(13th 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
6 Aug 2024 10:00h - 13:00h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Debate intensifies over criminalization clauses in child protection convention
During the session, delegates from various countries discussed contentious issues related to Articles 14 and 16 of the proposed convention, which address the criminalization of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. The term “without right” in Article 14 was a focal point of debate, with some delegations arguing that it is essential for law enforcement and judicial authorities to handle CSAM legally for investigative and protective purposes. Without this phrase, professionals such as investigators, prosecutors, and judges would risk criminal prosecution for handling CSAM in the course of their duties.
Other delegations, including Japan, insisted on the necessity of Paragraph 3 in Article 14, which distinguishes between real and unreal material, arguing that unreal material does not directly infringe on the rights of real children. However, other delegations, such as Iran and the Russian Federation, opposed this distinction, contending that it normalizes criminal conduct against children.
The title and content of Article 16, particularly concerning the term “non-consensual,” were debated. Some delegations proposed changes to the article’s language to reflect domestic laws prohibiting the dissemination of obscene material, regardless of consent. A proposal to add a new Paragraph 6 to Article 16 was put forward, reiterating that the article only sets a minimum standard on prohibited conduct, allowing states to adopt additional measures.
Several delegations, including Iceland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and the European Union, supported the original wording of Articles 14 and 16 as drafted in Rev. 3, also known as the UDTC. They emphasized the importance of these articles in protecting children and victims of privacy violations and highlighted the need for flexibility to account for different domestic legal systems.
The session was scheduled to continue later, with further delegations expected to express their views. The Vice Chair acknowledged the extensive efforts and leadership provided throughout the negotiations and emphasized the importance of reaching a consensus on these critical articles. The list of speakers was long, and the session had to be paused to resume later in the day.
Session transcript
Vice Chair:
Good morning colleagues. Shall we start our session today? I’ll continue coordinating for the remainder of countries who still want to take the floor on the issues of yesterday. So continuing the list of yesterday, we have Tonga, Albania, Vanuatu, El Salvador, Paraguay, Norway, Switzerland, Kiribati, Argentina, and Laos. And we would very much like to finish the discussion, so please be brief and let’s start. We’ll start by Tonga and then Albania. Tonga, if you are ready, you have the floor.
Tonga:
Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everyone. We’d like to thank the Chair for the tireless efforts made at producing the proposal. On Article 6.2, my delegation has always been supportive of a scope that allows for the sharing of electronic evidence for serious crimes, and understands that in order to have this in our Convention, for many states, strong human rights and safeguards need to be in place. In previous sessions, we preferred a general provision for Article 6.2 without any listing. However, in the spirit of consensus, my delegation is willing to support the list in Rev. 3, and have supported that last week. Chair, we therefore maintain our support of the wording of 6.2 in your Rev. 3. On Article 64, we supported in the previous session, and again last week, the increase of ratifications to 60. We still prefer this. However, in the spirit of reaching consensus, we can support 50 ratifications. proposed by the distinguished delegate from the Dominican Republic, if that garners consensus. As for OP5, Chair, to be clear, we did not support a supplementary protocol, which was our position in the previous session, because we saw no need for it. However, if a supplementary protocol is to be negotiated, it should nonetheless allow for the meaningful participation of developing states such as mine. Chair, the revised draft which formed the basis of our negotiation last week and the further revision in this proposal still does not adequately take into account the human and resource constraints of smaller states like Tonga, which should be a major consideration if we are to meaningfully participate in immediate negotiations. As highlighted by many states yesterday, the timeline allows for immediate negotiations, and so my delegation will not be in a position to meaningfully participate if this is the case. We therefore support the proposed edit to OP5 that was put forward yesterday by the distinguished delegate of Fiji to replace the words no later than with not earlier than. On OP6BIS, we thank you, Chair, for the inclusion of this and support its inclusion. However, we see no benefit in allocating funds to support developing countries’ participation if they are not in a position to participate or to meaningfully participate. This is why, again, we support Fiji’s proposal on OP5. Finally, on the title, we prefer the short title of UN Convention Against Cybercrime, but in the spirit of reaching consensus, my delegation can accept the title in the proposal. Thank you, Chair.
Vice Chair:
Albania, you have the floor.
Albania:
Thank you, Chair. So you know that all these days we have expressed our statements on making all efforts for coming up in a consensus for all this part of Convention. So in reference to the Article 6, we support the returning of the paragraph as it is. We support also the second paragraph of the Article and the retaining of the term suppression as it is. Refer to the 24, the paragraph 4, the additional of the second paragraph we do not support. On paragraph 4, the second one, we support the paragraph but with the proposal of New Zealand. Regarding to the additional protocol, we address the concern that for us it’s too early to come up in this proposal, but to this new additional protocol, but referring to our efforts for the solution, then we would like to say it is for the timing. It is premature, but we support the suggestion, the proposal of Fiji, Colombia and other states that it could be replaced earlier with not before two years. As regarding the prejudgment, we are aware that there is no common sense yet, but we do support the… the proposal of CARICOM with a view of the considering liberation of. In a sense of the participation and ratification, we support the proposal of Mexico to increase their ratification threshold to 60 parties. Referring to the title, we support the short title, UN Convention Against Cybercrime. A reference to the need of the definition, we do not support definition of the cybercrime. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Albania. Next, Vanuatu and then El Salvador. Vanuatu, you have the floor.
Vanuatu:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, for giving us the floor. And a very good morning to you, your team, and all delegations. Mr. Vice Chair, we would like to support the compromise proposal of 50 ratifications for the treaty to come into force by the distinguished delegation of Dominican Republic. You will remember the Pacific Islands Forum statement from last week, where we supported increasing the number of ratifications needed to 60. It is simply not possible for small island developing states to ratify the convention with the same speed as larger economies. As well as engage with the rest of the process at the same time. My delegation believes that 50 represents a compromise between the various views in the room, and we are willing to show flexibility and in the spirit of reaching a consensus, while we would prefer for the number to be 60. Mr. Vice Chair, my delegation also support the proposals from the distinguished delegations of US, Fiji, and others on the AHC reconvening no sooner than two years following the adoption of the treaty in the General Assembly. and it would start with drafting rules of procedure. We should also not prejudice the outcome of those deliberations. In regards to the title of the convention, my delegation continues to support a shorter and clearer title, UN Convention Against Cybercrime. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Vanuatu. El Salvador, then Paraguay. El Salvador, you have the floor.
El Salvador:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair, for granting us the floor. My statement will be very brief. El Salvador has previously indicated that 60 ratifications is a representative number of the membership of the UN. However, in the spirit of trying to close the gaps that still exist and working towards consensus, we think that the proposal of the Dominican Republic is very positive to reduce that number to 50 states. We believe that the number of 50 states might address the concerns of those that want a higher number or those of us who want a lower number of ratifications for the entry into force. Turning to the supplementary protocols, we welcome the concerns of a number of delegations that have been expressed in this room with regard to prejudging future content of protocols of the convention. The small amount of time that the convention will have been operating will be very short in order to figure out what are the gaps that need to be addressed and what content is required for the protocols. We would also like to express our concern about financial implications. For my country, the current situation of a lack of resources is a The reality that needs to be addressed, this article in the resolution cannot be operationalized without some details about the possible budgetary implications. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, says the Chair. PARAGUAY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
Paraguay:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. We are speaking again. I would just like to say that we have expressed our views and insisted on the consensus and we are running out of time. We will only achieve results if we say that we can’t live with a certain proposal, which is basically what a consensus is. We can deal with most of the document that was circulated at 1 a.m. in the morning on Monday, which shows the untiring work of you and the other team, and we very much appreciate that. We support it. We are also listening to proposals, some of which cannot be accepted, the proposal of India on the change to the word restriction instead of repression. We think it’s very helpful. If we can’t restrict, we can repress. Perhaps it would offer more guarantees or safeguards. Now turning to paragraph 4, subparagraph A, we would support what other delegations have said and we would like to propose adding themselves, the word themselves or themself. We need to make it as clear as possible that it’s about themselves, their own children, not other children. That way it cannot be interpreted in any other way in terms of practices. Also on subparagraph B, we believe that the text is not clear enough either and it might lead to confusion. We would need to eliminate the activities that are included. Technology is so easy to use to transfer information, and storage of this kind of images is the first link in the criminal chain. Also, subparagraph B, it’s not clear enough that this is about minors. The current wording excludes crimes due to the origin of the image, not due to the person who has it. If we want to safeguard our children, we need to make sure that crimes are excluded based on this condition of being a minor of age, and not just because of the origin, illegal origin of the picture or image. We understand that there are a number of caveats to this paragraph. When we do investigation, we need to look at the victim, and the nationality, and the age of consent. That would not be acceptable and would reduce our ability to combat this kind of crime. So, from my delegation, it would not be appropriate also to exclude crimes because this underlying conduct is illegal, is not sufficient. The issue is not just this underlying activity or behavior. What we need to do is what we can to protect minors and protect them from abusers and abuse. Here we are advocating for clearer wording in subparagraph A, saying depicting themselves instead of them, and B, we have to make sure that it shows that it’s addressing minor and the impact of the network in this regard. So, we reiterate, while the paragraph has an interpretive note, Paraguay reserves the right to make at least an interpretive declaration of this paragraph. Now, with regard to the supplementary protocol, we agree with operative paragraph 5. We don’t agree with it, but we could live with it. We have not been able to participate fully because of a lack of resources. We participated in all sessions due to the donations of other countries, and we’re very grateful for that. And that’s why in OP-5 we cannot live with the word unnecessary safeguards after additional crimes as was proposed by the delegation of Chile. With regard to our entry into force, we can live with any number between 40 and 60. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
You touched the issue of 14 and 16 yesterday, Rwanda also touched these issues. We took note. But I just wanted to remind the room that we are still finishing the other issues and we’ll go on to 14 and 16, but note we have been taking note of your proposals. Now next, Norway and then Switzerland. Norway, you have the floor.
Norway:
Thank you, Chair. Good morning, colleagues. Norway spoke on Article 6 yesterday, and we will now address the remaining issues except Article 14 and 16, which we will come back to later today. Norway has continuously stressed the importance of Article 24 in this convention. We have voiced strong support for the UK proposal to be included in Article 24 and can therefore support the proposed Paragraph 4 in this article. However, like many others, we believe that Article 24.4 should refer to the entire Chapter 5 of the convention. We reiterate that these safeguards does not hamper international cooperation but enhance it. When it comes to the suggestion in Paragraph 2 of Article 24, Norway cannot support the addition in this paragraph for the same reasons given by the distinguished delegates from the United States and Australia yesterday. To take wording from the interpretive note to the Convention does not provide us with clarity, but confusion. We can, however, support the suggestion to delete the first paragraph of the sentence in para 2 as proposed by New Zealand. Norway would also add our voice in support for the proposal made by Costa Rica regarding to include a grounds for refusal for political offence in this Convention. Regarding protocols, Norway share the concern on the timeframe, inclusiveness and prejudging the outcome as stated by many delegations. Though the Chair’s proposal address some of these concerns, it is not sufficient. We find the proposals made yesterday by the United States, Fiji and the UK a step in the right direction and can support them. Regarding the entry into force, we support the proposal from Mexico to increase the number of ratifications to 60, but we can also consider the proposal from the Dominican Republic. Chair, when it comes to the title of the Convention, Norway would, like many other delegations, prefer the short and simple title, which would be the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Norway. Next, Switzerland and then Kiribati. Switzerland, you have the floor.
Switzerland:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. We already spoke to Article 6 and 24 and will briefly present our views on OP5 of the draft resolution as well as on the title of the Convention and on matters on ratification. Like others, we do not recommend to immediately establish a binding timeframe for negotiations on a protocol before the Convention has put into practice and before we have all benefited from mutual implementation experiences. In addition to concerns regarding the timeline and related necessary resources, as eloquently explained by Fiji and also mentioned by Tonga and others, we believe that the need for a supplementary protocol should be determined by facts and practice demonstrated through implementation of the modern Convention. However, we heard that the issue of a supplementary protocol is very important for a number of delegations. Therefore, with regard to the timeline and in a spirit of compromise, we support the proposal presented by Fiji. On the title of the Convention, We have not heard convincing reasons that would speak against a short and precise title. We therefore prefer UN Convention Against Cybercrime. And with regard to the entry into force of the Convention, we support the proposal by Mexico to define this at 60 member states. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Switzerland. Kiribati, and then Argentina. Kiribati, you have the floor.
Kiribati:
Mr. Vice-Chair, my intervention will be very brief, and I would like to thank the Chair and yourself and your team for your exemplary guidance for the committee. On Article 6, Kiribati supports the prior version of the text on Rev. 3 of the draft text, and I would like to register that position with the Chair. On OB 5 and 6, on supplementary protocols, Kiribati, like Fiji, New Zealand, and other states, including Tonga, would like to reiterate our concern about the inclusion of the text no later than two years after the adoption of the Convention, with reasons elaborated by my distinguished colleagues from Fiji, Tonga, and others. Kiribati would like to see a text allowing sufficient time for states to implement the Convention. As such, Kiribati would like to support a text proposed by Fiji of the inclusion of not earlier than, so that it sets a minimum time frame that is sensible for states to implement the Convention first, and then at a later stage we can start to negotiate and discuss supplementary protocols. Moreover, I would like to get more clarity on timing, as was raised by our distinguished delegates from Australia and Fiji in relation to OB 6. This will ensure that a small state like my country, Kiribati, with constrained resources can also participate effectively in these processes, but the timing will be critical. As such, our proposal for OP5 will ensure that we do not have so many meetings on the first year if we are to stick with the chair proposal of one year to convene the prepared rules and procedure of the conference. For entry into force, Kiribati, alongside the other 13 Pacific Island Forum members, wish to reiterate that position to set the threshold of 60 states for the convention to enter into force. So that position remains the same. However, in the spirit of reaching consensus, Kiribati is willing to support 50 states for entry into force, but no less than that. Kiribati’s position remains the same on the shorter title of the convention on cybercrime. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Kiribati. We have Argentina and then Laos. Our list of speakers – we’d like to close the list of speakers. The last one asking for the floor is Georgia. If you want to take the floor, please request the floor now. Next, Argentina and then Laos. Argentina, you have the floor.
Argentina:
Gracias. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Argentine delegation appreciates all the chair’s proposals and the efforts to achieve the necessary consensus and address all the sensitivities of states, without prejudice to the fact that we are still in consultations with the capital. We’d like to make some general comments about this proposal and some specifics on Article 6. A general comment – since the beginning of this session, We have indicated the importance of the text that you proposed that would have minor modifications – and here I refer to Rev. 3 of the document – that would have as few modifications as minor as possible, and that it meet the needs of last resort of some delegations. We understood that the text was very balanced and worthwhile, and it was the result of enormous work on your part and the chair and all the delegations over the course of two years of negotiations. And in that sense, we support your work and the document, and we are seeking to be flexible in order to address specific situations, in order to address some of these new specific issues. With regard to a specific comment, we’d like to briefly refer to Article 6 of the Convention, despite the fact that the new proposal of the chair is still being considered in our capital. Notwithstanding that, we believe this article is vital for the Convention, and that’s why we’ve been supporting its inclusion throughout the negotiations. Also, we have supported the original text proposed by the chair in Rev. 3 of the document with the understanding that the chair’s proposal sought to strike a balance between different points of view. This proposal is concluded in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the article. In principle, the drafting of Article 6, as it was drafted in Rev. 3, was acceptable and desirable for all. Without prejudice to that, we understand efforts to achieve consensus, and in that regard, We are now asking capital to consider the new proposal with the amendments proposed there. But they should be limited to these modifications only and be as restrictive as possible in any changes made. So with that, Mr. Chairman, we reserve the right to express further considerations on other proposals coming down the pike later. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Lau and then Israel. Lau, you have the floor.
Lao PDR:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Forgive me, the floor. My delegation commend you and your team for the tireless efforts and dedication to the task that you have proposed. While we know that there are still some divergent views in some certain points, however, we believe that under your leadership, we will be able to address the pending issue. My delegation reiterates our wish that this convention should be adopted with consensus. Mr. Chair, in Article 6, my delegation noted that human rights and this convention are interlinked and protecting human rights is our common responsibility. So that’s my delegation’s support to include human rights safeguards in Article 6.1. But not for Article 6.2, since we are of the view that it is not necessary to elaborate very detail in this convention, because the protecting and protecting specific human rights is already stipulated in respective human rights conventions. We also note that human rights provided in Article 6.2 is only focused on civil and political rights, but not mentioned about the socio-economic and cultural rights, including the right to development. However, for the spirit of compromise, my delegation will be able to go along with 6.2 if the specific… rights proposed in the text are excluded, and the words suppression is deleted, as suggested by our colleague from India. In Article 64, we still want to reiterate that we support 40 thresholds. Mr. Chair, my delegation firmly believes that with the compromise between us, we will definitely be able to adopt this convention at the end of this meeting. I thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Lao. Last on the list of speakers is Vietnam. Next Israel, and then Costa Rica. Israel, you have the floor.
Israel:
Good morning and thank you, Chair. We have presented our views on Article 6. Now I’ll go and give some brief remarks on the remaining articles. As for Article 24, we support the U.K. suggestion and we can support the text that has been presented in the revised article. As for Article 64, the number of ratifying member states, we hold that 60 is the proper and the right number, like many other member states that have suggested this number, although this is, in our view, the best number. We can show some flexibility and maybe adjust to the number of 50, but again, this would be the minimum. As for the title, we believe that it should remain accurate, concise, and reasonable. We shouldn’t use any other option but UN Convention Against Cybercrime, which this is the actual meaning of what we have been doing in the last two and a half years. We don’t feel confined by any mandate or any other suggestion. We believe this is the right title for this convention. As for OP5 and OP6, additional protocols again here we share the concern that was presented by many many member states US, UK and many many others about the prejudgment, the inclusivity and we haven’t been convinced yet and we listen very carefully to everyone that was advocating for any additional protocols that there is a need for one. Nobody has managed to convince us yet but in order to continue this sense of flexibility and trying to help reaching consensus we can adhere to some of these suggestions that were brought here but again the main focus as many member states have alluded is to advance and implement the original convention and give the member states that will join the time they need to adjust and to prepare their local, the domestic legislation and their adherence to this convention and therefore to postpone the beginning of any kind of a discussion on any protocol as far as possible in two years sounds reasonable and thank you chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you Israel. Costa Rica and then Russian Federation. Costa Rica you have the floor.
Costa Rica:
Good morning Mr. Vice Chair. I’d like to express Costa Rica’s position on the proposed modifications of operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution. As we’ve expressed before Costa Rica believes that it’s not necessary at this time to establish a process for negotiating supplementary protocols. It’s very premature. And just to recall, many delegations find themselves in a situation of negotiating a protocol when they haven’t even started implementing the convention. However, in a spirit of constructive consensus, Costa Rica could consider the current proposal with a small proposal, including this sentence, along with safeguards required. This is Chile, and Paraguay also supported this in the room. Also, we need to adjust the timeline for convening at the latest, two years after adoption, to two years after adoption, as proposed by the delegation the United States proposed. As we have been indicated, we support the threshold of 60 ratifications, but with a view to consensus, we could lower that to 50. All of the aforementioned is subject to the fact that all the other proposals regarding safeguards of human rights that were presented in the chair’s proposal should be maintained. That would be the minimum that my delegation could accept. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Now, Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Good morning, colleagues. I wanted to share briefly my comments as to what’s been happening in the room since the beginning of our meeting this morning. Colleagues, yesterday, Madam Chair offered us her vision of the conceptual solutions with regard to the ratification threshold and additional protocols. Today, this morning, we see that a number of countries have started attacking these compromise proposals, trying to move the ratification threshold to 60 or 50. I’m not going to resort to pathos here, or I think the term that has been banded about is not applicable here. I’m going to ask Mr. Vice Chair not to move to Articles 14 and 16 until everyone who wants to take the floor on these issues that I’ve mentioned has a chance to do so. All delegations that want to speak should be given a chance to speak. And of course, Russia supports Madam Chair’s ratification threshold of 40 countries. We think it’s a reasonable compromise. I’m still hopeful that this convention will be adopted by consensus, and we want it to enter into force as soon as possible. We need urgently an international cooperation instrument. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Russian Federation. After I close the list of speakers, Egypt and Panama, and now Iran, ask for the floor. So, okay, Central African Republic, we need to go on discussing other issues. So let’s close the list of speakers now. Last is Central African Republic. Now next, okay, Cuba will be the next. So the list keeps growing, and we don’t have much time. Next, Ecuador, and then Indonesia. Ecuador, you have the floor.
Ecuador:
Buenos dias, Senor Vice President. Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair. Good morning, one and all colleagues who are here. I must begin by thanking the chair for – and the Secretary for the efforts to help us reach reach a consensus. Ecuador, backing off its first option with regard to 64 and suggesting 60 to enter into force in order to achieve consensus, decreased the number and acceded to the proposal by the Dominican report, proposal supported by Costa Rica and El Salvador. We believe that 50 ratifications is an ideal number and we should all be able to reach it. With regard to these protocols, we would reiterate our concern about the timeline that we expect to be able to negotiate a protocol with new types of crimes. It’s necessary to recognize the asymmetries that exist in technology security and so it’s vital that efforts be focused on capacity building so that developing countries can implement the main instrument in an effective way. And for that reason, we believe that including the word negotiate and the timeline of several years is still insufficient for us. So we reserve our position on paragraph 5 with regard to the proposal of the resolution here.
Vice Chair:
Thank you. Ecuador, Indonesia to be followed by Georgia. Indonesia you have the floor.
Indonesia:
Thank you Mr. Vice-Chair, good morning everyone, I’ll be very brief. On article 6.2, we still have concern with the current formulation, but in the spirit of compromise we are open to consider proposals from others, including from CARICOM to delete the listing. On articles 64, Mr. Vice-Chair, for the last days during our discussion on this article we have heard many delegates. talking about inclusivity. While I took note of those arguments, we are still believe that ratification is an issue of political decision and domestic process and also willingness of each member state to be part of this convention. So we have been involved in this negotiation for more than two years, involving all UN members and also stakeholders. This is what I call an inclusive process, Mr. Vice-Chair. And for that reason, Indonesia still support the Chair’s current proposals for 40 ratification as contains in the current draft. Lastly, on OP5 of the draft resolution, we support the current draft proposed by the Chair. We reserve our position on the remaining issues on the Chair’s proposals. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Indonesia. Next, Georgia and then Nicaragua. Georgia, you have the floor.
Georgia:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Good morning to all. We would like to present Georgia’s position on the remaining parts of the Chair’s recent package. As regards specifically title, we have concerns over clarity and conciseness of the proposed title and we still remain of the view that the convention should have brief title and that’s United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime. As regards protocol negotiations, we share the concerns, among others, United States, Fiji and Tonga have, as to timing, prejudging, outcome and inclusivity. And in OP5 of draft resolution, we oppose the timing of no later than two years. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Georgia. Nicaragua to be followed by Vietnam. Nicaragua, you have the floor.
Nicaragua:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair. We’d like to express our position on a couple of elements referenced in the new proposal by the chair. Specifically, we’d like to address Article 23, Paragraph 4. We support the idea of eliminating this paragraph, Article 24, Paragraph 2. We support Egypt’s proposal to eliminate the wording that refers to judicial review or any other independent review. With regard to the number of ratifications to enter into force, we support maintaining it at 40 states to entry into force for this convention. We do not support a greater number of ratifications. Nicaragua and many other states have requested 30 – had requested 30 ratifications. And we’ve been flexible in accepting the chair’s proposal as a compromise to bring about consensus, but we cannot support a greater number of ratifications. We reiterate the urgency of this convention for small countries, developing countries like Nicaragua. Turning to Article 40, Paragraph 22, we request it be deleted. Nicaragua does not support caveats on international assistance, and we reiterate our position that only through solidarity and bolstered multilateralism and greater international cooperation and stronger cooperation will the developing countries be able to implement what we agree on in this convention effectively. Turning to the title of the convention, Nicaragua supports Russia’s proposal and reiterate our position that the title should be in keeping with the mandate of this committee. Finally, on the additional protocol, Nicaragua supports this and echoes what Russia said and other delegations said in this regard. We support maintaining the word elaboration or development rather than negotiations. And we support China’s proposal of having at least two sessions in order to craft an additional protocol. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Next, Vietnam and then Papua New Guinea. Vietnam, you have the floor.
Vietnam:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, and good morning to our colleagues. Our second intervention, I’d like to refer to Paragraph 2 and 4 of Article 24. And we would like to express our strong support for the chair’s text. We believe that the reference to domestic law will provide a lot of clarity for practitioners in the future when they implement this convention. And also we support the chair’s proposal to retain the number of ratifications for the entry into force of this convention to 40, as a compromise between 30 and 60 in the previous round of negotiations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Vietnam. Papua New Guinea and then Egypt. Papua New Guinea, you have the floor.
Papua New Guinea:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. May I join other delegations in commending you and the team, including the respective Bureau members, the vice-chairs for the able leadership, and the manner you have steered our work, and we are optimistic of a contentious outcome that we can enable the international community to be stronger together in how we address the evolving challenges and opportunities on a common nemesis, that is cybercrime. Vice-Chair, Papua New Guinea aligns with the statement delivered last Friday by the distinguished delegation of Tonga on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum members. Papua New Guinea has no issues with Articles 3, 4, 6, 16, 23, 24, 35, and 40. Papua New Guinea, however, would like to make the following interventions on Article 14, subarticles 3, 4, and 5. Papua New Guinea notes that Article 14, subarticles 3, 4, and 5 purport to defeat the entire purpose of Article 14. such that it allows for state parties to opt not to criminalize material that depicts the sexual exploitation or abuse of children. Papua New Guinea further notes that this is essentially legalizing sexual relationships between a minor and an adult which is contrary to Papua New Guinea’s criminal laws. Papua New Guinea submits that this sub article should therefore be removed. If these sub articles of the draft text are agreed at referendum by the state’s parties, Papua New Guinea gives notice that we will register Papua New Guinea’s objection to the exceptions provided under article 14 sub articles 3, 4 and 5 of the UDTC and make necessary reservations. Mr. Vice-Chair, with respect to reservations, Papua New Guinea notes that the draft text before us does not allow state parties to make reservations. Papua New Guinea therefore seeks the Vice-Chair to provide clarification in this respect. Does the proposed convention not allow for state parties to make reservations? If so, Papua New Guinea requests that the draft convention text make provisions for state parties to make reservations if there is no provision already available. Vice-Chair, Papua New Guinea has our cybercrime legislation known as the Cybercrime Code Act 2016. Just this month our High Court pronounced the constitutionality of one of the legislation’s criminal penalty provisions, which was referred for interpretation after one of our citizens who is on trial for defamatory publication cited the defense that the defamatory publication is protected by the constitutional freedom of expression. By the High Court’s pronouncement, we note that Papua New Guinea’s cybercrime jurisprudence is developing in the absence of a cybercrime international convention. Vice-Chair, Papua New Guinea is not a member of any convention against cybercrime, although Papua New Guinea is now taking steps in consideration of a possible future accession to the Budapest Convention. In closing, Vice-Chair, you have Papua New Guinea’s full trust, confidence and support to bring us to a successful conclusion on this landmark treaty the world needs now more than ever. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much, Papua New Guinea. I think later we can approach this issue of reservations according to the international law and Vienna Convention on Law of the Treaties. We will entertain this issue when it’s a best time. But thank you for your comments. Next we have Egypt and then Panama. Egypt, you have the floor.
Egypt:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, dear colleagues. Just we would like to reflect on the proposal to increase the number needed for ratification to bring this envisaged convention into force. And just to recall, Mr. Chair, that the needed number for ratification for UNTOC was 40 countries. The needed number to entry in force of the UNCAC was 30 countries. And there was no objection by the member states while we were negotiating these two important instruments, which are now universal, mostly universal. So we don’t know, Mr. Chair, and to refresh our mind again, there were calls for having 30 ratifications, 20 ratifications, and 60 ratifications. And I think that the Chair rightly addressed this issue by bringing us to a compromise, which is the 40 ratification. I think, Mr. Chair, that we need to expedite the process. of bringing this Convention to force, to enable our law enforcement authorities to start taking full advantage of this Convention to prevent and combat the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. This is very, very crucial, Mr. Chair. During the deliberations, we heard some countries are concerned about the additional protocol and how the Conference will adopt it if the number of the ratifications is low from their point of view. And I think that the proposal made by Brazil regarding 61bis para 1 was, I think that brings us very close to a compromise regarding this issue. Once again, Mr. Chair, we support the proposal made by the Chair regarding Article 64. We seek the indulgence of our colleagues to let those who are very eager to expedite the process of using this Convention for international cooperation to prevent and combat the use of ICTs for criminal purposes to do so as early as possible. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Egypt. Panama to be followed by Iran. Panama, you have the floor.
Panama:
Yes, with regard to Article 6.2, our delegation has already expressed its position through Colombia because we believe that the minimum set forth in terms of human rights is contained in this proposal presented by the Chair. And so we continue with the same position on this. On the title, we believe and incline towards the Convention on Cybercrime of the Americas. And so we would prefer that. We believe in terms of ratification the number of 60 is a good threshold. With a view to consensus, we could accept the proposal of 50 ratifications put forth by the Dominican Republic, taking into account the fact that we are at a time where we need to all start giving up some ground to achieve consensus. We would also say that we need to focus on correct implementation of the Convention in our countries, and therefore, rather than looking for a solution, we could just accept the formula presented by the Chair with the suggested modifications a few minutes ago by Costa Rica. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Panama. Iran, and then Central African Republic. Iran, you have the floor.
Iran:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. Good morning. On the threshold regarding the entry into force of the Convention, we echo the intervention delivered by many delegations, including the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. We think that the threshold for T is both sufficient and necessary for having a Convention that could be rapidly entered into force. And this is the practice of the ANTAC and ANCAC. We know that the ANTAC has a threshold of 40, and ANCAC has a threshold of 30. We heard during discussions that those who oppose this threshold, they are actually referring to the need for universality of this Convention. But I do not think that there is any relation between universality of the Convention and the numbers necessary for entering into force of a legal framework. We could see that from the ANCAC and ANTAC. We have 190 party to the ANCAC and 192 party to the ANTAC. They both have low threshold like 30 or 40. And we think that on the contrary. When we have a lower threshold, it helps that this convention enter into force and the conference of parties is established and its work could encourage other members of the United Nations who are not party to these conventions to join this convention as well. So we fully support the proposal of the Russian Federation on this matter, and I think we just addressed a paragraph in the resolution regarding rapid enter into force of the convention. I think we should be consistent with that provision there too, which requires that we have a lower threshold for this convention to enter into force. I thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Iran, Central African Republic, and then Cuba. Central African Republic, you have the floor.
Central African Republic:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The delegation of the Central African Republic joins other states who have congratulated you on your efforts in seeking consensus. As regards 6-2, we are in favor of suppressing, and also in terms of the list of rights, it shouldn’t be there because then we can miss certain important rights. As for the ratification threshold, we support 40 for a swift entry into force. Cuba and then Syrian Arab Republic. Cuba, you have the floor. Thank you, sir. We’d like to thank you and the chair for all of your efforts to help us find a consensus amongst our positions, what we all need. With regard to 6.2, my delegation would really prefer to eliminate it completely, but we could be flexible and accept deleting the list of human rights. which are not relevant or some are not making some more relevant than others. With regard to the number of ratifications for entry into force of the Convention, we’d like to reiterate our position, national position, which we expressed early on in the negotiations, that is we support the proposal put forth by the Chair to maintain the threshold at 40 ratifications, taking into account that UNTUC and UNCAC both have similar numbers and moreover, we believe that this number strikes a good balance between rapid entry into force of the Convention and universality. Turning to the protocols, we’d like to express our complete support for the need to start the crafting of them, taking into account the timelines that were suggested. And to the title, we would reiterate our national position expressed early on in the negotiations and we believe that it should match the mandate of this committee. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Cuba. On our list of speakers, we have Syrian Arab Republic, Mauritania, Belarus, and China. At the advice of the Chair, we did not close the list of speakers as I had intended to. So Syrian Arab Republic, you have the floor.
Syrian Arab Republic:
Thank you very much, Vice-Chair. Very briefly, with regard to the number of ratifications, we support the Chair’s proposal, 40. On the title, we support Russia’s proposal. This is the language that we already see in many texts adopted by many committees. As to 6-2, we suggest keeping the subject. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Syrian Arab Republic, Mauritania, to be followed by Belarus. Mauritania, you have the floor.
Mauritania:
Good morning, Mr. Vice-Chair, good morning, everyone. On Article 64, particularly with regard to the ratification threshold, my delegation has already said that 30 states is an appropriate threshold. However, given the compromise proposal made by the Chair, and willing to show flexibility, we can support 40 as a threshold. Thinking back to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, the threshold was only 20. On the other hand, the time frame was defined as 30 days. So speaking about the Convention before us, we need to make sure that it enters into force quickly, and that is why a threshold of 40, as proposed by Madam Chair, seems reasonable. And again, we show our flexibility by supporting that. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Mauritania, Belarus, and then China. Belarus, you have the floor.
Belarus:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We wanted to start by expressing our gratitude to the Secretariat and the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee for the proposal before us and for the efforts in seeking a compromise. With regard to 6.2, we wouldn’t mind having this article here if it included not only political but also social and economic rights. It is one-sided as it stands, so not acceptable to us. With regard to ratification threshold, we’ve already addressed that. Some delegations have spoken for the second, third, or fourth time, so we’re speaking again. We asked for 30, but we’re prepared to accept 40, as proposed by the Chair. We see no problem for states in joining this convention, so we shouldn’t keep this convention hostage to any such unwillingness. With regard to supplementary protocols, we need to find a compromise. At this moment in time, we cannot drop the possibility of additional protocols being adopted at some later point. I know there’s a difference of opinions in that regard, but we cannot just drop it. We cannot just renounce it. With regard to the broad interpretation of the scope of the convention, we support that. With regard to 24.2 and 4, please remove them. these with regard to judicial verification. Thank you very much.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Belarus. China to be followed by Venezuela. China, you have the floor.
China:
Thank you, Vice Chair. My intervention will be brief. As previously pointed out by China, it took 19 years to conclude the negotiations on the BB&J Convention, while we concluded our negotiations of the convention in only two and a half years, which fully reflects that we attach high importance to this convention. As pointed out by many delegations, cybercrime is evolving rapidly, and new types of crimes keep popping up. We should advance early entry into force of the convention so as to better combat criminals of cybercrime, better protect victims of cybercrime, and send out correct signals to the international community. This is also an important aspect of human rights protection. Therefore, in the spirit of compromise, we are in a position to support 40 as the threshold of entry into force of the convention. Thank you, Vice Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, China. Next Venezuela and then Thailand. Venezuela, you have the floor.
Venezuela:
Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Very briefly, expanding on what we said yesterday, Venezuela reiterates its position and that the title be broad, as was initially proposed, 40 ratification threshold based on previous conventions. Also, with regard to Chapter 4, Paragraph 23, we said that the title be broad, as was suggest eliminating 24-1 and 22 should be retained. Also, we think it’s important to stake out the possibility of adopting supplementary protocols. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thailand and in Sri Lanka. Thailand, you have the floor.
Thailand:
Thank you, Mr. President. Please allow me to join other delegates to express our appreciation and full support to you and your team for remarkable efforts on the revision of the draft text. For Thailand, we see the UDTC or REF 3 as a good basis for our negotiation on which we could exercise our flexibility. However, we could consider your latest proposal in good faith in the spirit of consensus. With regard to Article 6, especially Article 6.2, I believe there remain quite diverging views on how best to balance the issue of safeguards and the scope of the convention in the text. In this regard, I think a good compromise might be, as CARICOM proposed last week, to remove the listing of human rights issue and simplify the paragraph instead of adding on all the caveats. Regarding number of ratification and additional protocol negotiation process, we view the language as a peer in the UDTC as a good compromise. We also support some proposal made by a number of distinguished representatives to make the text better, such as adding at least in front of the two sessions and by replacing one year with two years after the adoption of the convention before the convening of the first session of the AEC to consider draft protocol supplementary. As for the title of the convention, although Thailand preferred a short version, we could be flexible on the compromise taken by the ad hoc committee. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Sri Lanka, you have the floor. Sri Lanka?
Sri Lanka:
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. Sri Lanka’s intervention will be brief. Sri Lanka supports a shorter title with the word cybercrime. However, Sri Lanka remains flexible with Chad’s compromised title with the words information and communications technology systems in the spirit of consensus. I thank you, Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Sri Lanka, Cameroon, and then Senegal. Cameroon, you have the floor.
Cameroon:
Thank you, Vice-Chair. My delegation would like to thank you for your hard work. With regard to 24 and 26, we have the following suggestions. On paragraph 2, we share the view expressed by other delegations with regard to the list. So we think there should not be a list of rights. We have taken on board the views of various delegations. We believe that this addition seeks inclusivity, but not sufficiently so we can’t support it. With regard to the respect for human rights and the judiciary process, it’s difficult to objectively evaluate this and balance it with national security considerations. Therefore, we have reservations with regard to this paragraph four. On 61, we support the ratification threshold of 40 because the convention should enter into force as soon as possible, and also the possibility of additional protocols. We think two years is too long. There should be a reasonable time frame. On 14.6, we can support the language before us. But in paragraph one, we think member states should analyze it, bearing in mind that we’re talking about children, minors, and their rights. As an international community, we must respect the positions of countries on this important issue. With regard to the title, we support the original title as proposed. We take note with interest the compromise suggestion that has been placed before us as well. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much, Cameroon. Next is Kazakhstan, actually, and then Senegal. Kazakhstan, you have the floor.
Kazakhstan:
Thank you giving me the floor. I’ll be brief. Regarding the number of ratification, we propose 40 countries, but no more, to speed up the process. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Kazakhstan. Senegal, and then Honduras. Senegal, you have the floor.
Senegal:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I have a few comments on the title. We want a concise title and a short title, but we’re also open to a compromise suggestion. It’s important that it clearly defines the domain we’re addressing. So the title proposed here seems reasonable. With regard to ratification, we have supported the chair’s suggestion, 40. We’re open to a compromise if the majority, for example, or consensus focuses on the number 50. With regard to Article 6, the term suppression should be replaced by restriction or violation or infringement, not suppression. On paragraph 2, we have been debating for two or three days with regard to legal considerations and the list of rights. We think it should be a more general statement, no specific list. With regard to paragraph 5 on supplementary protocols, we could be inspired by the Palermo Convention, which announced the possibility of negotiating supplementary protocols. Protocol or protocols. So that was in UNTOC, and then modalities as to how these protocols are to be negotiated would be determined later. We think that’s a good example. In any case, additional supplementary protocols would have to be negotiated, but the door should be left open to that possibility. After ratification, state parties would be invited to attend meetings to negotiate protocols. Finally, we want to support the chair’s thought. Our partners in the developing countries really need the translation of the document and the right terminology. It’s not about creating a North-South divide, if you will. And we talk about South-South cooperation as well. Transfer of technology, this is a multilateral process. All of us, developing countries, must be equal partners in this cooperation. Transfer of technology competencies is something that is entirely essential. And the lack of cooperation here prevents us from becoming fully engaged in the process. So we shouldn’t just say North-South. We should specify.
Vice Chair:
Honduras, you have the floor.
Honduras:
We prefer the threshold of 60 ratifications for entry into a force, which is more representative, as we said in the room much earlier. But to get to a consensus, the proposal of 50 would still be positive for us. My delegation believes that this number of 50 ratifications accommodates the interests of the room and support the new proposal. On the protocols, we adhere to what many delegations have said about the idea of two years being an acceptable timeline for beginning negotiations. Turning to Article VI, we’ve already expressed our view on this yesterday through the joint statement made in the room by the distinguished delegation of Colombia. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Honduras. Guatemala, to be followed by Zimbabwe. Guatemala, you have the floor.
Guatemala:
Thank you, Vice Chair. On Article 64, Guatemala has expressed its in favor of the entry into force after 60 ratifications. However, taking into account the importance of and the need to achieve consensus, my country supports the proposal of reducing it to 50, since that would be the least that my delegation could accept. On Article 6, my delegation reiterates our view expressed by Colombia, speaking on behalf of our group of friends. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Guatemala. Zimbabwe, and then Armenia. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.
Zimbabwe:
Thank you very much, Vice Chair, and good morning. In the spirit of consensus, my delegation is in support of 40 ratifications for entry into force of the Convention, which is also the Chair’s proposal. And regarding the title of the Convention, my delegation supports a title that is in consonance with the mandate of the UN General Assembly. Thank you, Vice Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Zimbabwe. Armenia, and then Chile. Armenia, you have the floor.
Armenia:
Thank you, Chair. I’ll be very brief. Regarding the threshold for entry into force, we have been very clear about our preference since the seventh session of the Ad Hoc Committee, supporting a higher threshold, which we find to be a preferable way forward. We remain consistent with our position, reinstated during this reconvened session. In this regard, we have also called upon parties to go for genuine compromises to reach a consensual document, and in that same spirit, we have expressed our willingness to agree on a lower threshold for the sake of moving forward. But with the understanding that this process will be reciprocal from all parties, Madam Chair, we will… I’m sorry, in this case, Chair, will remain persistent in our call towards parties and our desire to achieve a consensual UN document.
Vice Chair:
Thank you. Thank you. Armenia. Chile. You have the floor.
Chile:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. We understand the need to garner consensus, and as a demonstration of flexibility, my delegation would be prepared to support a number of 50 ratifications. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much, Chile. Zambia. You have the floor.
Zambia:
Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair. As a country, we have to compromise here, because if we go for 60, the period in which the number might be garnered might take even five, six, seven years. By the time the convention comes into force, a lot of changes would have taken place. So we’ll support for a number 40 and 50. So basically, we’ll stand for 40. Also, the title should speak to the contents of the convention, which is cybercrime. So basically, we support the title to be UN Convention on Cybercrime. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much, Zambia. Tanzania. You have the floor.
Tanzania:
Thank you, Vice Chair. On the ratification, we also support 40. And as stated by Zambia, take an example of Malabo Convention from Africa, which was adopted in 2014 and only came into effect last year after the ratification of 15 member states. And therefore, if you go for 60, it might take maybe five years for the convention to enter into force. And therefore, we support 40. support the Chair’s proposal for 40 ratifications. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much, Tanzania. Tunisia, you have the floor.
Tunisia:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Briefly, we support the new proposal made by the Chair on 40 ratifications and also the newly proposed title of the Convention. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much, Tunisia. We are closing the debate. Everyone who asked for the floor was given the opportunity to speak. We had 136 interventions. Some countries have intervened even more than once. So we are closing the debate on this issue, and we’ll continue with Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, dear Vice Chair. Thank you for all of your efforts since the first session. We have not stopped working together, and I very much appreciated your very constructive contributions. We will now move on to Articles 14 and 16. As we announced yesterday, Articles 14 and 16, for which I would like to invite the Vice Chair, Mr. Wedleswat, to come up to the podium, please, since he guided the consultations, the informal consultations on this topic, Articles 14 and 16. Mr. George, please come join me. We can suffer together till the end of the road. Thank you. I also share your victory, so all of these facilitators and vice chairs are involved in the probable – let’s be optimistic – the probable success. Thank you, George. So the compromise proposal for Articles 14 and 16 has a few small changes in the chapeau of Paragraph 4 of Article 14. I retained wording that allows each state to adapt. So you have this sentence here, in accordance with their domestic law and consistent with applicable international obligations. That was added to that effect. Moreover, Paragraph 4, subparagraph A, was modifying as was described in Paragraph 2 of this article at the end of the paragraph. That was deleted. Subparagraph B was also modified. We took out the reference to sexual – consensual sexual relations. Moreover, it’s proposed to limit the acts exempted to production, transmission, and consensual possession of material if the conduct described is legal according to the domestic law of states’ parties. As to Article 16, the proposal envisions to move the interpretative note to a reformulated version of Article 16 as a new Paragraph 6. This paragraph simply reiterates the principle that the article only sets a minimum standard on prohibited conduct. I now invite you to react to these two articles. The floor is open.
Brazil:
Brazil has repeatedly underlined that paragraphs 14 through 16 are a central part of this Convention. The fact that these articles are still pending at this point and that there is a possibility that we do not reach consensus on them is very disappointing. We believe we should spare no effort in this final stretch to finalize these articles by consensus. In this light, we believe that the Chair’s proposal for Article 14, paragraph 4, addresses several of the concerns raised and we hope should be acceptable to all. In order to try to reach an agreement on Article 16, which is also of high importance, our delegation would like to propose a few changes for consideration of the plenary. We hope this could help leading us to consensus. The first changes would be on the title of the article. We would strike out the words non-consensual and the title would read Dissemination of Intimate Images Only. On paragraph 1, we thought of bringing up your proposal for paragraph 6 in order to make the link stronger to what paragraph 1 says. So paragraph 1 would read, without prejudice to other measures related to the dissemination of intimate images. So just to quickly repeat, since we now have it on screen, we would strike out on title the word non-consensual. And Paragraph 1 would start with without prejudice to other measures related to the dissemination of intimate images, state parties may take in accordance with their domestic law and it would continue as it is now. On Paragraph 2, we would change the end of it. We would delete at the last sentence the words of privacy. We would add at the very end, after the word offense, that such image would not be disseminated to a third party. On Paragraph 3, on second line, after the words the age of 18 years if, we would add the underlying conduct depicted is legal as determined by and we would delete the wording they are of legal age to engage in sexual activity under. Paragraph 4, Paragraph 5 would remain untouched. And then we could, if agreeable, do away with the new proposed Paragraph 6, which would already be covered on Paragraph 1. Madam Chair, we would be happy to discuss these proposals with colleagues, interested delegations, and happy to share with them in writing as well. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. I was just, in fact, going to ask you to address these proposals and discuss them with interested delegations. Iceland?
Vice Chair:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Iceland:
Thank you for giving me the floor. So, just in short, I would say that even though we have made great efforts in discussing these articles, there are still some outstanding issues that are very challenging for Iceland to support them as proposed here in this text. So our preference is that we retain the language of Article 14 and 16 as they were in the reference, Article 3, and even if those versions present a compromise on our end. I think it’s important that we keep in mind that through this convention, we are proposing a global standard on issues that affect citizens across the world in all of our jurisdictions. This has implications far beyond this room and into the future. The informal discussions have highlighted that on certain issues, there are regional and customary differences that need to be reflected in the articles we are discussing. And from a legal perspective, we have language in Rev 3 that accommodates this. Due to the nature of the behaviors and interest at stake for victims, we might be tempted to let emotions guide our work here, but we must not do so. In the context of these heinous crimes, we must keep our focus on how we utilize the law and facilitate a system that shuts down abuse, and we believe the wording of Article 14 and 16 in Rev 3 does this. I have some comments both on 14 and 16. I hope you’ll allow me. First on Article 14, I will limit my comments to two issues only, the issue of without right and on Article 14.4. Article 14.4 has been discussed to a great extent in the informal meetings. Despite preferring the proposal in the chairs RAV3, we have in the spirit of compromise showed flexibility on the language and the extent of the obligations the paragraphs entail during the informals last week, making every effort to find common ground to stand on. And the proposals that are here on the screen are a result of those efforts that were made of many in the room. We have, despite the advice of international leading experts, shown flexibility in the paragraph being a may rather than a shall. This is not least to respond to the difference in legal systems across our region to ensure that at the core of the article is the protection of children. By accepting that some countries can allow for children not to be criminalized for being victims, we are not giving up lesson to their behavior. We are recognizing that this is a reality. Children make self-generated CSAM content and we are providing for the legal framework needed for all countries to be able to handle their cases as fit under their legal frameworks. We cannot anchor our work in hopes and wishes. We need to find a firm framework that is founded in the reality our children are faced with online. We are drafting an international instrument and not domestic legislation. Iceland thus firmly opposes any references to measure states might want to implement on a national level. Practicalities of child welfare on a national level should not be spelled out in an international criminal treaty on cybercrime. Regarding the wording of without right, Iceland highlights that this phrase does not establish a right. under the article. Its inclusion in the text is essential to allow for international cooperation, law enforcement, and support for victims. Again, due to our different legal systems, some states do not need this clause to be included, but others do. CSUN, like other cybercrime, does not respect borders. Thus, in order to facilitate the important work undertaken to protect children online, it is paramount that we keep the wording as it stands to ensure that the fight against CSUN also can cross borders. Then, on to Article 16. On the proposal to add text from the interpretive notes into the text of a new Article 16.6, Iceland strongly opposes this addition in the strongest possible terms. This runs the risk of cancelling out the protection we are providing to individuals under Article 16. And, shedding the diplomatic language, it is not possible to give more flexibility on this article without it becoming counterproductive. We are not happy with Article 16, but we recognize the importance of accommodating different legal systems to respond to these violations, and we are prepared to accept the wording as it stands in RAV3. There have been calls for all parties to show flexibility on these articles. We have taken that aboard, and in turn encourage others to do the same. In fact, on Article 16, we have compromised on every single paragraph of this article, even those that we oppose to in principle. But we have shown nothing but flexibility to facilitate a consensus. If we add the proposed text from the interpretive note to a new paragraph 6, we simply just go too far and we undermine the fundamental framing of the serious crimes that we are discussing. We would be introducing a wholly different concept that only confuses the interest that we are aiming to protect. We would be creating a global standard for serious crimes based on moral rather than rights and obligations. This is not only a problem from a substantive perspective, it also raises concerns for the efficiency of the international cooperation for law enforcement that we are trying to facilitate with this Convention. The alternative option is to leave out the article in its whole in the draft. That would mean that we, here in this room, would not have been able to agree to protect people from a crime that is becoming more common around the world and having serious consequences for individuals, including death of victims. The majority of these victims are women, but there has been a significant increase in men being victimized. What we do if we leave the article out is that we do not create a platform for international cooperation in investigating and prosecuting these crimes. In essence, we would be failing victims and people in vulnerable positions in all of our countries. So finally, Madam Chair, to sum up, we support the text as it stands in RAF 3. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you, Japan.
Japan:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning to you all. At this time, I would like to limit my first intervention today just to echo What a distinguished delegate of Iceland has just said so eloquently. And I would just like to take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Chair, and your team for your efforts to bring us all closer to consensus on this, one of the most challenging issues, and at the same time, very critical, important articles in this convention as the delegate of Iceland just has said. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much for your conciseness. Indeed, I would invite all delegations taking the floor to try and be as concise as possible because we absolutely need to close this debate at 1 p.m. this afternoon so that we can transmit the document to the Secretary. Thank you. Who wishes to take the floor next? I have Iran.
Iran:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We try to be concise, but we have to reiterate our position on Articles 14 and 16. We once again underline that there is not any right for any person to engage in child sexual exploitation or to disseminate or broadcast such material depicting child sexual exploitation. Unfortunately, the current formulation of Paragraph 1 of Article 14 indicates otherwise. This is not acceptable. There could not be any such right. During the meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee, it was contended on the part of certain countries advocating for exception in countering this horrendous crime that the inclusion of without right, as they said, is needed to ease regulations and provide law enforcement and judiciary with the necessary authorities to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate. indicate related offenses. However, such argument is not accurate and lacks acceptable rationale since first, domestic criminal laws of various legal systems have already enabled law enforcement with necessary rights and obligations. Second, the term intentionally, which indicates a general criminal intent, reflects the unlawfulness of the conducts referred to in Article 14.1, precluding the lawful acts of law enforcement authority. Three, criminalization of a diverse range of crimes in various conventions have not required such unnecessary element. We mean without right. Four, the present convention, as its purpose evinces, is essentially being negotiated to counter criminals and support law enforcement and cooperation, not to undermine their authority and valuable contributions to an effective fight against crimes. And five, if the real concern of certain countries is to safeguard the work of law enforcement, an appropriate clause could be discussed to be placed in the article such as the following. The provisions of Paragraph 1 of this article do not prejudice the lawful exercise of functions by law enforcement and other competent authorities in accordance with domestic laws in investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of crimes referred to in this article. If the real concern is about law enforcement and judicial authorities, this proposal should accommodate that particular concern. Otherwise, there could not be any sort of right to access materials that depict child sexual exploitation. As for the term intentionally, it is understood We understood, as we mentioned, that the general intent would suffice for attaching mens rea to the criminal conduct in question. In the light of the foregoing, we continue to oppose the term without right in Article 14 and for similar reasons in Article 16. Along same lines, we strongly oppose any other sort of exception in fighting child sexual exploitation. The inclusion of Paragraph 3 of Article 14 is a flagrant contravention of the article and the purpose of the Convention. There is no difference on the negative impact of unreal materials depicting child sexual exploitation. Such materials, we mean unreal materials, normalize criminal conducts against children and is actually conducive to commission of child sexual exploitation. Therefore, the artificial distinction between real and unreal material is superfluous. This formulation runs afoul of the very letter and spirit of the Convention and also Article 14. It undermines international cooperation in countering the use of ICT for criminal purposes. And most importantly, it compromises the protection of our children while sends an unwelcomed message to our children that there could be an exception in fighting this horrendous crime. Our proposal for this paragraph, we mean Paragraph 3, Article 14, remains consistent. We request for deletion of Paragraph 3 of Article 14. There should be no exception in fighting this heinous crime. Madam Chair, on Paragraph 4 of Article 14, while criminal laws of countries may have provisions that either exclude minors from criminal responsibility or stipulate minimum age for attaching such responsibility. This does not preclude the wrongfulness or immorality of these conducts in many countries, which still would categorize them as juvenile delinquency or other categories. As such, it is necessary to rectify the flaws of the current formulation of Article 14, Paragraph 4. Taking into account the principle of nullum crimine sine lege, and whereas the exclusion of criminal acts of children with respect to many crimes have been addressed in certain domestic legal systems, Article 14, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph A could remain as a basis for negotiation if the said article does not proscribe or prejudice correctional measures of domestic laws, rather include the following language that gives more flexibility to domestic legal systems as to how to treat such cases through rehabilitation and correction. This could benefit children and society at large. For that purpose, we propose the following formulation. A state party may adopt corrective and rehabilitative measures with respect to the conducts referred in Paragraph 5 of this article in accordance with its domestic laws. As for Article 16, we reaffirm that it should uphold and respect domestic laws prohibiting the dissemination of obscene material, regardless of consent from the parties involved in order to respect public morals. Such an approach is significant for ensuring legal exactitude and taking effective measures in countering such crimes. We support the proposal that was expressed by the distinguished representative of the Syrian Arab Republic last week on behalf of many delegations to add a caveat to Article 16 to respond to this important matter. That proposal, which is couched in exhortatory language. and is appeared as merely a caveat for relevant applicable domestic legal systems, does not impose obligation on other state parties, rather pronounces possible latitude for domestic legal systems to take necessary measures under their own domestic legal system. This is the general view of our delegation regarding article 14 and 16 as for the proposal put forth by the distinguished chair of the ad hoc committee and also the procedure that we had informal we have a further comment and we will take the floor again when when other delegations have expressed their view just to save time and for the sake of brevity. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Okay, thank you. The Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. The Russian Federation would like to support the statement made by the distinguished representative of Syria. Russia joined that statement. We would also like to support the comments just made by the distinguished representative of Iran. Yesterday when we spoke here, we dwelt on this in some detail. I’d like to add here that we want to draw the committee’s attention to the fact that 4A, as written, allows children to create pornographic materials which could contain abuse and torture. With regard to paragraph 4, it leaves it open to corrupting children through social networks in those countries where the circulation of such materials is allowed. And therefore, With the language as proposed, it would be very hard to bring those responsible to justice, those receiving such materials, for example, in other countries. Given the anonymity online, we will never know if one of the correspondents is an adult who just deceived the child corresponding with that person. The Convention on the Rights of the Child sets an obligation to protect the future generation from exploitation via the Internet. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Japan, you have the floor.
Japan:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair, and I also would like to thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, for your work as well, especially at Infomoz. I apologize for taking the floor again in this session within the short intervention, but I am forced to take the floor again because I need to respond to what the one delegation said on Article 14, Paragraph 3. This is something that my delegation has been stressing quite some time. We – as I made it very clear in my previous intervention, we strongly support the retention of Article 14 as a whole, as well as Article 16, as reflected in the UDTC. I also would like to emphasize this includes the Para 3A, which is not even on the Chair’s proposals. In response to what one delegation said, in the context of CSAME, there is a borderline between non-existent child and a child that exists in our world. This is a considerable difference between a living, real child, our children, and the fictional things. While CSAME in relation to non-real children does not infringe any right of the living child, whereas CSAME of non-existing, unreal child does not directly make any infringement of the real child, any regulation in relation to unreal child should be considered with appropriate consideration on freedom of expression, which is a fundamental human right. For Japan, the deletion of Paragraph 3 is not acceptable by any means. I’d also like to stress that this paragraph, this Paragraph 3A, is a discretionary provision and does not impose anything, any obligation on other jurisdictions, other member states by any means. So, this is something that every member state can live with in legal terms. I will stop there, and I will reserve my right to make an intervention at a later stage, depending on how the discussion unfolds. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Pakistan, you have the floor, please.
Pakistan:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair. Right from the start, we would like to align ourselves with the statement made by previous speakers, Syria, Iran, and Russian Federation. We recall that we have already provided comments with regard to Article 14 and 16, and at this point in time, and to save time for others, we would fully align with the comments made by Distinguished Delegate of Iran, providing eloquently the details of our concern in Paragraph 1 with the term without right, requesting deletion of Paragraph 3 in Article 14, and the comments related to Paragraph 4 of Article 14. I would now like to touch upon the Paragraph 3 of Article 14. The definition of child pornographic material or child pornography is provided in Article 2C of OPSC, which Madam Chair has already provided in her explanatory note of UTDC. The definition reads, child pornography means any representation by whatever means of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of a sexual part of a child for primarily sexual purposes. And what we see on the screen as paragraph 3 is contradictory, A, and subparagraph A and B is contradictory to the definition of OPSC to which nearly all of us are a member and have acceded to this convention. Madam Chair, this is the context in which we wanted to explain that the certain elements are excluded in the guise of freedom of expression cannot be granted by our delegation. We believe that the definition of child pornographic material is very clear. You have already provided it, and the delegation can check for it. And nothing in this convention should constitute for granting any allowance or any activity for this very sensitive topic. So we maintain that we cannot accept any limitation on the material imposed or identified as per paragraph 3. Now moving on to Article 16, the distinguished delegate of Iran already provided comments with regard to Article 16, and that is to add a proposal language which will allow in a similar line like which is displayed on the screen as new paragraph 6 to allow state parties the flexibility to adopt. that article within their domestic system. We already highlighted that it’s not the troubling element within that is not the question of the intent of that proposed criminalization act, but the element of consent. And having heard views from the number of countries where the element of consent is allowed, so for having a flexibility and in order to move forward, this would be the purpose, this would be a good start to bridge gap. Having said that, we continue to object inclusion of without right in paragraph one, similar to what we have objected in paragraph, in article 14 of paragraph one. For paragraph three of article 16, we would like to further elaborate the term under 18 years of age, and we would like to add provided they have gained majority age earlier as permitted by domestic law to explain that what limit the boundaries for the definition of intimate image when we are applying this particular article for people younger than 18 years of age. For paragraph four, we would like to again mention elements of legal age after when it says 18 years who has not reached the legal age of majority according to domestic law. This would distinguish what constitute as an intimate image and what constitute as a child sexual exploitation material which is covered under Article 14 of the Convention. And Chair, we have already inscribed through formulation of Paragraph 6 to be inserted so that it can be accepted in different legal system and we can agree on this text. Thank you very much, Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Iraq, you have the floor.
Iraq:
Thank you, Vice-Chair. My country would like to reiterate its position with regards to Articles 14 and 16 of the Convention, which we presented on our national capacity and through the joint statement delivered by the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, because we have concerns vis-à-vis the content and whatever has been offered during the informal consultations failed to receive the consensus and the support of the countries involved then. Although that there are other proposals and suggestions put on the table, they were not taken into consideration, as should be. And even the text that we have before our eyes did not reflect all the various and diverse points of view, which is – which should be asynchronous in multilateral diplomacy, because we’re supposed to get to a consensus-based text that would accommodate the amalgam of divergent points of view. But the text before our hands did not take that into consideration, and therefore the negotiation could have been otherwise. proven to be more effective. And we do believe that the Madam Chair – this is what she is trying to do, but we need to work further in order to achieve this objective and goal, as should be. And we do realize and commend the chair for the efforts she has exerted to reach a consensus. And this is quite commended and appreciated, but we still need to do more and exert more efforts in this regard. Thank you very much.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. The United Kingdom, you have the floor, please.
United Kingdom:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, and I would like to take this opportunity to express the United Kingdom’s enormous gratitude to you for all of your efforts on these articles. In the interest of time, we would like to essentially support all of the excellent comments which were made this morning by the Distinguished Delegate from Iceland. However, Mr. Vice-Chair, I also feel compelled to respond to the commentary which the Distinguished Delegate from Iran offered on our domestic law, and to explain why the retention of Article 14, paragraph 4, is absolutely essential for the United Kingdom to be able to join consensus on our Convention. Without 14.4, the UK would need to amend our domestic law to criminalize conduct that we fundamentally do not consider to be criminal. I’ve said it before, and I say again, we cannot and will not do that. What is more, we highlight once again that this is only a discretionary provision and does not require those who do not wish to do so to utilize it. its provisions. By contrast, the insertion of Article 16, Paragraph 6, is legally unnecessary. Nothing in Article 16 prohibits states from adopting measures to go further in the criminalization of conduct related to this article. It is a basic matter of treaty law that states may, in the exercise of their sovereign rights, undertake such measures absent an international obligation that requires otherwise. As a matter of law, we do not need Article 16. And to include it creates confusion as to whether in other areas of this Convention states are not able to adopt additional measures without an express provision allowing for it. Mr. Vice Chair, we believe this Convention represents an unprecedented opportunity to better protect our children online, and indeed, all of us. There is nothing in Madam Chair’s Rev. 3 version of these two articles that we consider would legally prevent states from joining consensus on them and allowing this Committee to achieve that important aim. Like Japan and Iceland, therefore, the UK strongly supports the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 as drafted in the Rev. 3 text. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Norway, you have the floor.
Norway:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Norway fully supports the statement made by Iceland. Mr. Vice Chair, Norway strongly supports the retention of the term without right, and is pleased to see this term retained in the Chair’s proposal. As Iceland has stated, this term has been discussed extensively during the last session and last week. Many delegations have expressed that this wording is necessary for law enforcement authority to investigate and prosecute offenses related to online child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation material, and also for judges, victims, and non-governmental organizations who are making a great effort to assist law enforcement authorities around the world in fighting these crimes. We don’t share the view of some delegations that this wording is contrary to the purpose of this article, nor that it indicates that there could be a right to access child sexual exploitation material. In fact, this wording is necessary to promote the purpose of this provision. Without a possibility to access child sexual exploitation material during the investigation, we are afraid that Norwegian police officers would not dare to deal with these cases. Norway cannot support a convention that prevents our law enforcement authority from combating serious crimes against children effectively. We thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, for proposing the new Article 14, Paragraph 4, in attempt to achieve consensus. However, we prefer to keep the original text as drafted in the UDTC. When it comes to Article 16, Norway also supports the text as proposed by the Chair in the UDTC. We fail to see the necessity of the new Paragraph 6 in this article, and will therefore not support it. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much.Liechtenstein, you have the floor, please.
Liechtenstein:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. These two articles are probably the most controversial. of this convention, although the entire room agrees with the core implicit aim of the articles, the protection of children. Liechtenstein would like to thank all the delegations who have worked tirelessly to reach a compromise. However, we have not yet heard a proposal that comes close to the UDTC text in terms of simplicity, clarity and flexibility. Therefore, Liechtenstein supports the request by Iceland to retain the original text in Rev. 3 of Articles 14 and 16, as the distinguished delegate from Iceland has already justified so eloquently. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Australia, you have the floor.
Australia:
Thank you so much, Vice-Chair, and thank you so much for all of your work over many years on these articles. You’ve heard all of the thanks in the room. It is not a thankless job, and I know that it has been very difficult. You have my gratitude as well. Australia strongly supports the statement from Iceland this morning. We similarly view that the UDTC represents the best outcome for Articles 14 and 16, and we think it is very critical that we build on the consensus-based success that we have already found regarding Article 15 on combating the grooming of children online, which has been agreed at referendum. The text from the UDTC in these articles does represent a significant amount of many, many hours over many years, led by you, and we do see that the majority of delegations have participated in those, and so many compromises have been made over the years to ensure that we can collectively use these articles to combat child sexual abuse online, as well as the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Regarding Article 14 particularly, we see that this article provides the narrow flexibility for states to ensure that the widest criminalization possible of child abuse while also recognizing there are some very clear differences between all of our respective domestic legal systems. Australia is one of the countries that strictly criminalizes all forms of child sexual abuse for all people under the age of 18 and we do not require the flexibility provided for in this article but we are willing to accept the narrow flexibility set out in the UDTC in the spirit of consensus and for the broader value of protecting all of our children globally. Child sexual exploitation abuse online continues to grow at an alarming rate and including these provisions in our Convention is absolutely necessary to achieve our objective. We view that article 14 complements other UN instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its applicable optional protocols. We would draw everyone’s attention very respectfully to paragraph 5 of article 14 because this ensures that nothing in article 14 shall affect any international obligations which are more conductive to the rights of the child. We also note that such instruments already may allow for state parties to have domestic exceptions similar to those reflected in article 14. We remain supportive of the text without right in paragraph 1 recognizing the clear need for domestic legal systems to allow dealing with child abuse material that’s in the public interest such as for law enforcement investigations and I thank Norway for their very clear explanation of this just previously. We are unable to consider changing this text as it would reopen and require renegotiation of all of the references to without right in ad referendum agreed articles 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and article 16. Turning to article 16 we consider the interpretive note provided in the UDTC provides clarity for states again to bridge the positions and provide the flexibility. needed for different legal systems. So to be very clear, Australia joins Iceland, Japan, UK, Norway, Liechtenstein, and everyone who spoke this morning and the many other states who have spoken last week in considering that the UDTC is the best version of both Articles 14 and 16, and on their substance they do provide for all the positions that have been put forward so far by Member States. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. So on the list we have Syrian Arab Republic, Canada, European Union, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Albania, Egypt, Libya, United States, Chile, Switzerland. Okay, Syrian Arab Republic, you have the floor.
Syrian Arab Republic:
Thank you very much indeed, Vice Chair. I do hope that you will be patient enough to hear all those interventions, by the way, I do appreciate that. And at the outset I do not want to repeat and reiterate because the other delegates from Iran, the Russian Federation, Pakistan have already said what I wanted to say as well, and we have already expressed our position vis-à-vis Articles 14 and 16, and also we have also made it clear in a former joint statement on behalf of a group of states last Friday, and we explained in details our concerns vis-à-vis Articles 14 and 16. And at the same time, Mr. Vice Chair, I would like to say that currently we have also our laws that are not easy to amend or to reconsider, particularly that these laws were prompted by the very nature of our own communities and are based on our own social values as well, and therefore to reconsider them would be of paramount difficulty. To make a long story short, we do support what the delegation of Iran and the Russian and the Federation have said, and also the propositions by the Pakistani delegate. And we are open to any phrasing within the framework of those propositions. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Canada, you have the floor.
Canada:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Canada, thanks you and the Secretariat for all the work accomplished to come up with Draft Articles 14 and 16 in UDTC. We support this original wording. This language reflects the work carried out by the committee, both in plenaries and informal consultations. Every element, every word was negotiated meticulously, thoroughly over the years. The original text, the UDTC text, includes a lot of compromises, which, in our opinion, is the best way to reach consensus. Article 14 was updated to more effectively fight the abuse and sexual exploitation of children online, including UNICEF, various stakeholders. This is a major step forward compared to existing instruments and will contribute to protecting our children. And these are discretionary paragraphs. We support what was said by Iceland, UK, Japan, Norway, Liechtenstein, Australia, and many others, in particular on the importance of the phrase without right. We should keep that in 14.1. On Article 16, we also support the original. updated text. This allows law enforcement to do their work and the High Commission on Human Rights and all of the various stakeholders have expressed the fact that this is about non-consensual. This is about exploitation and abuse that can lead to extortion, various forms of harm and damage, and that applies to conjugal violence, domestic violence, crimes of extortion. All of this is related, so this is an important article. The point of Article 16 is to protect individuals, not to pass judgment on the morality of the conduct involved. This is about criminalizing those who violate individuals’ rights by publishing their intimate images without content. This is an essential element. This is infringing on the privacy of a person, the circulation of images. These are key elements of the offense described. Any banning of such images without reference to consent would be contrary to the intent of Article 16 and actually infringe on human rights. Therefore, we support the original text of Article 16. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. The European Union, you have the floor.
European Union:
Mr. Vice-Chair, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. Mr. Vice-Chair, the European Union and its Member States reiterate its appreciation for your tireless efforts during this negotiating process. Regarding Articles 14 and 16, we consider that the Rev 3 version in the UDTC, that version of the text, was already a good basis for consensus. It reflected how delicate and challenging it was to navigate between the different needs and the constraints of all the UN Member States. It is the result of probably hundreds of hours of formal and informal discussions. Mr. Vice-Chair, let me first turn to the essential role of the reference to without right and maintaining the reference to without right in Paragraph 1 of Article 14. All the offenses in Article 7 to 14 and in Article 16 expressly require that the conduct involved is done without right. This is because the conducts described are not always punishable per se. They may be legal or justified not only in cases where classical legal defenses are applicable, such as consent, self-defense, or necessity, but where other principles or interests lead to the exclusion of criminal liability. So although it may sound counterintuitive, but in the context of Article 14, these exceptions actually serve to protect minors. It enables police officers to handle child sexual abuse material to detect, prevent, and investigate offenses related to such material. For example, police investigators have to possess such material in order to be able to identify the victims and to stop the abuse. It also allows for individuals to report this material to certain entities that are specialized and legally authorized to detect and report such material and thus prevent the abuse of children. Without these exceptions, the police and these entities serving public interests would paradoxically risk being criminally prosecuted for handling this material to identify victims, to protect them and to find their abusers. I would like to stress that this is a general clause allowing future state parties to implement this concept in their domestic law in accordance with the principles of their legal systems. In this way, the criminalization adequately covers the entire area of illegal conduct and at the same time allows each defense or exemption to be evaluated according to the domestic law of each state party. It establishes a minimum common denominator as is the case for most criminalization provisions in global criminal law instruments such as this one. Let me emphasize that the reference to bid outright should be interpreted narrowly. It should only allow for exceptions from criminalization in a very limited set of situations as the ones that I have highlighted just before. And all these in order to protect children and to find the perpetrators. I would also like to underline that this recurring reference to bid outright appears in several articles of the Convention already agreed at referendum with the same general meaning and the same understanding. Changing it only with reference to a specific provision, such as Article 14, would lead to legal uncertainty that we should avoid, especially in this very sensitive area. Mr. Vice-Chair, please allow me to also say a few words on the essential importance of the exceptions provided in Paragraph 4 of Article 14. These exceptions are a bare minimum requirement to avoid the over-criminalization of certain limited and legitimate conduct involving children. This objective is fully in line with the recommendations of human rights bodies, including those in the remit of the United Nations. These exceptions are optional, hence non-mandatory, in order to ensure the required flexibility and do not impose any obligation whatsoever on future state parties. Furthermore, the concept of providing such exceptions is widely accepted in over a hundred countries from around the world who are either already parties to the Budapest Convention or have aligned their domestic criminal laws with the provisions of the Budapest Convention. Changing this approach would have extremely detrimental consequences for international criminal law in this area and, most importantly, for children worldwide. In conclusion, the UN and its Member States support the version of Article 14 as proposed in RAP3, also known as the UDTC. Regarding Article 16, we appreciate the continued efforts of the distinguished delegates of Brazil for proposing potential solutions. That said, the proposed changes would alter the scope of this article in an unclear manner, which is not acceptable for the UN and its Member States. Hence, we cannot support this version and would like to support it in the future. the rev3 version as it was proposed. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, you have the floor, please.
Netherlands:
Thank you, co-chair. Should an investigator be punishable if he sees cease and material? Should a prosecutor be punishable who prosecutes accused of possessing cease and material? Or a judge who judges the accused? Should a doctor be punishable if he possesses cease and material because he provides medical assistance to the victim or acts as a medical expert in a criminal case? Should a lawyer be punishable if he starts a compensation action on behalf of the victim of jail abuse and possesses cease and material for that purpose? And should a service provider be punishable if he discovers the presence of cease and material on the server and notifies the police? Co-chair, I hope all delegations answer these questions with a no, because the possession of cease and material in these circumstances is in the interest of the victim. And without the possession of cease and material in these circumstances, jail abuse cannot be combated. And that is why we need the without right element in the description of the offence. Without this element, the investigator, the prosecutor, the judge, the lawyer, any service provider will be guilty for a criminal offence while acting in the interest of the victim. Co-chair, the question then arises, why can’t these circumstances be written out in the Convention? After all, that gives no room for Member States to regulate unreasonable justifications in their national law. My delegation understands that position, because it is possible, technically. Two difficulties would then arise. First, many circumstances are conceivable that should be excluded from criminalization. Consider, for example, the cold messenger who puts a file on the judge’s desk or the cleaner who finds cease and material in a client’s house and notifies the police. Second, writing out all the circumstances is a technical exercise that will take weeks and success, co-chair, is not guaranteed. The elaboration of this article shows that we come from different legal systems with different domestic circumstances. It will produce racks of text and, above all, many points of contention. Moreover, a written-out list is not future proof. With changing circumstances, for instance, due to the digital revolution, the convention should many times be adjusted in the future. Co-chair, I conclude. By including the without right element, the provision, we are choosing a pragmatic way forward without ending up in a mess of over-regulation. I understand the concern that this gives member states room to regulate exceptions in their domestic law. However, there is no easy way out and the hours spent in informals on this article, under your excellent guidance, attest to that reality. We believe that the chair’s proposal has found a delicate balance that provides for enough flexibility for every party in this room to implement this article and give room for exceptions. And, for the sake of clarity, those exceptions must be made in accordance with the convention on the rights of the child and can only be made in the best interest of the child. And here in the room, we can agree on that interest. Thank you very much, co-chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much, Mauritania. You have the floor, please.
Mauritania:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First and foremost, I would like to thank you for your efforts throughout the consultations in order to achieve this text. Having said that, we remain attached to the joint statement made by the Syrian Arab Republic on behalf of a group of countries, including Mauritania. We would affirm that the content of that statement was not taken into account during the discussions. Comments on Article 14 and Article 16 first address the issue of the title, because the non-consensus-based dissemination of it raises the question as to whether or not that dissemination is legal in the context of the legislation of a number of countries. These are countries with overlapping values, and dissemination is completely unrelated to consent, which is why we oppose the title. Now, with regard to the expression, without law, here we would oppose this, because we believe that the representatives of some states presented this in order to allow judges, prosecutors, and other law-enforced officers. of the court to be able to use this, and use this material, and use it as a legal foundation. But for our part, we believe that this stems from their authority, actually. And so it’s not necessary to legislate the issue by using this expression. They do not need, along with their colleagues, this expression. That’s why the expression actually creates more problems than it solves. Moreover, the expressions in the articles, especially subparagraphs 3 and 4 of the two articles, that’s Article 14 and 16, raises some questions for us, because these two subparagraphs of these articles pick up expressions which, even if they’re optional, these expressions actually end up stripping these two articles of their substance. So that’s why we support all those delegations that opposed these two articles, and we reiterate our attachment to what was said earlier in this regard. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Okay. Thank you. We reject Articles 14 and 16, corrects the interpreter. Thank you very much. Just to inform the ad hoc committee that we have a long list of requests for the floor. We, however, must stop at 1 o’clock, because we have to head into a bureau meeting at 1.15. So of course, we will retain the list and return to it at 3 o’clock. So we will just continue until it’s 1 o’clock. And of course, just before we leave, I will read out the list and then we’ll resume from that point. So on the list now, you have Saudi Arabia, Albania, Egypt, Libya, United States, Chile, Switzerland, Guatemala, Colombia, New Zealand, Uganda, Georgia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Yemen, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba. So I will now yield the floor to Saudi Arabia. You have the floor, please.
Saudi Arabia:
Thank you, sir. With regard to subparagraphs 1 and 4 of Article 14 and Article 16, we reiterate that this wording does not enjoy a consensus. Indeed, a number of delegations during the negotiations, the informal negotiations, expressed concerns. Their concerns revolve around the idea of these articles undermining the rights of the child, which is what this convention is supposed to be trying to protect, and also to set it above national law, dissemination of images, consensus – enjoying consensus or not, agreement or not, because it goes above and beyond. beyond the rules in place in certain countries. The position of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was explained during our official statement and during informal consultations. Also, we expressed it through the statement made by Egypt on behalf of 35 states and the delegate of the Syrian Arab Republic last Friday, their statement. We understand that time is running short, so I won’t go into detail, but just like to recall that we’d like to delete the expression, and without right, and in subparagraph 4 of Article 14, same, we reiterate the importance of revising these two articles to take into account the concerns expressed by different states, and to review the wording based on the statements made by a number of states, especially Egypt, Syria, and Iran. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Albania, you have the floor, please.
Albania:
We support the first statement of the distinguished delegation of Iceland and all the other delegates on this side, so we support the original wording text as it is on Rev. 3, considering that this is much important and the best on the position of the countries that would like really to go further in a consensus procedure. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Egypt, you have the floor, please.
Egypt:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Egypt reiterates its position regarding these two important articles, which is clearly reflected in our national statement delivered on the 29th of July, the joint statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of 38 member states on the 29th of July as well, in addition to the joint statement delivered by the Syrian Arab Republic on behalf of a considerable number of countries on the 2nd of August. Egypt fully supports the maximum protection of the child and believes that the realization of the best interest of the child and the full adherence to the letter and the spirit of the CRC shall govern the criminalization of the child. Simultaneously, cultural diversity shall be fully respected. Egypt has engaged constructively during the informal meetings that had been held under the chairmanship of the Vice-Chair and proposed several alternatives aiming at bridging the gaps between the divergent views regarding these contentious issues. Unfortunately, the proposal before us doesn’t reflect our proposals and doesn’t reflect that the concerns that we have pertaining to Article 14 is not only regarding Paragraph 4, but others had before me had expressed other concerns regarding Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3. Besides pertaining to Article 16, Egypt had proposed an additional paragraph for Article 6, which was delivered and supported by many countries and which was stipulated in the text of the statement delivered by the Syrian Arab Republic last Friday. We see, Mr. Chair, that our proposals aim at bridging the gaps and trying, trying to find a consensus on this important matter. I thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Libya, you have the floor, please.
Libya:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We endorse those delegations that raise their objections under Article 14 and 16, the Distinguished Delegate of Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt. Moreover, we also support the statement made by – the joint statement made on the 2nd of August representing more than 35 countries, and these were contentious issues under Article 14 and 16 that were addressed. We need a consensus on this, and we call for deleting and without right in that context. Thank you. Thank you very much. United States, you have the floor, please. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
United States:
Articles 14 and 16 represent important protections for children and for the harm of violations of privacy through the dissemination of intimate images. A disproportionate amount of time was spent negotiating these articles, considering we have heard repeatedly that everyone wants protections for the victims of these crimes. The Rev. 3 text for these articles reflects painstaking work from a number of parties to come to a shared understanding that creates the maximum protection for the victim of these crimes while allowing narrow flexibility to account for different domestic systems to implement these protections. No one who has been involved with negotiating these articles for the almost 50 hours of information that has been provided to us by the United States Department of Justice has formal discussions, wants to make it easier for offenders to commit these offenses or make it harder to hold offenders accountable. But certain flexibility is required under some domestic systems to allow those who protect children to do their job. Allowing that flexibility does not create mandates for domestic law for specific language, nor does it require domestic law to implement the permissive provisions. At the same time, children victims must be treated as victims and not perpetrators. And we must signal to those children that they should not be afraid to report their victimization for fear of being accused of committing a crime. We cannot say children need the protection of these articles at the same time as saying children must be held responsible for their acts reflected in these articles. Nor can we stop the people who are doing this work to implement protections that will hurt children. Additionally, we must ensure we are not criminalizing completely different acts in our attempt to criminalize the central offenses involved in Articles 14 and 16. But to fail to offer any protections for children because we cannot agree on who has the best system for offering protections for children would be a disgrace. Rev. 3 reflects this balance of maximum protections with limited, narrow, optional exceptions for domestic law. All of this is consistent with obligations under other international instruments about the best interests of the child and is an enhancement to what currently exists to support global cooperative attack on these heinous crimes. Considering where we started with so many divergent views that there was more red on the screen than black, we should all be proud of the hard work that has gone into the drafting of these articles by the chair, vice chair, and those who have engaged in the discussions on these articles. Rev. 3, as presented in the UDTC, reflects this hard work and reflects important advancements in the international protections for the victims of these crimes. We cannot upset that hard work. by not going forward with articles that protect children. We support Articles 14 and 16 as drafted in Rev. 3. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Chile, you have the floor.
Chile:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair. We’d like to thank you for all of your efforts and leadership throughout these negotiations. We have seen your untiring work to help us achieve a consensus. I’d like to start our statement by pointing out that we understand that everyone here understands the importance of and wants a universal framework to protect our boys and girls and to safeguard their higher interests. I think there’s no doubt about that. Having said that, we would join what’s already been said by Liechtenstein, Iceland, the U.K., Australia, Canada, European Union, Netherlands, United States, and many other delegations. With regard to 14.1, we think it is necessary to have the reference to without right in keeping with what was said by the U.K., the E.U., the United States, and many others. Chile, in its domestic legislation, considers provisions under these terms, especially for how it’s associated for investigators who look into crimes as well as doctors and other professionals that have unfortunate tasks associated with this, other than criminalizing this but still ensuring oversight of their work. So the current wording makes it possible to have the two interpretations coexist in our understanding and doesn’t impose any intention or another with the word without right is in keeping with national legislation. Article 14 as a whole, despite the… The long negotiations does reflect flexibility and allows us to have a context to protect our children and a framework to protect them from crimes that in an alarming manner are on the rise and that are also crossing our borders. At the same time, both the provisions of Article 14 and 16 should take into account the differentiated impact in terms of difference of vulnerability between boys and girls, and that’s why my delegation believes it’s fundamental to include the gender perspective as well as the sensitivity to situations of violence based on gender. Boys and girls have a right to have their images protected, whether their use is in the digital world or physical. The image of a person is personal data, and as personal data, it can only be used or processed with the consent of the owner. In this case, if it was a minor, it would be the parents in principle that would be the owners or as the law sets forth. If the image is used and there’s no law authorizing the use of it or it hasn’t been authorized use by the owner, then there we are dealing with a legal situation with regard to the treatment of the data. This is an issue of contention with regard to how society sees Article 16, which is why Chile prefers the version 3 presented by the chair. We could be somewhat flexible to achieve a consensus package, but to the extent that we are flexible and have been flexible, we would like other delegations to also be flexible. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
All right. Thank you very much. We have just two minutes, and I guess maybe it’s safer to just read out the list, and we’ll resume in that order from… 3 p.m. So when we resume, we have Switzerland, Colombia, New Zealand, Uganda, Georgia, Iran, Yemen, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Qatar, Paraguay, Cabo Verde, Vanuatu, and Japan. All right, distinguished – your excellencies, distinguished delegates, we’ll see you at 3 o’clock. Thank you.
Speakers
A
Albania
Speech speed
107 words per minute
Speech length
348 words
Speech time
195 secs
A
Argentina
Speech speed
141 words per minute
Speech length
417 words
Speech time
178 secs
A
Armenia
Speech speed
190 words per minute
Speech length
149 words
Speech time
47 secs
A
Australia
Speech speed
166 words per minute
Speech length
631 words
Speech time
229 secs
B
Belarus
Speech speed
128 words per minute
Speech length
230 words
Speech time
108 secs
B
Brazil
Speech speed
116 words per minute
Speech length
427 words
Speech time
220 secs
C
Cameroon
Speech speed
98 words per minute
Speech length
259 words
Speech time
159 secs
C
Canada
Speech speed
102 words per minute
Speech length
366 words
Speech time
215 secs
CA
Central African Republic
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
310 words
Speech time
141 secs
C
Chair
Speech speed
114 words per minute
Speech length
448 words
Speech time
236 secs
C
Chile
Speech speed
151 words per minute
Speech length
564 words
Speech time
224 secs
C
China
Speech speed
141 words per minute
Speech length
154 words
Speech time
66 secs
CR
Costa Rica
Speech speed
135 words per minute
Speech length
221 words
Speech time
98 secs
E
Ecuador
Speech speed
119 words per minute
Speech length
223 words
Speech time
112 secs
E
Egypt
Speech speed
111 words per minute
Speech length
603 words
Speech time
327 secs
ES
El Salvador
Speech speed
135 words per minute
Speech length
246 words
Speech time
109 secs
EU
European Union
Speech speed
141 words per minute
Speech length
842 words
Speech time
357 secs
G
Georgia
Speech speed
125 words per minute
Speech length
116 words
Speech time
56 secs
G
Guatemala
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
85 words
Speech time
34 secs
H
Honduras
Speech speed
171 words per minute
Speech length
128 words
Speech time
45 secs
I
Iceland
Speech speed
146 words per minute
Speech length
1123 words
Speech time
461 secs
I
Indonesia
Speech speed
153 words per minute
Speech length
200 words
Speech time
78 secs
I
Iran
Speech speed
141 words per minute
Speech length
1370 words
Speech time
581 secs
I
Iraq
Speech speed
167 words per minute
Speech length
265 words
Speech time
95 secs
I
Israel
Speech speed
134 words per minute
Speech length
373 words
Speech time
168 secs
J
Japan
Speech speed
101 words per minute
Speech length
443 words
Speech time
264 secs
K
Kazakhstan
Speech speed
184 words per minute
Speech length
33 words
Speech time
11 secs
K
Kiribati
Speech speed
139 words per minute
Speech length
382 words
Speech time
165 secs
LP
Lao PDR
Speech speed
131 words per minute
Speech length
285 words
Speech time
130 secs
L
Libya
Speech speed
100 words per minute
Speech length
107 words
Speech time
64 secs
L
Liechtenstein
Speech speed
147 words per minute
Speech length
118 words
Speech time
48 secs
M
Mauritania
Speech speed
87 words per minute
Speech length
474 words
Speech time
327 secs
N
Netherlands
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
573 words
Speech time
229 secs
N
Nicaragua
Speech speed
133 words per minute
Speech length
309 words
Speech time
140 secs
N
Norway
Speech speed
145 words per minute
Speech length
649 words
Speech time
269 secs
P
Pakistan
Speech speed
108 words per minute
Speech length
687 words
Speech time
383 secs
P
Panama
Speech speed
138 words per minute
Speech length
190 words
Speech time
83 secs
PN
Papua New Guinea
Speech speed
164 words per minute
Speech length
528 words
Speech time
193 secs
P
Paraguay
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
636 words
Speech time
255 secs
RF
Russian Federation
Speech speed
115 words per minute
Speech length
420 words
Speech time
219 secs
SA
Saudi Arabia
Speech speed
118 words per minute
Speech length
242 words
Speech time
123 secs
S
Senegal
Speech speed
100 words per minute
Speech length
351 words
Speech time
210 secs
SL
Sri Lanka
Speech speed
162 words per minute
Speech length
59 words
Speech time
22 secs
S
Switzerland
Speech speed
168 words per minute
Speech length
223 words
Speech time
80 secs
SA
Syrian Arab Republic
Speech speed
136 words per minute
Speech length
291 words
Speech time
129 secs
T
Tanzania
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
86 words
Speech time
34 secs
T
Thailand
Speech speed
172 words per minute
Speech length
267 words
Speech time
93 secs
T
Tonga
Speech speed
141 words per minute
Speech length
446 words
Speech time
190 secs
T
Tunisia
Speech speed
117 words per minute
Speech length
30 words
Speech time
15 secs
UK
United Kingdom
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
387 words
Speech time
175 secs
US
United States
Speech speed
184 words per minute
Speech length
530 words
Speech time
173 secs
V
Vanuatu
Speech speed
167 words per minute
Speech length
259 words
Speech time
93 secs
V
Venezuela
Speech speed
82 words per minute
Speech length
84 words
Speech time
61 secs
VC
Vice Chair
Speech speed
129 words per minute
Speech length
1456 words
Speech time
675 secs
V
Vietnam
Speech speed
141 words per minute
Speech length
108 words
Speech time
46 secs
Z
Zambia
Speech speed
140 words per minute
Speech length
103 words
Speech time
44 secs
Z
Zimbabwe
Speech speed
112 words per minute
Speech length
69 words
Speech time
37 secs
Related event
Reconvened concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime Convention
29 Jul 2024 - 9 Aug 2024
New York