on this, in this case. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Thank you. Cabo Verde.
Cabo Verde:
Chair, good morning everyone. We support the Indian proposal.
Chair:
Thank you Vietnam.
Vietnam:
Thank you Madam Chair. We also support the Indian proposals.
Chair:
I have on my list Egypt, Zambia and Nepal. Egypt.
Egypt:
Thank you Madam Chair to voice support to Indian proposal.
Chair:
Thank you Zambia.
Zambia:
Good morning Madam Chair. We support the proposals of the previous speakers.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Nepal. Thank you. Nepal.
Nepal:
Good morning. Good morning Madam Chair. We would also like to voice our support to India’s proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
New Zealand.
New Zealand:
Thank you Madam Chair. Good morning distinguished delegates. We oppose the Indian suggestion. We discussed in informals at great length in relation to whether there should be a definition in relation to critical information structure and we couldn’t agree. So therefore we decide, we suggest that it shouldn’t be included in this definition of emergency. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you. Pakistan.
Pakistan:
Thank you very much Madam Chair. Madam Chair we do support the proposal presented by distinguished delegate of India and with regard to definition of critical infrastructure we are of the opinion that such element does not require any definition because critical information, critical infrastructure is to be decided by domestic law and it’s certainly a domestic subject. Earlier in our discussion, we wanted to remove the definition of emergency, because again we believe that this is a domestic subject and it is to be decided. But for the sake and the manner in which the proposal is presented, it is very clear. So we definitely support the inclusion of that. In the current form, the definition is very limited and certainly it doesn’t help. And this could not be the only emergency situation which could be reflected. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. I will give the floor to three more countries, but as I said, N is open, it remains open. And O as well. So H, N and O remain open for the time being. Papua New Guinea, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and then the Russian Federation and I’ll stop there. Thank you. Papua New Guinea.
Papua New Guinea:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Papua New Guinea supports the Indian proposal.
Chair:
Thank you.Liechtenstein.
Liechtenstein:
Thank you very much. We have repeatedly stated that we don’t see any need to have critical infrastructure or critical information infrastructure in this Convention. We think it’s an issue that’s more connected to cyber security issues and doesn’t belong in the Convention on Cybercrime. And furthermore, I think it is important to have – it would be important to have a definition, but we don’t think we would agree on one, since every state would define its critical infrastructures in a different way. Therefore, we think it’s best to leave it out, especially in the sections where we are defining the terms in the Convention. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Merci beaucoup. Thank you. I’d like to encourage delegates to be positive and not say that it’s impossible. Our job as diplomats is to make the impossible possible. That’s our job. That’s our field. So let’s make every effort to come to an agreement. Switzerland.
Switzerland:
Thank you, Madam Chair. For the reasons outlined by my colleague from Liechtenstein and also by New Zealand, Switzerland also is not in a position to support the Indian proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Very well. Russia?
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, colleagues. Russia supports the suggestion made by India. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Right. As I was saying, we will – Israel. I did say we were cutting the list off because clearly we are not going to resolve the problem now. So are you insisting on taking the floor? No. Okay. Thank you very much. Very well. We’ll stop there. So these subparagraphs will remain open. O is open.
Vice Chair:
So we now move to service provider. This is a term that is still under consideration. Thank you.
Chair:
Very well, then. I understand there’s still an effort to be done on this paragraph. Our dear colleague, Madam Paragrashny, is asking for your views on this subparagraph. What does the committee think about it? What do you think about it? Especially those of you who are against it. Are we prepared to adopt it? Are we ready? Russia?
Russian Federation:
Thank you very much for giving us the floor. Let me recall that the Russian Federation spoke in favor of amending this definition. It’s too narrow. The definition that is currently in the text, in sub-item 2, puts service providers into a situation where they’re dependent on other service providers. The logic of those who support this definition is that that’s the text in the Budapest Convention. However, we’ll reveal no secret when we say that over 25 years, a certain amount of technological progress has taken place. And at the moment, there’s a large variety of services and, of course, service providers who, if this definition is adopted, will not be covered by our convention. I would like to thank our colleagues from South Africa, who have coordinated efforts to try and find a way out of this conundrum. And during the discussion, it seemed that we were being successful in these efforts. However, some delegations have stated that there’s the risk of extending this too much, that there would be a broad definition of service providers that would include users and physical persons. I don’t really understand these fears. We’re talking about public and private organizations, public or private entities. But we respect colleagues’ views. And we suggested including an explanation in the commentary, in the explanatory note to the convention, noting that service providers are those who act under national legislation with a license or special status to avoid this overbroad interpretation of the term. However, to date, it seems we do not have our colleagues’ agreement. It’s interesting. Some of the proposals made by the Russian Federation, based on the same format, were relegated to commentary, to the explanatory notes. But this hasn’t happened here yet. Thus, we believe that this is already obsolete as a definition. And I would like to avoid coming up with an obsolete text. Thank you.
Chair:
I don’t know if I’m the only one here, but what is your proposal specifically? What’s your solution?
Russian Federation:
It seems to be simple, a simple solution. It exists on paper. It was elaborated in the course of informals under the guidance of the South African representative. We also submitted a draft text for the commentary, for the explanatory note, which, in our opinion, would address all of the concerns that some delegations have. have expressed. So the proposal is on the table. It’s well known. And if colleagues want to discuss them at greater length, we’d be happy to do that.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Vietnam. Thank you very much, Vietnam.
Vietnam:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We shared the same rationale as the Russian delegation just mentioned. We want to make sure that this term is up to date. And also we note that the similar term in the Budapest Convention actually requires an explanation. So we propose the reproduction of a paragraph very similar to what was written in the Budapest Convention. And also we’d like to clarify that this term covers specifically internet service providers, telecommunication service providers, and online platform providers and other types of value-added services. So just to make sure that it would guide the state at the national level on how to implement this convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you. Would any other delegation like to take the floor? I see none. Mauritania and then the United States. Mauritania.
Mauritania:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everybody. We support the proposal by the Russian Federation. This definition of service providers needs to be expanded. It is insufficient to rely on the definition in the Budapest Convention. The definition needs to be more broad, broader. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Les Etats Unis. Thank you very much. United States, then Iran.
United States:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And we participated in the informal, Article II informal discussions earlier last week. We heard arguments on both sides, some calling for expansion, others finding the current definition to be sufficient. So we’re not clear on exactly what the proposal is. I mean, if we are to have further discussions, we don’t know what the language is that is being proposed right now that would be sufficient to address the proponent’s concerns. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you. Iran?
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to support the statement made by the Distinguished Delegation of the Russian Federation on this issue. We do believe that this definition has been narrowed down. It should be expanded. And I was in the informal consultations. The Distinguished Delegation of the Russian Federation made many concrete proposals. The proposals, I think, it is specified. I don’t know why one delegation mentioned we don’t have a concrete proposal on this issue. So Iran would like to support those proposals made by the Russian Federation. Thank you very much.
Chair:
S’il vous plaît, Évite. If we could please avoid any adjectives or qualifications that might be seen as aggressive. No one is lying here. The diplomats are here, are all committed to arriving at a consensus. So what I retain from this discussion is that we need a concrete proposal. So I’m waiting to hear from the Russian Federation. They’ll be sending a proposal to the Secretary, the final proposal. And then we can look at it. And our dear colleague who is representing South Africa will endeavor to work with the different delegations. that are involved or concerned by this subparagraph and try and find a solution. Thank you very much. Madam Pradashni.
Vice Chair:
Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So the concerns that have been raised were also raised in the informals. The Russian Federation has made a concrete proposal which we will go back to the informals if you deem it necessary to take it forward. We have two options. The first option is a proposal that we had worked on last week. And the second option is perhaps looking at putting a note in the interpretive note. So those are the two options that are on the table for that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Very well then. So I would ask, dear colleague, if you could please continue your efforts. We still have a little bit of time ahead of us. Time remaining to find a solution for this subparagraph. Madam Pradashni.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So thank you for your guidance on that. Madam Chair, we have one more issue. So in the informals, some delegations have called for paragraph one from the interpretive note to be moved into article two. So we did hear different views from delegations. So that issue is still pending. Thank you.
Chair:
Are there any delegations wishing to clarify their positions on this request to move paragraph one? Do any delegations wish to clarify or specify their positions on this? Or would you like to set it aside for the time being? I see it’s not – the time is not ripe yet. Russia?
Russian Federation:
Yes, thank you. Very briefly, because we’ve said it before in informals and elsewhere, we would prefer bringing this item back into the article. From the interpretative notes and into the article, some things should be in the text of the article rather than in interpretative notes. Following that logic, we think having this paragraph in the article would be more appropriate. Thank you.
Chair:
Any other requests for the floor? Does the committee agree with Russia? Can we then proceed? United Kingdom, please.
United Kingdom:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The UK is unable to support moving the interpretative note into the text of the convention. We’ve set out a position on this a number of times, but in brief, we think it’s a basic matter of treaty law that exists outside of this convention, what your interpretative note achieves, and we’d be concerned at the legal uncertainty that would be created if it were to be moved into the text of the convention and the risk that it would call into question other areas of this convention and whether they would have to be replicated exactly into domestic law without a similar carve-out for the entire convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you. Norway.
Norway:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We fully support the statement made by the UK and we don’t support moving this interpretive note into the Article 2. Thank you.
Chair:
Iran.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly, we would like to support the Russian Federation proposal to move this paragraph from interpretative note to main body of the Convention because of legal certainty and also taking into account the legal diversity in the world. So, we would like to have it in the main text. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. So, we have this proposal that it should be moved from the interpretative note to Article 2. No agreement. Dear colleague, representative of Russia and everybody, let’s continue discussing with a view to reaching consensus. You’ve already put in a lot of effort and you’ve been able to resolve many issues. HLM and this issue of the interpretive note should also be resolved. Prakashini, can you accept that?
Vice Chair:
Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chair:
Many thanks. Very well. We’ve finished for now this part of the Convention, Article 2 and associated issues. I now invite Ms. Bryony Daly-Whitworth, Vice Chair of the Committee, to join me here on the podium and inform us of the results of her informal consultations regarding the provisions that are not yet agreed in chapters 4 and 5 of the draft convention. We had asked her to work on trying to reach a consensus. Good morning. I invite our dear colleagues, Brioni, to share with us the results of their informal consultations. You have the floor.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates. You should have received last night a document that the Secretariat circulated, which was the result of our consultations, informals, small groups, lack of oxygen in small rooms last week, which is now on the screen for everyone to see. We had five outstanding issues to continue discussing in chapters 4 and 5, procedural measures and international cooperation. This is, of course, separate to the conversations and proposals that the Chair has been having around the scope and safeguards articles. So on the screen, you’ll see the first article under consideration in the small group on Friday was Article 27A. We had some conversations, quite lengthy conversations around this article on Friday. There were some concerns raised around the risks of this article as it’s currently drafted, and we went through those in a lot of detail. However, the result of the conversation in the informal group was that, given that this article had already been agreed at referendum and there was little support for making changes to it or opening up the ad referendum text, we would retain the article as agreed at referendum and would not reopen this text. Turning then to article 34 which remains open. We had conversations on Friday in relation to paragraph 6 of this article and the small group agreed to add the word effective in to paragraph 6 of this article in order to address concerns and proposals raised by some delegations. So I would like to ask plenary now given that the small group informal has agreed to insert the word effective here where the plenary can agree to article 34 paragraph 6 including the word effective at referendum. I will continue presenting the paper and then Madam Chair will ask for reactions from the floor. Turning to article 36 if we can scroll down please. This article on protection of personal data we had conversations around paragraph 3 of this article. We worked through several different proposals to amend paragraph 3 and on the screen you will see the proposal and the text that was agreed in our informal on Friday and which you should all have received from the Secretary last night and given that has been agreed in informal Madam Chair will ask whether the plenary can adopt that text by consensus and therefore adopt article 36 as a whole by consensus. article under consideration was article 40 paragraph 3L. There was a proposal to make amendments to this article. We had a lot of discussion around this and the informal agreed to retain the original after extensive discussion. And then finally article 52. We had a proposal in Plenary regarding adding a new paragraph at the bottom of this article. There was then a proposal to amend this proposal which we discussed in detail in the informal on Friday and decided in the small group to agree to put forward this paragraph. It comes from UNCAC and the agreement of the informal was to put forward and include this paragraph verbatim from UNCAC rather than making any amendments to the paragraph. And those are all the outstanding paragraphs under consideration. Thank you Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you very much. Distinguished Vice Chair from Australia. As usual we will go over these with the committee point by point. So this is on chapters four and five. The articles that have been mentioned need to be resolved. 25A Russian Federation.
Russian Federation:
Thank you Madam Chair, colleagues. At the plenary session, Russia has already pointed to the risk of extraterritorial application, which, as we understand it, is included in Article 27. Russia mentioned that it should perhaps be removed. However, trying to reach consensus, we suggest please show us the text of Article 27 on the screen. Yes, after the words. In subparagraph A, after the words, specified electronic data at the words storage medium. Electronic data storage medium at the words located in its territory. This is a small addition, but it will clearly specify the location of the storage medium, and thus, in our view, would make this article a lot more specific. This would be acceptable to the Russian Federation. I’d like to ask the committee to consider including that addition. After data storage medium at located in its territory. I’m asking the secretary to show it on the screen.
Chair:
Please Briony explain to us the situation.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much Madam Chair and thank you so much Russian Federation. Yes we that was the proposal that was put forward last week and I am very grateful to the 40 or so people who spent most of their Friday night two hours discussing this issue. At the end of that two hours we had agreement in the room which included several delegates from the Russian Federation that we would retain the ad referendum text in the informal. Are you saying that you can no longer agree with that agreement as of Friday night?
Russian Federation:
The Russian delegation has put forward this proposal and now we’re asking the ad hoc committee to consider it and I’m asking the Secretariat to show Russia’s proposal on the screen so that the ad hoc committee has a chance to discuss it. Thank you.
Chair:
If I may distinguished Russian colleague can you read your proposal once again and the Secretariat will show it on the screen. Just to avoid any misunderstanding can you read precisely the text that you want to see and this is about a and by the way when we say may be necessary it is not an obligation right in the chapel as may be necessary located
Russian Federation:
yes and the text now appearing on screen is exactly the text proposed by Russia located in its territory
Chair:
Located in its territory after the word medium, or after the word necessary, Russia, Russia,
Russian Federation:
exactly where it is now showing, data storage medium located in its territory. Thank you.
Chair:
What does the committee think? Can we retain the text with this addition? It’s a minor addition. It makes it more precise. United States.
United States:
Madam Chair, my intervention is really to ask a little bit on procedure and how we’re working this today. I note that as we’ve gone through a number of articles, countries have made propositions and they’re not being reflected on the screen, not that we’re encouraging it by any means. And on this particular issue, as it was proposed and informal and supposedly closed out, why on this particular proposal is it being put on the screen and how are we going to proceed with this today? That’s our question.
Chair:
Yes, United States. I have decided to ask Russia to provide specific language and to show it on the screen to see if the committee adopts it. As you know, I have to give the final text this evening to the secretariat. So we’re trying to reach consensus here. So my question is, can we accept this minor addition? If not, we put it to one side. So that is the question. It’s not a matter of reopening the discussion. Clearly, I do not at all encourage delegations to start resubmitting their proposals, which were already discussed in informals. This particular proposal was put forward in a plenary, then again in the informals. So Madam Brioni tells us that consensus was reached to retain the initial text. So it’s a pity that we have to reopen it. But I hope without going back, we can clear this up very quickly. Please think carefully and then tell us if you agree. Avoid reopening the debate. New Zealand, please.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Madam Chair. In straightforward terms, we oppose the proposed amendment. We spoke at length, as Madam Vice Chair has outlined to us. There are well-established legal principles, international groups who have spoken about the dangers in relation to this type of amendment, which would localize data. This is about an access point to that data, and we do not need this amendment.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you. Therefore, this article 27A remains open. The Secretariat has received Russia’s proposal. We wanted to encourage the committee, but now that it’s clear there’s an objection, we put it to one side and revert to the initial, the original text. next. But the article remains open. 27A remains open. Thank you. United States.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. And only to underline what my colleague from New Zealand said is we don’t agree with the addition of that language.
Chair:
I’ve already said that it remains open. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. So 27A remains open. Well, I mean, it’s not very encouraging, but that’s the situation. 34.6. Can the committee adopt it? The vice chair informed us that there’s agreement on that. 34.6. No objection? Very well. The secretariat agreed at referendum. 36.3. Article 36, paragraph 3. Any objections? None? Very well. Secretariat agreed at referendum. Article 52, paragraph 4. We’re in a position to adopt it at referendum. Any objections? I see none. Secretariat, please. Agreed at referendum. Excellent. Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair of Australia, for your efforts in your informal session. I know how much time and energy it cost you, you and the other facilitators. It’s an excellent result. So in paragraph, in chapter 4, only 27A. remains open. We will get back to it. Thank you very much once again, and I encourage you to continue your efforts on this 27A. Thank you. I now invite Mr. Warisawa Koichi, Vice-Chair from Japan, to inform us of the results of consultations on chapters 6 to 9 of the draft convention. Distinguished Vice-Chair, Representative of Japan, you have the floor.
Vice Chair:
Thank you for inviting me. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I would like to make a following report to the plenary regarding the result of the infomals, which coincided with many bilaterals and small-group consultations. On instructions of Madam Chair, infomals on chapters 6 to 9 were convened on the morning and on the afternoon of Friday, August 2, progress made at the plenary on the previous day, including a number of provisions agreed at the referendum. Intensive discussions were held at the infomals on the 14 outstanding provisions in total. Overall, two provisions were eventually agreed at the referendum infomal, namely Article 54, Paragraph 10, and Yes, Article 54, Paragraph 10, and Article 57, Paragraph 2. Article 54, Paragraph 10, if we go back to 54, Yes, Paragraph 10, Article 57, Paragraph 2, was agreed out of referendum informal as reflected in UDTC. As for the other provisions, the situation at the informal was as follows. On the Article 53, one member state proposed an addition to the language of Paragraph 3D. Yes, we are on 53, Paragraph 3D. Yes, thank you. Several member states questioned the necessity of such an addition, and no consensus was reached. On the Article 53, Paragraph 3H, one member state proposed to replace one part of the language, gender-based, with a proposed alternative, and the proposed gained support from several member states. Other member states, however, strongly objected to such an alteration and supported the retention of the original language. As a result, no consensus reached. On Article 54, Paragraph 1, a number of member states supported the proposed removal of a caveat from the paragraph, whereas multiple member states argued for the retention. Intensive discussions were held through the morning and afternoon sessions, and this issue remains unsolved. On Article 57, Paragraph 3, one member state proposed to make an addition to the Prescription of Rules on Rules of Procedures to be adopted at the Conference of States Parties, and the proposal attained support from multiple member states. As other member states strongly opposed to the proposal, a group of member states intervened in their attempt to reach consensus. They proposed an addition of an alternative language, which they argue is the middle ground. Some member states showed their flexibility to this new proposal already, whereas others showed interest and their will to consider it. Given the atmosphere of the room, the vice-chair encouraged the delegations participating in the infomals to consider this new proposal, which might or might not possibly be a basis for consensus. The second sentence of Article 57, Paragraph 3, was also discussed, with some delegations proposing to delete it, and others arguing for the retention. The issue remained unsolved. Article 57, paragraph 4, refers to the sentence of paragraph 3 in question. So paragraph 3 and 4 also remain agreed as yet. On article 57, paragraph 6, and 7, paragraph 6 and 7, intensive discussions were held as to how stakeholders might be able to have their voices heard at the review mechanisms under the Conference of the States Parties. Given the contentious nature of this issue, and as a second sentence of paragraph 7 seems to be a source of this contention, the vice-chair proposed the following so as to strike a balance. Retaining paragraph 6, as drafted in the UDTC with the only minor addition, international and regional organization, international and regional organization, this is an addition proposed, and this proposal was made by one member state with no objection. And as to paragraph 7, delete the second sentence in its entirety. So this is a second part of my proposal. Some member states demonstrated their interest in this proposal and the vice-chair encouraged other delegations to consider it. On article 60, paragraph 1, as a result of discussions after informals, yes, 60.1, yes, most member states except for two support the current text in the UDTC as drafted. Of the two member states who oppose one preferred to have a second sentence, which would essentially be the second sentence as reflected in the FRDTC. So this is not shown on the screen, but this is the allegation was proposing to have a second sentence, which is essentially would be the second sentence of FRDTC. The other member state argued to delete a whole paragraph, one of Article 60. On Article 64, following a plenary, continued discussions were held as to the required number of member states, states parties for the convention to enter into force, and no consensus was reached. During the discussion, one member state proposed to propose a few provision, new provision, I should say, a few provision, excuse me. Article 61, this, which essentially raises the number of states, states parties, that is required for the consensus, conference of states parties, as well as establish the qualified majority to adopt a supplementary protocol. Some member states showed interest in this new proposal, and they will to review it. On Article 61, 65, yes, one member state gave its view to the room. Madam Chair, as I explained, we have come closer to consensus on Chapters 6 to 9, and I expect that through more consultations at the plenary, and in an informal setting if necessary, we will reach consensus on all of the outstanding issues. I will stand ready to continue to work on your further instruction. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you. Thank you very much. The committee has noted that there is consensus on two paragraphs, 57.2 and 54.10. I will proceed as usual, article by article. We will start with 54, 54.D. Are we in a position to adopt it at referendum, Secretariat agreed at referendum, 54.10. Now, 57.2. Vice-chair told us that there was informal agreement, but can the committee adopt it at referendum now, 57.2. Any objections? None, thank you. Secretariat agreed at referendum. For the remaining articles and provisions listed, I think the situation has not yet matured, so we will stop here on what has been agreed in informals, and we’ll proceed with further consultations. So distinguished vice-chairmen, colleagues, I’m asking you to continue consultations. We still have a little time this afternoon to try and reach consensus. For now, we have the text before us. Thank you. I now invite… Thank you, Mr. Varysava. Many thanks for your efforts and for your commitment and for what remains to be done. I encourage you and wish you good luck. Now I call on delegations that have concerns with regard to articles that are still unresolved in Chapter 6-9 to approach the Vice-Chair to try and reach a solution. Very well. Now, with your agreement, we’re going to do the following. Last night I circulated a paper. As you know, colleagues, Tahar and I worked throughout the weekend. It didn’t make us very happy, but I think we were successful in at least taking on board all proposals, all versions and all concerns. So we had a number of consultations with various delegations in order to draft a proposal that would fill the gaps or make up for the differences in the most contentious issues, especially Articles 3, 4, 6, 14, 16, 23, 24, and 40, Paragraph 22, as well as OP5 of the draft resolution on the additional protocol. A new proposal from the Chair on the main provisions that have been suspended for the updated text was It was distributed last night late. I apologize for the lateness of it. But we will continue consultations until – we continued our consultations until 10 p.m. So that’s why it took so long to send the last proposal. It includes the reactions that we heard yesterday and during the informal meetings, as well as reactions that took place in the multilateral and bilateral consultations we held. I wouldn’t call it a package deal, so let’s please not use that word. Throughout my career, I’ve hated that word, package deal. I get the idea that we’re – sounds like we’re rug merchants selling anything at any time. It’s basically – serves as the basis for negotiations. And as usual, I beg you to believe that I have no exaggerated expectations here. You can throw the whole thing out if you want. The committee is sovereign. You can take what you want from it or not. It’s just an attempt on my part. Because I’m working with a penholder and our colleague, the Vice Chair of Brazil, we took a large part of Sunday to work on that together, to craft a document that from our point of view might reflect your views and get your agreement. So for now, my dear friend and colleague, the Chair is coming back to the podium, delegate from Brazil, to look at Articles 3, 4, 6, 23, 24, and 40, paragraph 22, and operative paragraph 5 from the draft resolution. And then later, we will conclude with Articles 14 and 16. And at that point, I will ask my dear colleague from Nigeria to join us. So, if I may, I’d like to start by introducing the new proposal put forth by the Chair with a view to reaching a possible commitment – consensus, excuse me – on those paragraphs that were set aside. Let’s start with provisions relating to guarantees or safeguards in the area of human rights. First, safeguards for human rights, Article 6. We’re starting with Article 6. The proposal – Secretary, could you please project it on the screen and please try and follow me? So, Article 6. The proposal is one that has a single change in Article 6, which is to wit, adding to Paragraph 2, the expression, and in a manner consistent with applicable international human rights law. The interpreter notes it’s in red on the screen in English. Please follow in English, says the Chair. This is the basis of our work. You have it on the screen here. Let’s move on to Articles 23, Paragraph 4. So, the proposal is as follows. Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 24 will remain as is. The main interpretive paragraph will be moved to Paragraph 2 of Article 24. Paragraph 4 of Article 23 will be reformulated and moved to Article 24 as a new Paragraph 4. And in parallel, the interpretive note of Article 24, Paragraph 4, will be deleted. So that’s the compromise I’m putting to you. You can see the new wording of Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 24, as now you can see on the screen. This is the new version. These are the various compromises, and then I’ll give you the floor after I’ve explained the compromise, of course. So now turning to Article 40, Paragraph 22, the new proposal maintains the provision as it’s currently drafted, and then we move on to scope of application – scope of the convention. During discussions with various delegations and during the discussions in plenary, it was stated that the articles on the scope of application are largely supported as they were drafted in the updated text. Consequently, Articles 3 and 4, as well as Article 23, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, and Article 35, and the interpretive notes, will all be maintained as is. Turning to the additional protocols – or supplementary protocols, corrects the interpreter – to address the concerns and strike a balance between those who want a low threshold for entry into force of the convention as soon as possible and those who have some concerns about inclusivity for a future conference of state parties, which would have jurisdiction to adopt a possible protocol once the convention goes into force. The proposal of compromise is as follows. Article 64 would be maintained as currently worded in the updated text and requiring 40 state parties for its entry into force. In parallel, paragraph 1 of a new 61bis would specify that an additional protocol or supplementary protocol could not be adopted by the states parties or Conference of the States Parties until the Convention has been ratified by 61 state parties. The Conference of the States Parties needs to try and bring about a consensus on any supplementary protocol. If the Conference of States Parties does not reach a consensus, a majority of two-thirds of the states parties present will be required for adopting a protocol. Paragraph 2 of Article 61bis specifies about the right to vote under this article for regional organizations of economic integration. And in parallel, Article 5 of the draft resolution of the General Assembly would be modified as follows. First, the time frame of the additional sessions has gone from a year to two years after adopting the Convention. This modification is due to the great majority of member states who believe that a year is too soon to negotiate such a protocol. Paragraph 5 of the provisions in the draft resolution will not prejudge the results of the special committee’s work and therefore includes a mandate to negotiate a supplementary protocol. This will be determined permanent, and committed to and open at the same time in order to take into account deliberations and discussions taking place in good faith of the Special Committee in the context of its mandate. Three, the new paragraph five of these provisions is geared to guaranteeing that an additional protocol’s provisions would be as inclusive as possible, both with regard to the number of states’ parties and with regard to the number of developing countries in negotiations. As a result, the work of the Special Committee would be submitted to the Conference of State Parties only after 60 state parties have become party to the convention. Four, there’s a new paragraph 6bis here, 61bis, which invites – urges member states to provide voluntary contributions to the UNODC to ensure funding to enable the participation of representatives of developing countries, especially those that do not have a resident representation in Vienna. And finally, in this 6bis, which looks at crafting internal rules for the future Conference of the State Parties, the timeline has been modified to convene the Special Committee session one year after adoption of the convention. Now turning to the title, there were many discussions about this and over several sessions, and I also had some consultations myself, and the new proposal adheres to the compromise already reflected in the current text of the convention, the updated text, that is, the use of ICT system rather than computer system throughout. So ICT system. With regard to the term cybercrime, we all remember the long discussions about that. Several member states have requested the use of the term cybercrime in the convention text and in the title. As a result, the compromise proposal envisions using the term cybercriminality along with crimes committed using ICT systems. So there’s no longer what we were told during the debate, a confusion that could lead readers to believe that the terms in parentheses are a definition of cybercriminality. This is also reflected in paragraph four of the preamble of the draft text. This proposal is to reconcile different positions of member states, those that prefer cybercriminality and those that prefer the use of ICT systems, using it for criminal purposes. Now I would invite you to express your views on the various provisions relating to human rights and the scope of the convention and the title. And I would be so grateful to you if you could please provide us with brief comments and only on the topic of safeguards in the area of human rights, scope of application of the additional protocol and the title as it’s been presented here so that we can have a structured discussion. We will review the rest of the compromise proposal later at the appropriate time and with the assistance of my dear colleague, Vice President on behalf of Brazil. Brazil, who was with me throughout this weekend. I want to thank you, dear Eric, for your commitment. Many, many thanks to you. And quite frankly, I was very, very happy and satisfied with the support from Brazil so we could reach a conclusion and a consensus. I open the floor now. We will go in order as usual, not all questions at the same time. Let’s start, then, with the safeguards on human rights. The floor is open.Cabo Verde.
Cabo Verde:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support this new proposal for Article 6.2. Thank you.
Chair:
Cape Verde. India.
India:
So, thank you, Madam Chair. So, while we appreciate the efforts and the hard work that you and your team have put in, ma’am, but in this Para 6.2, we’ve always expressed our apprehension on the use of word suppression. We had requested that the word suppression may be changed to restriction of human rights, which has already been used in the Human Rights Convention. Suppression of human rights is something which we do not clearly understand. And that was our take on this. Thank you, ma’am.
Chair:
That is the difficulty, is that the word suppression in English is not as strong as its translation in French, repression, or in Arabic, kameh. These are translations – well, the whole issue of translation is important. because in English it’s not as heavy, it’s not as rigid, even less violent than the translation in French or in Arabic. I haven’t seen the version in Spanish, but that’s just to say that the word suppression is a problem for translation in some languages. So you might prefer restrictions. So I’m just trying to explain the situation for the committee as a whole here. Could we look at this proposal from India to replace suppression with restriction? I have Iran, Pakistan and Vietnam. Iran?
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would like to thank you for your efforts, especially your work and the work of your team in the weekend. We do believe that any formal or informal consultations should be made in inclusive and transparent manners. I would like to ask about at least more than 50 countries made objections to Article 6, especially two. I would like to ask clarifications. Who from those countries have been consulted on that? You know, Madam Chair, I love, despite your excellency, I love the packages, because multilateralism is given and taken. But it is not a package deal. It is not a compromised text. For example, our concerns, our views, fairly, in which articles Iran’s views and those like-minded countries have been consulted? been inserted in this package, if we want to call it a package deal. And of course I hate to call this as a package deal. So our position has not been changed on the human rights safeguards, all articles have not been acceptable for my delegations, but again I would like to ask really, because it is our questions, give me this feeling that this world, all are equal but some more equal. So I would like to ask about the consultations about this issue and the changes which would have been done in favor of those countries like Iran in this package deal. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Iran. It’s a pity to think that the chair would be treating some country differently from others. I’m very moved by your reflection. I don’t accept it because you were the first delegation that I consulted during the week. You recall that we met and you talked about your position. I didn’t exclude anyone. I even said even at the beginning of the process, you’ll recall, I even said that I had no problem even with the representatives of member states with which Algeria doesn’t have diplomatic relations. I said that very clearly. I said every single member state here has the right to express their views. Please don’t make anyone believe that the chair is preferring some countries over others. That’s not fair. And even when we met. I specified to you that you were the first delegation that I was consulting. This kind of comment is to incite and it’s to make others believe I didn’t meet all member states during the weekend. That’s true. Can you meet 180-something countries over a weekend? Maybe during the week, yes, but all those that asked to see me I accepted. It’s not true that I excluded anyone. And truly it’s a pity to come to this point. But I think I see that you’re opposed to 6-2, so let’s set aside Pakistan. Are you also opposed to 6-2?
Pakistan:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would like to express our gratitude to your leadership and efforts in which you are steering this whole process and navigating us through difficult time. My comments are with regard to 6-2 and Article 24, as you have invited. Madam Chair, our efforts are not to criticize you, your efforts, or to undermine the whole process. But our concerns should also be mentioned very clearly. We believe that, Madam Chair, during the plenary session, more than – I don’t have the number, but over 35 countries expressed their concern with regard to Article 6-2. I expressly recall that this proposal, which was presented during the last session, during the package deal discussion, it was initially rejected by a majority of countries and everyone called for – I mean, a number of countries called for its deletion. Later, we understand that it was made part of UTDC and presented. But, Madam Chair, from the plenary, a number of countries objected to this. But since in order to come to terms, help you, help ourself, different constructive proposals were presented, and one of the proposals was remove the term suppression, remove the listings and accurately reflect what is there in international human rights law. And in international human rights law, personal freedoms are always subjective to certain limitations and restrictions, which are prescribed by law. And this is what we were advocating. Having said that, this proposal did not find any place in the current draft, and we wanted to express that we maintain our position, and we maintain that if we present the language in a manner which is reflected here, we feel that it is not the accurate reflection of international human rights law. So we continue to do that, Madam Chair. Moving on to Article 24, since you have invited also the comments on that, we again thank you Madam Chair. With Article 24, we have expressed our concerns again with the term ground justifying application. We thank you for addition in paragraph 2, which specifically clarifies what we want to state in this paragraph, but we still have a specific concern with ground justifying application. Even in the succeeding line, which you have newly proposed to insert, it says any judicial or independent review. We had in length debate about ground justifying application, the purpose or the element in which it could imply to extra territoriality and we do not subscribe to that. Madam Chair, we still face difficulty in understanding the rationale of transposing or even citing Paragraph 4 from Article 23 to now Article 24. We believe that there is no need of this paragraph to be employed because international cooperation is not only subjected to this but there are established principles through which we cooperate and those are well established and there is no need to use it again and it adds to redundancy. Having said that, we are still considering the placement of Paragraph 4 but we find it difficult at this point in time. Madam Chair, after all these initial comments on this and for the other articles we will still provide that. One thing we would like to highlight and that is specifically with regard to Article 14 and 16 if you would allow me and then I would come back later for the different thing. Madam Chair, we are quite frustrated in the manner the negotiation of Article 14 and 16 were conducted. Probably the proposal we have at hand only relates to Paragraph 4 but during the plenary on Friday I precisely recalled a number of countries made a joint statement and one of the countries presented its detailed views regarding the use of term in Paragraph 1 without right. She explained why it is difficult and other countries also pointed out and again our concern is that we do not find any proposal or any further discussion. And with regard to that, secondly, Madam Chair, the limitation sets on sexual exploitation material in paragraph 3 is deviating from the definition set in OPSC article 2. And we find it difficult that without having any discussion, probably a proposal presented to you relates to only paragraph 4. So we would like to highlight that it is not only the concern in paragraph 4, but there are also concerns in paragraph 1 with the use of term without right and with the limitation of scope of child sexual exploitation material described in paragraph 3. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We’ll come back to you later.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Pakistan. Before giving the floor to Vietnam and Egypt and then New Zealand, please, I’d like to hear you on 6-2, Vietnam.
Vietnam:
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to article 6-2, we like to express our view that, as earlier last week, we mentioned in our statement that our preference was not to have 6-2 because we considered that 6-1 was sufficient to guarantee that every human rights online will be protected at the same as off-line. However, as a compromise, we have come to the point that 6-2 will be the text, but we also note that a number of delegations mentioned that the listing of rights is insufficient and we support that position. And also, we also support the Indian proposal to replace the word suppressions. And also, in accordance with the way we drafted 6.1, we would like to modify the words human rights law into human rights obligation just to make sure, as other delegation mentioned, that the word applicables would only refer to the obligation as they have assumed under the convention that there was a party to. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Vietnam. Egypt, please.
Egypt:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And also, I would like to thank you, your team and the Secretariat for trying arduously to satisfy everyone through introducing some new amendments to the text that we have and the conflictual paragraphs or articles that are still pending. Madam Chair, on Article 6.2, Egypt has delivered a statement on behalf of 38 countries in the room. CARICOM, other countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Cameroon, and other countries have objected to including a list in Paragraph 2 of Article 6. I think this is a considerable number of states. Their position is not taken into consideration. But let me say why we object to that, Madam Chair. International human rights law is already established. We’re not establishing a new international human rights law. Let me read to you Paragraph 3 of UNGA Resolution 60-251, which established the Human Rights Council. So this is the modality upon which… the Human Rights Council, which is the main body to tackle human rights in addition to the third committee, was established and was dictated to work on, reaffirming further that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent, and mutually reinforcing and that all human rights must be treated in a fair and equal manner on the same footing and with the same emphasis. Do you think that this language, Madam Chair, satisfy these principles upon which the Human Rights Council was established? Madam Chair, the list does not only include freedom of expression, it includes the right to life, the right to development, and those rights are equally affected by cybercrime. So we do not see much change introduced to this text through adding and in a manner consistent. I don’t know what is the legal implication or what is the difference between in accordance and in a manner consistent. What kind of addition does this include? And this is one of the questions that we also have. Madam Chair, some of those rights entail responsibilities and the duties that are enshrined by existing international legal instruments on human rights. And of those rights are to be mentioned in the text, those duties and responsibilities have also to be highlighted in the text. So we seek your indulgence to reconsider 6-2. Madam Chair, you are our chair here. You’re the one who prepared this text for us. And for us to change the text, we need two-thirds majority. You will put the text in a motion for the room to apply, so we need you to be fair. If we are to enlist, we need to enlist all rights that are affected by this convention, and we need to enlist them with the context they have under existing international human rights law. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. As I said at the start of my presentation of the paper, this is a basis for discussion. So what I expect from you is not long speeches justifying certain positions or providing rationale as to human rights and various stipulations in existing texts. What I’m looking for is specific proposals from you. I have proposed a paper which contains ways of making these paragraphs acceptable to all. Every time a delegate takes the floor says how many delegations have supported this or that position. It’s not about two-thirds, it’s about consensus. So we’re trying to reach consensus. So to list a large number of countries is fine, and to refer to two-thirds to make sure that your position is reflected in the convention. But what I’m looking for from you is specific suggestions, specific language. I have this and in a manner consistent with applicable international human rights law. From my point of view, when we say in accordance, and when we say consistent, and when we say applicable international human rights law, we have All of these elements, which mean, as I see it, that all existing human rights provisions should be respected. So Egypt, I’m looking to you to propose something specific that could meet with consensus and be adopted by this committee. I’m totally in your hands, no problem. Every delegation here has every right to make a proposal, and if we have the best proposal that can bring everyone together and help us reach consensus, it would be great. I’m not at all angry or annoyed in any way. This morning, I was very happy to note how many countries have actively participated in the informals and made really every effort to help us reach consensus. I thank everyone, and I thank the Latin American group for this very important support. But a number of issues remain on the table that cause concerns, and we need to positively engage and resolve these. I have New Zealand, but I’m asking Egypt to please think of a specific proposal. New Zealand to be followed by Mauritania. But before I give you the floor, again, please come up with specific proposals. New Zealand.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Chair. We appreciate the efforts you and your team have put in over the weekend to develop this proposal. We appreciate how hard you and Taha have worked, and that you are looking to make a genuine attempt to help us find consensus. But I want to be clear in response to some of the views that we’ve just heard, there’s no country or group of countries who gets to have a monopoly on unhappiness here. And I will do my best here to be constructive, Chair, because, as I say, we appreciate the very difficult task you have. Just a brief comment on the package, sorry, I won’t use the word package, but the proposal as a whole. In our view, there are steps backwards on some of the elements compared to your previous texts. We see some backsliding on key safeguards provisions, and while at the same time, some of the issues that we had trouble accepting around the protocol remain very much similar to what we saw before. And we note that some of the other concerns around Article 4 aren’t addressed here, nor some of the proposals that were made that had a lot of support, for example, the political offence grants for refusal. But I will seek to focus on what’s in front of us here, Chair. On Article 6.2, I can be very brief, because we do prefer your original text. We will consider your proposal, but I just note it’s 4 a.m. in New Zealand, Chair, and so we would need a little time. But as an initial reaction, I think we would prefer your original text. I do have views on Article 24 as well, but I understand at the moment we’re just talking about Article 6.2, so I’ll come back to that at a later point. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you very much. Russia?
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. And many thanks for your efforts to try and find solutions. It is a complicated situation. As you asked, I will focus for now on Article 6.2. We do have additional comments on other parts of your proposal. The additional protocols, Article 35, and then at a later stage we will also address the issue of using the word suppression in several articles. articles, but coming back to Article 6, Paragraph 2, I’d like to join the position of Iran and India and a number of delegations, and let me note a very convincing statement by the Distinguished Representative of Egypt. Madam Chair, you said that a situation might emerge where we would be compelled to see whether or not two-thirds of members support this or that proposal, but let me put it in another way. Is there one-third that objects? Given the numbers we’ve heard, this one-third that does not support certain proposals, and here we’re talking about objections to the language of 6-2, we do have that one-third objecting. Instead of the membership list of the United Nations, if it ever came to a vote, even taking into account that not everyone will be in the room, I don’t think we’ll get the required majority. Russia supported the joint statement proposed by Egypt on behalf of 37 countries and noted that the CARICOM suggestion is reasonable, the suggestion that we refrain from listing specific rights. Let me point to one human right that Egypt has mentioned, the right to life. For example, in our comments in the third and sixth sessions, we spoke about ways to lead children to suicide, for example. That is undermining the right to life, a very basic right. Again, if we are to try and reach consensus, let me note one thing. In the language proposed by Madam Chair, which language has a negative connotation in our view? Again, if we don’t list specific human rights, then it can happen that we are referring to the suppression of human rights in accordance with international human rights law. For fundamental freedoms, then we, consistent with international human rights law. If we remove the list of rights, then we get a negative connotation, as we see it. The word suppression is translated into Russian in the same way, as I understand, it’s translated into French and Arabic. It’s harder. It’s more aggressive in a way. So talking about specific proposals that you’ve asked for, I think. India’s proposal is good. Instead of suppression, say restriction. Thank you. This was my comment on 6-2. I’ll stop here, but as I said, I will have more comments to make on other suggestions made by Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Mauritania.
Mauritania:
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, we would like to thank you for the efforts made by you and your team to reach this, to reach consensus. We support the representative of Egypt. Referring to the statement made on this paragraph, we would like to suggest the following. Removing the list of rights and replacing suppression with restriction. So we support the Indian proposal. I thank you.
Chair:
Shukran. Thank you. The floor is to Egypt.
Egypt:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me start by saying that our support and appreciation of your efforts is not, is impeccable, is not at question. And when we try to introduce new language or fix something that we see inconsistent with existing international law, this is not against the chair. This is an international convention which we are keen to have and to have it balanced and to make sure that it’s consistent with our existing obligations. Madam Chair, we have in the room here heard one proposal. by CARICOM and many other countries to delete the list in Paragraph 2. And I understand that this is non-consensual, and that’s why you’re trying to find the language to fix this. And let me propose to you a language to fix this. Of course, the proposal by Japan, the word suppression in human rights, is not existent. If you open any of the eight treaties of human rights, including the contractual treaties and the work of the working groups, you will not find the term suppression of human rights. You will find restriction, violation. So this is just a jargon issue that needs to be fixed, and we support India on this. On the list, if we’re going to have a list, Madam Chair, we need to see the right to life and right to development in that list. These are two important rights that are affected by cybercrimes, not less than freedom of religion or freedom of expression, and both of them are essential, and the freedom of expression is essential to many of the developing countries, and I think including the rights to life and development are essential if we’re going to have a list. Two, some of these rights are derogable. There are duties and responsibilities entailing to protect others’ reputation, national interest, national health, and national security. Actually, this applies on freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, and association. So I propose that we reflect this in the text, and I will tell you my proposal in a dictation speed. After the word association, assembly and association, comma, the exercise of some of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities in accordance with applicable international human rights law. I am not inventing anything. This is the ICCPR. And this is the language in the ICCPR. And it’s not complete. I did not mention why. Protection of reputation and it’s just to show that existing law, how it treats those rights and how those rights are supposed to be applied by governments. And not to take them out of context. So the language that I’m proposing here is the existing human rights law. I am not inventing anything. I’m not proposing something strange. I am just balancing the language here if we’re going to have a list of crimes. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you. Egypt, please get in touch with delegations. Those that have been concerned with the existing text of Article 6.2. And others, please contact Egypt and try to reach consensus and come back to the committee with a consensus. Once again, I’m not at all angry. We’re just looking for the best language. And if you have better language, great. My only desire and my only purpose here is to reach consensus. Text that would be acceptable to all. So, don’t hesitate. If you have a better proposal, if you think you have a better language, I encourage you to share it. I’m not at all angry, and I’d be grateful if you help us reach consensus. So, on this paragraph two, for the moment, we have India supported by a number of delegations suggesting that, instead of suppression, we say restriction. And Egypt has just proposed an additional phrase, after-end association. Could you please read it again, so that everyone can take note of your proposal? Egypt, please take the floor and read your proposal once again, to make sure everyone has the exact text noted.
Egypt:
Madam Chair, thank you so much, and I thank you for not being angry, because this is – you got my message that it’s not against you. But Madam Chair, for me to go around trying to find consensus on this is not easy. And this language in Article 6.2 is not consensual as well. So we don’t have consensus on this, and we don’t have consensus on my proposal. So it’s – I would seek your indulgence in this, probably if you need to organize a meeting for those parties who actually propose many things in that, that would be more helpful than asking one country to go try to strike consensus, because the text on the table right now, on the screen right now, is also non-consensual. Madam Chair, my proposal is to add the rights to life and to development in the list of rights. Article 6.2, and also after Assembly and Association, comma, the exercise of some of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities in accordance with applicable international human rights law. The exercise of some of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities in accordance with applicable international human rights law. And I thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Many thanks, Egypt, Venezuela and then Canada.
Venezuela:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Well, briefly, I’d like to reiterate our support to your leadership. In principle, we know it’s not easy to come to these proposals and craft such complex ones, and we’d just like to start by recognizing that for our part. Secondly, I understood that you had a meeting this morning with the Latin American group and the Caribbean. I’m not sure if it was a formal meeting through the chair of the group or in any event. We didn’t receive an invitation. I just wanted to clarify that in case it might be possible to reproduce the results. Third, Venezuela agrees with the proposals that were put forth by the Delegation of India and the comments made by our distinguished colleagues from Egypt, Iran, and Russia. With regard to this paragraph, we understand that a general wording might include this, and in any event, this list could include other rights, right? And we could have a much more extensive debate. The right to development, for example, as mentioned by the Distinguished Ambassador of Iran. The right to peace, yeah? The right to life. And then, of course, we could keep going on and look at the impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, for instance. Just to say that this is an instrument is not to go into human rights in detail. And that’s why we prefer a general statement here, a general declaration. I’ve included the topic here of the word suppression or not. Ultimately, Madam Chair, I know we’re not talking about the next section, Article 24. I know that. But taking advantage of the fact that I have the floor, I just wanted to say that for our delegation, and we’ve said this repeatedly since the beginning, Paragraph 24.1, subparagraph 1, which attaches conditions to someone, a country, defining how another country fulfills human rights or not, respects them or not, seems unacceptable to us. It’s setting a terrible precedent and taking up space. So when we move on to that item, I just wanted to invite us to reach compromised language on this. Because for that particular subitem, it’s just not acceptable. Thank you. There’s no proposal of compromise in that regard. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Canada.
Canada:
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, my comments are similar to what was expressed by New Zealand 6-2. As it was written in the Rev 3, it was already a compromise proposal. We had, you know, something much stronger being discussed in the previous AHCs, and it has come to this very succinct paragraph. And so, we would ask that that be retained as an important offset to the broad scope of elements of this convention. Regarding your proposal specifically, Madam Chair, we appreciate the proposal very much. As New Zealand said, we strongly prefer the original language, and I think for the reasons that you’ve highlighted when you described it being in there, it’s another additional caveat to what is already a very caveated, at least three times caveated end of the paragraph. But we will continue to look at that proposal. We will continue to engage in good faith on that proposal to try and find consensus. The other proposals that have been raised in the room cause us significant concern, and so we don’t think that we should be going down that road again. We’ve broached those issues over and over again in informals, and there has been no convergence on those issues. With respect to the proposals from Egypt, this is already well covered in the end of the paragraph, in accordance with applicable international human rights law includes all the exceptions that exist in international human rights law. We cannot emphasize those exceptions and restrictions here because, again, this is about offsetting the broad scope of the convention and not having a standalone paragraph just for the sake of it. So I think I’ll leave it there, but thank you for the time. Thank you very much.
Chair:
I have on my list Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Australia, Australia-Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Albania, Tanzania, Zambia, Liechtenstein, and the United States and the United Kingdom. Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia:
The interpreter apologizes, but the interpretation from Arabic is not coming through. If the speaker could wait just one second, please. I would like again to thank you for your stellar leadership and would like to thank your team for the support provided to us during these meetings. With regard to paragraph two of article six, we agree with states that expressed concern with regard to the narrative of this article in accordance with the statement made by the distinguished representative of Egypt who spoke on behalf of more than 35 states and the statement made by the kingdom as well here and as well as in other informal meetings. Human rights and basic freedoms linked to the context of the convention makes it extremely important for the statements to be general. Our delegation stresses the need for the commitments of states under this paragraph to be in line with our commitments against international law, which are only related to conventions to which states are parties. We would also like to add the phrase to which a member states, as a party, we’d like to add this to the end of the sentence.
Lebanon:
Thank you, Madam Chair. On Article 6, we approve your original text in Draft 3, but we are also flexible and we can support the Indian proposal by replacing suppression with restriction. And thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Malaysia.
Malaysia:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, first and foremost, we would like to express our sincerest appreciation to you, Tahar, and also Brazil for your dedication and commitment in coming up with this proposal, which we understand has endeavored to take into consideration the proposals by member states. And as it may, we would like to reiterate our previous position whereby we proposed for the deletion of Article 6.2, or in the alternative, we have also supported CARICOM’s proposal for the deletion of the Listing of Rights. In this connection, after listening to the proposals put forth, Malaysia would like to respectfully propose revising Article 6.2 to read, nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as permitting restriction of human rights or fundamental freedoms in accordance and in a manner consistent with the obligations of the state parties under the applicable international human rights treaties and their respective domestic laws. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Australia.
Australia:
Thank you very much, Chair. I do want to extend Australia’s very sincere thanks to you, our Vice-Chair from Brazil, your team and everyone for working over the weekend. It is a thankless task, but you have our sincere thanks. I will try and be brief. We are consulting on this proposal. proposal on Article 6 that you have put forward overnight. Like New Zealand, it is 2.30 in the morning in Australia, so it will take us some time. But also, like New Zealand, our preference is to retain the draft of Article 6.2 as it was set out in your Rev. 3. We see that Article 6 provides some of the guardrails that are needed at a very bare minimum to accommodate the broad scope of our convention. I know that we are not discussing your full proposal right now, but while it is not a package, we do look at the text as a whole. We are disappointed not to see Costa Rica’s proposal to include additional grounds as a safeguard. And we do have some comments on Article 24, because like almost every proposal that we are seeing in this paper, we see that we are moving in a direction that weakens our guardrails rather than strengthening or clarifying them. The additional and various changes that have been proposed this morning by India, Morocco, Egypt, and Vietnam would, in our opinion, risk reopening and reducing the guardrails in Article 6, and we have very significant concerns with those. Legally speaking, the proposal just made from Egypt, we understand, would in fact propose quite a significant reinterpretation of international human rights law as special duties and responsibilities attached to a specific right and not to all rights, so we would not be able to support that on legal grounds. I have heard many states over the past two years say that the broad scope of international cooperation is a very high priority, and in order to accommodate that position, rather than looking at limiting the scope of international cooperation or limiting the definition of serious crime or limiting the sharing of electronic evidence, we have instead focused on finding adequate safeguards that can accommodate that very broad scope that is so important to many, and for Australia, 6-2 is. absolutely essential to accommodate that broad scope. So any reduction or amendment to the safeguards that moves to weakening them, for us that really does reopen that can of worms and we would rather stay away from that. So to summarize, we prefer the original Rev. 3 proposal on 6.2. We do not support the proposals put forward this morning for additional text and we are consulting capital on the new proposal you have put forward and will come back in on Article 24 when we come to that discussion. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Nicaragua.
Nicaragua:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Nicaragua would like to thank you and your team for all of your efforts and Brazil and we’d like to thank you for this proposal. However, Nicaragua would like to express its position and it cannot support this wording in paragraph two of Article 6. Nicaragua has always been in agreement with making a reference to respecting human rights in this convention in keeping with what’s set forth in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. We reference this because many other states, in addition to us, have said this. We don’t think this paragraph is necessary. With a view to consensus, we’re prepared to study the proposal of either Egypt or Venezuela to include in the list of rights, the right to life, the right to development, or the impact of unilateral coercive measures. But for the time being, Nicaragua would maintain its position and request the deletion of it. Madam Chair, to conclude, Nicaragua would like to clarify that our delegation, as a member state of GRULAC, did not have any knowledge of, nor did it participate in any meeting on behalf of GRULAC. And in that regard, we understand that that meeting was actually with just a few states from Latin America and the Caribbean, not the official group. Thank you.
Chair:
Pakistan?
Pakistan:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Since you have invited concrete proposals, we would like to express one of the proposals, like others. So our proposal would read, nothing in this convention shall be interpreted as permitting restriction of human rights or fundamental freedoms except for those specifically provided for and are consistent with international human rights law. So three issues which we already expressed, replacement of restriction in place of suppression, removal of listing, and explicitly citing that, as Distinguished Ambassador of Egypt mentioned, responsibility or the limitation clause which is mentioned in international human rights law. So our proposal is to keep the language as short and as clear as possible. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Pakistan. Russia, please.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, let me align myself with the Distinguished Representatives of Iran, Venezuela, and Nicaragua in terms of inclusivity in the work on human rights issues. The approach proposed by the Distinguished Representative of Egypt with regard to an additional informal process to make sure that all countries that want to express their opinions in terms of human rights issues are included in the process. I think that’s a very important point. I think that’s a very important point. of 6.2 and in general human rights issues should be reflected in the convention in order that they can take part in the process. Colleagues, there is a need for that. Each country has its own priorities in terms of specific human rights and it’s important to be inclusive more than ever. We cannot approach the work on human rights, if I may say, in a manner that treats it as a smorgasbord, smorgasbord, no reflection on Swedish representatives of culture, even though it is a Swedish word. We cannot pick and choose human rights and saying that those particular rights should be in the convention. Either we list a large number of human rights that are important to specific delegations or, as Kerry Combs suggested, we remove the list altogether. That may be a solution. Let me also draw everyone’s attention to something that the representative of Egypt has suggested. When he referred to duties and responsibilities, that is a direct reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I’m also prepared to consider the suggestion just made by Pakistan. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Tanzania, please.
Tanzania:
Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, my delegation commends your effort to find consensus given the divergences of views amongst delegations on the pending provisions of the UDTC. My delegation reiterates its commitment to reaching a consensus, noting that all delegations must be willing to exercise flexibility and make compromises to the extent possible given the limited time that we all have to finalize the final text. Madam Chair, my delegation also appreciates the commendable work done by vice-chairs in conducting informal consultations which intended to strike a delicate balance between divergent views. Madam Chair, on Article 6, Part 2, my delegation had consistently called for its deletion for being redundant. We have extensively submitted how the UDTC has already taken on board necessary concerns associated with human rights safeguards. During the informal consultations, my delegation expressed its flexibility on the inclusion of if it is coached in a correct manner and consistent with international human rights instruments. In line with this spirit, we reiterate our support for the proposal made by Egypt, Vietnam, CARICOM, and many others by deleting the listed rights and replacing the word suppression with either violation or restriction, as proposed by India. My delegation would have preferred additional language to capture the correct import of human rights and applicable restrictions and duties attached to them as reflected in the international human rights instruments. However, we understand this may move us away from consensus. Therefore, my delegation is of the view that the committee could strike a middle ground by adopting Article 6.2 without the listing. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Zambia.
Zambia:
Madam Chair, thank you so much for the job done over the weekend. I know we’re supposed to be resting, but you went above board to ensure that as we meet today, there is progress being made towards the work before us. So looking at Article 6.2, Madam Chair, Zambia supports that we replace the word suppression with probably infringement and also delete the listed rights, of which it can lead in part. Nothing in this convention shall be interpreted as allowing the infringement of human rights or fundamental freedom. Of course, after deleting these rights in a manner consistent with applicable international human rights law, I submit. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Liechtenstein. Thank you, Liechtenstein.
Liechtenstein:
Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and sincerely thank you for your proposal. on the main pending provisions of the UDTC. And while we really appreciate the work that went into the drafting, Liechtenstein has to state at this point that we are not satisfied with this proposal. The proposed changes we have, in our opinion, lost the balance of the text we worked so hard on. And we have stated since day one that we believe we have reached the absolute minimal standard with regard to safeguards and human rights standards in the UDTC. Not only have our calls for inclusion of the proposal by Costa Rica in Article 40, Paragraph 21, and New Zealand in Article 35 been ignored, but the key provisions 6.2 and 24 have been altered and weakened once again. I want to specifically address 6.2, and I want to remind the room that a stronger version of 6.2 originally was proposed by over 70 member states. It has been changed, altered, to accommodate those states that have voiced concerns. And in the name of compromise, Liechtenstein was ready to agree to this language. We cannot agree to the proposed changes that were made again. And we call for the retention of your original proposal on Article 6.2. And I want to highlight that the wide scope of the Convention must be accompanied by equivalent safeguards. And the proposed changes would alter this delicate balance. We cannot go along with that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, United States.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like to thank you and your team and Tahar and all. the those that chaired the informals for all their hard work last week and over the weekend. We have little time left in the process and we do see a path forward for us to complete this convention this week by consensus. We have remaining concerns, but we’re also optimistic. With changes and suggestions that we’ll make throughout the day, I think we sense we can get there, specifically on 6-2. As we’ve noted on many an occasion, Article 6-2, as it appears in the UDTC, is and remains the essential element for our support for a key element in this instrument. That is a broad scope which includes evidence sharing for serious crimes. They are linked. In your proposal, it has been revised to restate what we believe is already clear in the original version, and that is that the convention does not permit the suppression of existing international human rights as those rights are established under applicable international human rights law. We will consult with capital on your proposal, but I would like to make clear that we cannot support some of the other proposals that have been made this morning in relation to 6-2. And the bottom line is we have no flexibility on the substantive elements of Article 6.2. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Switzerland.
Switzerland:
Madam Chair, we’d like to take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Chair and Tahar, for all of your efforts. We understand that this task that you’ve undertaken is not always easy, and Switzerland would confirm that we believe you will lead us to safe harbor successfully in this difficult task. Now, with regard to these articles under discussion, they are greatly important to us, and for the success of our important work, as we have indicated since the beginning of this process, strong safeguards are a vital and necessary element to being able to accept the Convention. The proposal that you put forth in this updated version of the text already reflects a minimal approach. We would have preferred to strengthen it with more proposals relating to Paragraph 21 or Article 24 or Article 35, but our proposals have not been reflected in the text. Having said that, after a first review of the specific proposals put forth on Articles 6 and 24, we see no possibility of being able to make additional concessions on these. We observe with concern that the new proposals are actually taking us backwards rather than bringing us closer to consensus. We would therefore prefer to stay with the updated text of Rev. 3. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, says the Chair. I’ll be the last speaker for this morning.
Norway:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would also thank you and your team and the Secretariat and the Vice-Chairs for your efforts and hard work during the weekend to help us to find consensus. Norway would like to echo what was said by New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Liechtenstein, the U.S. and Switzerland regarding your proposals as a whole. As previously stated by Norway, the Rev. 3 drafted by you, Madam Chair, provides us with a minimum of safeguards in order for Norway to accept the wide scope for elections. electronic evidence under intrusive procedural measures. We therefore cannot accept the suggestion to amend the language in Article 6.2 as provided by India, Egypt, Malaysia, and Pakistan. As already stated by other delegations, this article is essential for our Convention. We are still considering your proposal, Madam Chair. But at this moment, we cannot – we prefer to keep the original language in the Ref 3. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Norway. This afternoon, we will resume at 3 p.m. in the same room. And we have on our list Namibia, Mexico, the European Union, Chile, Singapore, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Kingdom, Austria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Africa, Japan, Costa Rica, Georgia, and Vietnam – and Yemen – and Moldavia. Right. The list is not closed yet for this afternoon. We’ll see. We will continue then discussing provisions related to human rights safeguards. And I hope that we’ll have the time to look at other parts of this proposal, because this afternoon at 6 p.m., I will be transferring to the Secretariat, as I told you at the beginning, the final text, because we need translation services, and especially we need to respect the well-known rule of 48 hours before adoption. So that’s our program for this afternoon. Bon appétit, and we’ll see you this afternoon.
Speakers
A
Australia
Speech speed
185 words per minute
Speech length
533 words
Speech time
173 secs
CV
Cabo Verde
Speech speed
65 words per minute
Speech length
28 words
Speech time
26 secs
C
Canada
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
334 words
Speech time
152 secs
C
Chair
Speech speed
109 words per minute
Speech length
5802 words
Speech time
3189 secs
DR
Democratic Republic of Congo
Speech speed
118 words per minute
Speech length
47 words
Speech time
24 secs
E
Egypt
Speech speed
136 words per minute
Speech length
1263 words
Speech time
558 secs
EU
European Union
Speech speed
165 words per minute
Speech length
192 words
Speech time
70 secs
I
India
Speech speed
131 words per minute
Speech length
179 words
Speech time
82 secs
I
Iran
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
859 words
Speech time
391 secs
L
Lebanon
Speech speed
176 words per minute
Speech length
39 words
Speech time
13 secs
L
Liechtenstein
Speech speed
143 words per minute
Speech length
390 words
Speech time
164 secs
M
Malaysia
Speech speed
152 words per minute
Speech length
169 words
Speech time
67 secs
M
Mauritania
Speech speed
130 words per minute
Speech length
128 words
Speech time
59 secs
M
Morocco
Speech speed
130 words per minute
Speech length
197 words
Speech time
91 secs
N
Nepal
Speech speed
164 words per minute
Speech length
23 words
Speech time
8 secs
NZ
New Zealand
Speech speed
200 words per minute
Speech length
476 words
Speech time
143 secs
N
Nicaragua
Speech speed
172 words per minute
Speech length
252 words
Speech time
88 secs
N
Nigeria
Speech speed
131 words per minute
Speech length
56 words
Speech time
26 secs
N
Norway
Speech speed
144 words per minute
Speech length
200 words
Speech time
83 secs
P
Pakistan
Speech speed
134 words per minute
Speech length
1115 words
Speech time
498 secs
PN
Papua New Guinea
Speech speed
85 words per minute
Speech length
13 words
Speech time
9 secs
RF
Russian Federation
Speech speed
108 words per minute
Speech length
1579 words
Speech time
877 secs
SA
Saudi Arabia
Speech speed
129 words per minute
Speech length
208 words
Speech time
97 secs
S
Switzerland
Speech speed
134 words per minute
Speech length
267 words
Speech time
119 secs
T
Tanzania
Speech speed
142 words per minute
Speech length
287 words
Speech time
121 secs
UK
United Kingdom
Speech speed
182 words per minute
Speech length
171 words
Speech time
56 secs
US
United States
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
462 words
Speech time
180 secs
V
Venezuela
Speech speed
129 words per minute
Speech length
416 words
Speech time
193 secs
VC
Vice Chair
Speech speed
125 words per minute
Speech length
2209 words
Speech time
1064 secs
V
Vietnam
Speech speed
133 words per minute
Speech length
363 words
Speech time
164 secs
Y
Yemen
Speech speed
129 words per minute
Speech length
49 words
Speech time
23 secs
Z
Zambia
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
134 words
Speech time
59 secs
Related event
Reconvened concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime Convention
29 Jul 2024 - 9 Aug 2024
New York