(14th 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 15:00h - 18:00h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Delegates debate cybercrime convention draft amid concerns over child protection and human rights
During a meeting of the ad hoc committee, delegates from various countries discussed the draft of a cybercrime convention, focusing on the protection of children from online sexual exploitation and abuse. The delegates universally agreed on the need to criminalize child sexual exploitation, ensure efficient prosecution, and strengthen international cooperation to combat these crimes. However, opinions diverged on the specific language and provisions within the draft.
A major point of contention was the inclusion of the phrase “without right” in the draft text. Switzerland and other countries supported the text as presented in REF 3, particularly paragraph 4 of Article 14, arguing that the phrase was necessary for national authorities to act against criminal online material. In contrast, countries like Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo argued that the phrase could imply that certain forms of exploitation might be legally permissible, conflicting with their national legislations and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. They suggested removing the phrase to prevent any legitimization of harmful behaviors.
The discussion also addressed Article 16, which pertains to the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. Some countries, including New Zealand and Switzerland, opposed the introduction of a new Paragraph 6, considering it vague and potentially altering the nature of the article. They advocated for maintaining the text as drafted in REF 3.
Civil society organizations, represented by R3D and Access Now, expressed deep concerns about the draft text, stating that it poses unacceptable risks to human rights and fails to address significant concerns raised during the negotiation process. They argued that the convention should not proceed to adoption in its current form and highlighted that recent amendments discussed during the session further weakened the text compared to REF 3, undermining human rights protections.
Interpol, as a permanent observer to the UN, thanked the ad hoc committee, the Chair, and Vice-Chairs for involving stakeholder organizations in the convention’s development. They expressed optimism about reaching a successful conclusion and reaffirmed their commitment to assisting member states in implementing the convention after its adoption.
The Chair concluded the session by encouraging delegates to continue discussions to reach a consensus on the remaining contentious issues. She informed the assembly that the final text would be distributed in English, with translations in other official UN languages to follow. The Chair will be available for further discussions and urged member states to submit their final proposals. The adoption of the convention, the resolution, and the interpretative note is scheduled for Thursday morning, with the report to be adopted on Friday.
The meeting underscored the challenge of creating an effective legal framework to combat cybercrime while ensuring that it does not infringe upon human rights or create legal ambiguities. The active participation of various stakeholders, including civil society and international organizations like Interpol, highlighted the multifaceted nature of the issues and the global commitment to protecting children and other vulnerable groups from cybercrime.
Session transcript
Vice Chair:
Good afternoon, your excellencies, distinguished delegates, you’re welcome back. Well, we’ll continue right off where we left off. We had a long list, so we’ll take the speakers in order of that list. We’ll start off with Switzerland. You have the floor, please.
Switzerland:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman, and good afternoon to everybody. We would like to thank delegations, and we would like to thank you, distinguished Vice Chairman, for the work and for the endeavors in order to come up with a compromise regarding the articles aiming at the protection of children. It is obvious, and our discussion during the morning session have clearly shown that we all agree on the crucial element and the importance of the fight against child sexual exploitation, and that such behavior must be criminalized, efficiently prosecuted, and that states are able to cooperate with each other. At the same time, we emphasize the importance that we do in our context not create obligations to criminalize specific conduct by or among children. So we have once more examined and consulted the text options that we find on our desk. Having done so, Switzerland’s conclusion is that we remain strongly in favor of the text as we find it in the version of REF 3, especially regarding paragraph 4 of Article 14. With regard to the words, without right, in the chapeau of Article 14, Switzerland belongs to the group of states that also Also with regard to consistency with other provisions of the treaty, absolutely needs to maintain those two words in order to allow national authorities to detect, to block, to delete criminal online material and to prosecute offenders. With regard to Article 14, Paragraph 3, we are in favor of maintaining the text as it stands in Ref 3, echoing what has been stated by, for example, Japan. With regard to the proposed new Paragraph 6 of Article 16, we are, for the reasons explained by the United Kingdom, against the introduction of explicit language stating the obvious because we would be leaving the meaning and the impact of it unclear, especially compared to provisions in the Convention where we would not have such a statement. And finally, with regard to a proposal to introduce the approach of corrective measures vis-a-vis children, Switzerland is strongly opposed to such language in our draft treaty. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chairman.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Colombia, you have the floor.
Colombia:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. As far as provisions of Articles 14 and 16, my delegation would first of all like to echo the eloquent arguments presented by the delegation of Iceland, so I would like to be added to the list of countries that supports the original language, Ref 3. We would also like to say that, as far as their expression without right, this delegation understands that the article in general encompasses the protection of general interests of childhood, allowing for the investigation that would provide, come a result, the taking apart networks, illegal networks, and thus preventing the circulation of material of child abuse. Ultimately, the elimination of these provisions, as was proposed by some delegations, would put at risk the deployment of criminal investigations, as well as the effectiveness of these investigations for these kinds of crimes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. New Zealand, you have the floor, please.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. We shall be brief. We support the remarks made by Iceland, the United Kingdom, Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands, among others. On Article 14, we agree with the comments made by a number of countries that we all have a shared objective of protecting children from these horrific crimes. We believe the text of the UDTC would help states with achieving that ambition. We join others in suggesting we retain the text as it is in Rev 3, which has been carefully worked on and balanced over the last two years under your able leadership. We are strongly opposed to the introduction of Article 16.6 in the Chair’s proposal. Aside from its vagueness, as Iceland noted, this proposal would change the entire nature of the article. We could not accept such a provision in the Convention, and again we support Article 16 as drafted in the Rev 3 text. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Uganda, you have the floor, please.
Uganda:
Thank you, Vice Chair. The proposed Articles 14 and 16 offend the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. and the Optional Protocol on the Convention of the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. Article 1 states that parties shall prohibit the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography as provided for by the present protocol. Intention in the proposed article is key as it is in criminal law because the law of evidence examines mens rea to determine guilt or commission of a crime. Uganda notes that the proposed article refers to children which we interpret as persons below the age of 18. However, we respectively state that through different jurisdictions the age of criminal responsibility is different from the age of majority. The suggested test does not capture the criminalization of children who have attained the age of criminal liability which is subject to domestic legislation but are still under the age of majority. This aspect is key to giving clarity, interpretation and implementation of the proposed Convention. Uganda appreciates that there are exceptions that may in some situations call for the production and use of child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation material. These exceptions could be for legal or medical purposes. However, Uganda has failed to comprehend circumstances under which anyone would have a right to offer, sell, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, publish or otherwise make available child sexual abuse or child exploitation material. Given the cyber bullying and other forms of peer-to-peer violence that affect young people, making them vulnerable to exploitation, the use of digital platforms to cause harmful effects on humanity, especially children who are undoubtedly more vulnerable than adults and a threat of online exploitation and abuse, Uganda believes that the proposed article should be improved to meet the legal requirements. of different jurisdictions. Uganda therefore suggests the removal of the words without right, or if it is to be maintained, to remove the aspects of sale, distribution or any form of gain from this kind of material. This is premised on the belief that no one justifies the right to gain from producing, distributing, selling child abuse or child exploitation material. And this is necessary to combat abuse and exploitation of any form, more so to preserve the development and growth of children, which is our future generation. Lastly, Uganda believes that reliance on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Protocol form a solution because it gives clear and inclusive solutions to the proposed Articles 14 and 16. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Georgia, you have the floor.
Georgia:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Good afternoon. We thank you for your sincere efforts to close the gap in the negotiations. Georgia strongly supports keeping the original text of Articles 14 and 16 as proposed in the UDTC. We cannot agree more with Canada and the United States that these provisions have been extensively debated in this committee and that the UDTC text genuinely reflects these tremendous efforts in a finely balanced manner. Regarding the rationale, we echo the sentiments of Iceland, Japan, and Norway, among others. We believe we should concentrate our efforts where it is most needed for the protection of children and victims of these heinous crimes rather than blanketly invoking morals and cultural peculiarities, which can vary widely across the globe. If we do so, we can never achieve any consensus. Georgia also supports keeping words without writing a text. We believe it can be absolutely necessary to lead successful law enforcement against these crimes. Lastly, Article 16, Paragraph 6, unfortunately we cannot also support this paragraph. as being unnecessary for reasons submitted by UK and Switzerland recently. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Yemen, you have the floor.
Yemen:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. On articles 14 and 16, before going into detail, we support Egypt’s statement, Syria’s statement, and the statement by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and a number of positions, not just to support them for the sake of supporting them, no. If the statements are inconsistent with Yemeni legislation, then we don’t support them. So really, it’s about the legality. Regarding the sequencing, we are elaborating an international convention, meaning that the convention needs to be general. The specifics will be determined in domestic legislation. So conventions must be general in nature. Then criminal law would be more specific. And there are different levels of specificity in domestic legislation. So regarding articles 14 and 16, we believe that there is a level of detail that really should be determined in domestic legislation. So international convention needs to be more general than that, broader than that. Of course, we are all for protecting children, preventing children’s abuse. I think no one in this… room, and no one outside of this room, would be against the protection of children. We just disagree on details, especially when domestic laws vary. And of course, as we said repeatedly, we all respect domestic legislation of different countries. All right. Continuing, Paragraph 1 of Article 14, the end, and the reference to without right. There is no disagreement on this particular phrase, without right, but again, this should be specified in domestic legislation. There are certain conditions. There are certain criteria, there are certain safeguards. There are certain criteria to determine an imminent threat, for instance. So again, domestic legislation determines how to interpret this phrase, without right. This applies to digital crimes as well. So either we delete, without right, or we add, according to conditions and safeguards specified in domestic legislation. So then we don’t have any problems. So the details would be determined in domestic legislation, the conditions and the safeguards. Moving on to the heading. It’s a double heading. We’re talking about online material. And then there is reference to child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation. This convention has a title, and the title is Crimes Related to the Use of ICT. So we don’t have to specify here online, of course it’s a convention on the use of ICT for criminal purposes. If we keep the heading as it is, it’s fine, but it’s redundant. We don’t need to specify that it’s online. There are issues related to crimes, whether real crimes or animation-based crimes. Again, these issues are specified in domestic legislation. We’re trying to protect children, there are crimes in which AI is involved or metaverse is involved. Sometimes there are virtual crimes, so to speak. So there are new developments in online crimes that need to be taken into account. So even crimes based on animation can affect children. So we do need to address these issues or have them covered to protect children. So this is an important aspect as well. I think I’ll stop at that. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Ecuador, you have the floor, please.
Ecuador:
Good afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair for Ecuador. The protection of the rights of children and teenagers must be a fundamental priority in this treaty, considering the severe impact of cybercrime. on the life, integrity, and well-being of children and teenagers. Even though there are variations in national norms that have been amply explained in the course of these more than two years of deliberations, the supreme interest of the minor, which is recognized in international law of human rights, must guide cooperation in the criminal sphere derived from Articles 14 and 16. We believe that this is reflected most adequately in the Rev. 3 text, with which we fully agree. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Nicaragua, you have the floor, please.
Nicaragua:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, for giving me the floor. Nicaragua would echo what was stated by the delegations of Russia, Iran, Egypt, and others. We would also endorse the joint statement that the delegations of Syria, Egypt made on behalf of various countries, including our own country. To achieve a convention that is in line with what our peoples need, especially the most vulnerable groups, which are children, we need to be aware of the major challenges that our countries confront in combating the improper use of the ICTs. We support the elimination of the term without right in paragraph 1 of Article 14. We reiterate that it is the duty of the states to protect our children from the abuses using the internet. Every day we see news of how delinquents, how criminals use the ICTs to commit horrific crimes against our children. We would also join other delegations that have requested the eliminating paragraph 3 of Article 14. Regarding Article 16, we support the proposal of the Arab Syrian Republic. To conclude, Nicaragua, as a state party of the Convention on the Rights of the Children, reiterates its position that this convention must rigorously reflect the parameters necessary to protect our children and in no way must it contradict or undermine existing international legal instruments on the protection of our children. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, you have the floor, please.
Democratic Republic of the Congo:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair, for giving us the floor. Mr. Vice Chair, the DRC congratulates you and your entire team on your balanced leadership of our debate on the very controversial topics contained in this draft convention. The Secretariat also ought to be commended by us for its commitment to faithfully transcribing the points of view of delegations on the updated text of the draft convention. We also congratulate the translation team for helping us to understand the text and the discussions. You have done outstanding work, and the DRC thanks you sincerely. After having read and listened to the intervention, of other delegations. Our observations and comments are as follows. As we’re speaking about Articles 14 and 16, we would begin with our comments on Article 14. With regard to Article 14 on offenses leading to online content representing child sexual abuse or exploitation of children, our first argument has to do with the use of the term without right in the first paragraph. When saying that the nature of the offense, in accordance with domestic law, would be considered offenses when they are committed intentionally and without right, that language would indicate that the illicit acts referred to in the Convention under certain circumstances could be legally covered, that is to say, authorized. Mr. Vice Chair, it is clear that the term without right therefore changes the entire meaning of this article. It’s very obvious that this provision could encourage these offenses against children, and that would be contrary to the legislation of the DRC. In the same vein, Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child states that in all decisions that concern children, whether made by public or private institutions, social protection systems, courts, administrative authorities, or… legislative bodies, the best interests of the child must take precedence. That is what it says in the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, which requires all of us to keep in mind the best interests of the child. Now let us ask ourselves, let’s ask the right questions of ourselves. Do we really think that Article 14 of this Convention, in its current phrasing, is in line with the best interests of the child? If the higher interests of the child are taken into account here, clearly they are not. And so it would be better to look at Resolution 74247, which has brought us together here in this room. The Committee has come together to address this question and we should ask ourselves, is it true that this Resolution 74247 has given us a mandate, a mandate to flout the best interests of the child, which is guaranteed and protected by an international UN legal instrument? Obviously not. Mr. Vice-Chair, I’m sure you will understand that none of these illicit acts set forth in paragraphs A, B and C of Article 14.1 could be legally sanctioned. They would all be flagrant violations of Article 3.1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. And we would like to remind you all here that UN legal instruments are all interdependent and whenever possible we must ensure that they are respected. That is why our delegation proposes the deletion of the dangerous words without right. In doing so, we would not be advocating the criminalization of the acts of minors but protecting them from perverts, predators and other criminals. The same goes for paragraphs 3 and 4 of the same article. Now let’s move on to Article 16 on the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. When you read the provisions of Article 16 as a whole, you can see that the acts mentioned in this article are infractions criminalized under Congolese law, laws that protect morals and chastity and therefore no personal liberty, personal freedom can justify the publishing of individual sexual images in accordance with Article 167 and 168 of Congolese domestic law and that is why our delegation proposes correcting the title by adding the word non-consensual.
Vice Chair:
Thank you. Thank you very much. Cuba, you have the floor please. Sorry, it looks like Cuba is not here so we pass the floor on to Qatar.
Qatar:
Thank you Mr. Vice-Chair. My delegation supports the intervention made by Egypt regarding Articles 14 and 16. In our national capacity, the state of Qatar hopes the international community will continue to cooperate and we commend the efforts made by the Chair. in these discussions. We do not agree with the phrasing of Articles 14 and 16 for the reasons already set forth, and we support the statement made by the Chair regarding the number of depositories, that is to say 40 states. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much.
Paraguay:
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your efforts to reach consensus. Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to take part in all meetings. We’re a small delegation. On Article 14, as we’ve stated, we’ve already expressed our position earlier. We’d like to reiterate that we don’t agree with the proposal in paragraphs 4A and B for reasons we already expressed. The Chair mentioned that they took note of our position, but we’d like to reiterate our proposal that the sentence in A should end with conduct with children themselves. This should be their own images. In other words, in no way this could be interpreted as an encouragement of these kinds of practices. On B, we consider also the text is not sufficiently clear and could lead to confusion. We’d like to reiterate that the possession should be eliminated from the activities. The simple position, possession, or storing these types of images is the first step in the criminal chain. We also would like to reiterate in this B, it’s not sufficiently clear what relationship should be among minors. Mr. Vice Chair, we… support the proposal of the delegation of Brazil in Article 16, except for Paragraph 3, which refers to the legality of underlying conduct. In this aspect, we’d like to mention that Article 14 and Article 16 mentions the sentence underlying conduct, when underlying conduct is illegal. The problem we find is that we’re getting into the conduct of the victim. They’re individual conducts that are not relevant for criminal law. In other words, it’s in the personal sphere of the individual. With this in mind, the relevant acts for criminal law include two people, the victim and the offense. So, we think that this should be indicated, that is, a link between the criminal and the supposed victim. Paragraph 3, I would like to reserve the right for an interpretive declaration of this paragraph. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Cabo Verde, you have the floor, please.
Cabo Verde:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Regarding Articles 14 and 16, we have the following statements. We support the inclusion of Articles 14 and 16 in the proposed Convention. We support Paragraph 4, Article 14, as presented in this new proposal, although we would prefer the word shown instead of made, because in truth, a child cannot be treated as a criminal in any situation. But for the sake of consensus, we accept the proposal as presented now. Regarding Article 16… we don’t support this introduction of Paragraph 6. In all these articles, we support the reference to without rights. Obrigado.
Vice Chair:
Muito obrigado. Vanuatu, you have the floor now.
Vanuatu:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. Vice-Chair, I will be brief. Firstly, thank you for your great leadership. These articles present an opportunity to protect our children. This goal is so important to us, and we see the value of these articles in helping us achieve this goal. Therefore, we cannot accept any proposals that in our view jeopardize our joint efforts. My delegation believes that nothing in the Ref 3 version of the text would prevent us from finding consensus. We found Iceland’s explanations convincing and echo the support from the U.S., Australia, and others. My delegation maintains our position as in the Pacific Island Forum’s joint statement from last week, supporting Article 14 as set out in the UDTC. We also support retaining Article 16 as set out in Ref 3. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Okay, the next speaker on our list should be Japan, but Japan will be skipping their turn for now. So we hand the floor to Chad. Chad, you have the floor, please.
Chad:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. The Republic of Chad is taking the floor once again to express its position on the risk of exposure of children to intimate images based on Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which many states… present here have acceded to, we should note that the vulnerability of children is the main subject of this convention. And this is the true meaning of this convention. Our country commends the states that have adopted this position, including Syria and Egypt, to protect children, which we support. In addition, we’d like to add that children, due to their vulnerability and due to their inability to fully understand the consequences of the long-term dissemination of these images, must be protected from all forms of exploitation. The consent of children cannot be considered to be sufficient for legitimizing the creation or dissemination of intimate images. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that children grow up in a safe environment where their dignity and their privacy are respected and that they can have a healthy future. International legal instruments must reflect the voice of the majority. This is the basic principle of our common organization. We must therefore categorically prohibit all exploitation of intimate images of children. Jurisprudence agrees with us. Children after attaining majority have sued and won cases against their parents for disseminating their images during their children. We once again – childhood – we once again support Syria and Egypt in their statements. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Oman, you have the floor, please.
Oman:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. We thank you for the efforts that you have undertaken. My delegation already expressed its position during previous meetings on this article, and we believe that this convention ought to be aligned with national legislation. This convention must not include articles that undermine human rights and that are not in keeping with international instruments. We support the statements made by Syria and Egypt on Article 14 regarding online content representing child sexual abuse or exploitation. Mr. Vice-Chair, we believe in your ability to skillfully guide our work so that we can arrive at consensus on the articles in question, and we are prepared to cooperate with all delegations to find an ideal solution. Thank you very much.
Vice Chair:
Burkina Faso, you have the floor.
Burkina Faso:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. The delegation of Burkina Faso reaffirms its national position and supports the statements made by the Syrian Arab Republic on behalf of the group of states on Articles 14 and 16 last Friday. We appreciate all of the major efforts made during informal sessions under your leadership. However, we believe that there can be additional efforts made to arrive at consensus if we delete the words without right in Articles 14 and 16. remains open-minded so that we can arrive at agri-protection for our children while respecting international law as well as national law in states. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Argentina, you have the floor.
Argentina:
Thank you, Chairman. Similarly to what was stated this morning, we’d like to briefly refer to the new proposal in Articles 14 and 16, which are still being considered in our capital. First of all, we’d like to thank the Chair and Vice-Chair that acted as co-facilitators in these informal discussions. Secondly, we’d like to reiterate that the text of your proposal in Rev. 3 document, which is the outcome of lengthy work with various delegations, is acceptable to our delegation. This conclusion is also based on consultations with our relevant national agencies on the possible implications of these texts on our domestic legislation. Lastly, in line with what was stated regarding Article 6, pertaining to the understanding of the efforts of the Chair to obtain a consensus, we’re considering in the capital our new proposal with the understanding that the amendments proposed in it must be limited to this modification and should be completely restrictive in nature. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Rwanda, you have the floor, please.
Rwanda:
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your honest pursuit of consensus. To have the best interest of the child in Article 14 weigh against other consideration. Rwanda delegations want to bring clarity on this matter that Rwanda disagrees with the wording in Article 14, paragraph 1. We would like to repeat that Rwanda disagrees with the wording in Article 14, paragraph 1. wording of Article 14, Paragraph 1, which states, without right. We suggest that the word without right should be deleted from Paragraph 1 for the reasons that we are not going to repeat, because we have already clarified them before in our other statements. In the spirit of cooperation and consensus, there have been suggestions in the plenary and in informal meetings to find new wording, to find new writing, to replace the word without right. Some have suggested to replace it with committed intentionally and without permission by law, as opposed to without right, because no one has the right to commit a crime, but may be permitted by law to do certain things as an exception. Thank you, Vice Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Syrian Arab Republic, you have the floor, please.
Syrian Arab Republic:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Just because we saw some appetite from our statement on Friday, so just allow me to redeliver our joint statement that I had the honor to deliver on behalf of Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and my country, Syria. So if I share the current formulation of Article 14.3, could limit criminalization of child sexual exploitation online to contend depicting a real child. Such formulation may exclude animations, cartoons, or other visual representations of a child’s sexual exploitation. The present formulation would defeat the very purpose so. in elaboration of the Convention and inclusion of Article 14 in the Convention since it would create exceptions in fighting this crime. We should also take into account that artificial intelligence is increasingly misused by criminals, including for child sexual exploitation. It should be noted as well that the term without right in Paragraph 1 is contrary to the purpose of Article 14 since the latter would indicate as if there could be a right to access child sexual exploitation material. This would undermine countering the use of ICT for criminal purposes and international cooperation in this area. There is no right to engage in child sexual exploitation or to normalize such conduct. Now Mr. Vice Chair, regarding Article 14.4a, while we could be flexible on having a provision excluding criminalization of children under domestic laws, we see merits in having a clause emphasizing the direction of states for establishing corrective or rehabilitative measures. This is important. This way we could ensure that our children are protected from harmful behavior which might lead to their victimization by criminals too. Nonetheless, we could not accept subparagraph b as it runs counter to our domestic laws. Now we would like to turn to Article 16, the future convention, as in the international legal framework on combating the use of information and communication for criminal purposes should indeed have due regard. to the differences among various domestic legal systems. It should not opt for imposing legal theories of specific legal frameworks on the domestic legal systems that adopt a broader approach in countering dissemination of intimate images and related issues. It is necessary to formulate the article in a manner that would more clearly be consistent with domestic laws of countries, including those of our grouping, related to criminalization of the publication of intimate images and obscene material, with or without the consent of the parties involved. This is necessary to preserve order and public morals consistent with societal norms and values, which might vary by context. It also could provide broader acceptance of the Convention globally. It is important to delete the phrase without right from the article as well, for similar reasons that we have mentioned before. Having said that, our proposal to be added as Article 16.5 is the following. Nothing in this article shows prejudice, criminalization of the dissemination of intimate images under domestic law of state parties. This formulation allows for latitude for domestic legal systems without undermining the purposes of the article. Mr. Vice Chair, I thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Iran, you have the floor please.
Iran:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. I think we have provided our view on these articles and of course we align ourselves with the statement just delivered on behalf of many delegations by the distinguished representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. Just a couple of points with your indulgence I would like to mention here. We closely monitored and listened to the statements of delegations who are opposing – actually preferring to have certain exceptions in Article 14 and opposing the proposals of my delegations and like-minded colleagues in Article 16. It was mentioned by the distinguished representative of the European Union that in the case of child sexual exploitation there could be some legal defenses or exceptions. That is my understanding of his statement, which comes as a surprise because I think we should firmly believe that there is no exception for countering this horrendous crime. Anyway, the first reason mentioned by the European Union and certain countries was about the importance of the work of law enforcement, and I think in our statement we mentioned that we could be flexible in having a caveat that reiterates that the lawful exercise of law enforcement and judicial authorities are not prejudiced with this article. And if that is a real concern, I think we’re already there. We could have a provision on that. But I would like to draw the kind attention to the UNCAC. Law enforcement and judicial authorities could also come into contact with the proceeds of crime. Why do we not have any provisions in the UNCAC making any exception with regard to fighting corruption offenses and in relation to proceeds of crime? This is like an analogy. I understand we are discussing different legal frameworks. here. But the main question is that if we want to address all aspects of procedural criminal law or criminal code, then I think we should have a very extensive convention addressing all aspects of the works of the law enforcement, which has not been the case and practice of the UN relevant treaties in this area, including UNTAC and UNCAC. So if the real concern is about law enforcement, I think we could find a way forward. But regarding legal defenses, I heard that the distinguished representative of the European Union mentioned that there could be necessity or there could be self-defense. We’re not sure if that is legally accurate. If anyone could say that in the exercise of self-defense, the defendant would say that I had to disseminate materials depicting child sexual exploitation for self-defense or for necessity, we do not think that is a correct reading of the criminal code in this area. And regarding the second point regarding the paragraph 3 of Article 14, to be honest, it’s really hard for us to understand how we could protect our children when there is exceptions. We heard from our partners that they reiterate the importance of protection of our children, at the same time asking for having a long list of exceptions in this article. We could not simply understand that. And the mandate of this committee, in accordance with Resolution 74-247, is to also take into account international instruments. And we have the optional protocol of the Convention on the Right of the Child, to which 178 countries are party, including those countries who are opposing our view in this area. And the definition of child pornography in Article 2 of that particular legal framework does not have any exception, does not allow for any exception regarding the material related to children. Now it’s surprising for us that we are already trying to rewrite human rights instruments on this matter, or should we go against what we have already agreed here with inclusion of Paragraph 3 of Article 14. We also heard last week from certain delegations stating that there are fundamental rights regarding Article 14 and 16. We are really concerned regarding how human rights is being interpreted by certain delegations. Optional protocol to CRC is a human rights instrument related to human rights. And also these interventions regarding fundamental rights that are really non-existent in international human rights regarding Article 14 and 16 is really concerning. I would like to reiterate that Budapest Convention is not a universal framework. Many UN member states are not party to this regional instrument. We are not addressing the provisions of Optional Protocol CRC on this matter, but other colleagues are trying to focus on Budapest Convention, to which many members, as I mentioned, are not party. This could not be simply a source for imposition of certain legal theories set forth in that particular document. On exclusion for self-generated material, as I mentioned, my delegation is flexible in having a provision excluding criminalization of children for self-generated material in accordance with domestic law. But Subparagraph B is excessive. It is a specific view of specific legal systems. And we believe that Subparagraph A already covers what is going to be intended regarding Subparagraph 2. I heard also from the representative of the United Kingdom that they’re not ready to change their law. I could say we are also are not in a position to change our law. We will not and shall not change our laws because of certain domestic legal systems are trying to impose their own theories in this convention. So we should take into account that this is not a one-way road. It works for both sides. That is why we should take into account in particular in Article 16 that there are different legal systems we should accommodate that particular issue here. There was mentioned also that these proposals on this screen or the language contained in the first draft distributed early at this meeting is a result of negotiations. I could say that in all informals and formal meetings of this ad hoc committee, we continued and will continue to oppose certain languages in Article 14 and 16. For example, Paragraph 3 of Article 14 or Paragraph 1, the term without right, they have never gained any consensus in the informals on the formals. It was actually a draft text proposed by the distinguished chair of the ad hoc committee. It does not mean that any delegation, my delegation or like-minded colleagues have accepted any language contained therein. Anyway, I just want to mention just to wrap up that we see that there are lots of differences on these two articles. I think we could have a common ground here to move forward. But the crux of the challenge is that we see that there is a unilateral imposition of domestic legal theories on other delegations. We saw that many delegations are opposing 14 and 16, seeing this not as a sign to fight against these crimes, but as a sign that is going to have any certain kind of exceptions. So how could we protect our children when we want to have exception here? This is the main question we ask. delegations who are opposing us. With that in mind, I would like to conclude by mentioning that Article 14 and 16 is, of course, very important for us. The main objective is to fight heinous crimes, and this is, I think, the common ground we could all have. But having exceptions here is not something that could be to the benefit and best interest of our children and society at large. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Singapore, you have the floor, please.
Singapore:
Thank you, Vice-Chair, for giving me the floor. Good afternoon. Singapore wishes to join others in thanking you, Vice-Chair and Madam Chair, for your efforts in bringing delegations closer to consensus for these important articles of the Convention. On Article 14, Singapore, as others in the room have noted, acknowledges that this article, as it is currently drafted in the UDTC, is the result of long negotiations over the previous sessions. That said, we recognise the discussions and valid concerns expressed by many jurisdictions over this session, and on the Chair’s new proposal regarding Paragraph 4, Singapore believes that this formulation strikes a fine balance between the protection of children, on one hand, and the respect for the sovereignty and discretion of States to best implement such protections within their national contexts. For this reason, Singapore is prepared to exercise flexibility on Paragraph 4 in Madam Chair’s paper, and we can support the new proposal. We would, however, prefer for the rest of Article 14, including the term without right, to be kept as it is currently drafted in the UDTC. Thank you, Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Yemen, you have the floor.
Yemen:
Vice-Chair, I’ll try to be very brief. There are some points that I forgot on Article 16 concerning the non-consensual dissemination of images. We said that this was contrary to certain domestic aspects. We suggested deleting non-consensual. This could apply to the rest of the paragraphs as well. Children need protection. They need prevention. Smartphones, when they are in the hands of children, this could have repercussions on their conduct, on their way of speaking. Children who are exposed to these devices at a young age is something that is not recommended. They are exposed to sexual content, which could influence their behavior and psychology in general. For example, I saw a child in a family who behaved as though he were an actor on the internet. It’s as though he exhibited behavior of sexual harassment towards his own family. We need prevention and administrative measures to protect children against these crimes.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much.
Cuba:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. First of all, allow me to apologize that we weren’t able to take the floor when you gave us the floor earlier. Cuba shares some of the concerns stated by certain member states with regard to Articles 14 and 16. We consider that to have a consensual document, we need more compromised language with these two articles that allows all countries to support the document. In our vision, the phrase, without right, in paragraph 1 of paragraph 14 should not be there. It’s not in line with our national legislation. We trust that the Chair will find a language that takes into account the concerns of all countries and the need to have Article 14 to be in line with the various national legislations without having explicit references that could contravene domestic legislative frameworks of member states. As far as paragraph 3A and B, my delegation also has some reservations on this, and we would like to see a revision of paragraph 3A and B. Mr. Chairman, we would request that any analysis of Article 14 take into account the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. of the Child, in particular it’s Article 34, so that this convention is fully in line with the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the overwhelming Member States are parties to. As far as Article 16, my delegation echoes the concerns mentioned by some delegations here in the room, but we trust that the Chair will find a way of resolving some of these concerns. Thank you very much.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Mali, you have the floor.
Mali:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, for giving me the floor. We acknowledge and applaud all the efforts made to reach a consensual text, and we are fully in line with this kind of spirit of cooperation. However, following on from the previous discussion, the delegation of Mali would like to express the following points of view in a comprehensive way. First of all, on the title of the document, which should be the subject of a discussion and should be validated when the contents of the Convention, the terminology, are specifically linked to the title. We would like the title to reflect the mandate of the Committee, because its current formulation is too restrictive vis-Ã -vis the mandate. At this point, Mali had a proposal, and rather than the title covered by the mandate, I would suggest reformulating the title. The UN Convention Against Cybercrime and Offences Committed Using Information in Community communication technologies. As far as Articles 14 and 16, we maintain our position in conformity with the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the African group, and we support the statement made by Syria. We request, just as previous speakers, to delete Article without right in paragraph 1. Let’s not make more fragile our children that are already in danger of ICTs. We need to protect our children. It’s important also that this convention enter into force as quickly as possible by significantly reducing the number of ratifications. We’d like to maintain number 40 ratifications. So to conclude, I would like to recall our attachment as a developing country to the financing within this convention of all capacity building and transfer of technology to southern countries and countries of the south and of cooperation activity. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Sudan, you have the floor.
Sudan:
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. At the outset, allow me to thank you for your efforts to guide our work. I would like to affirm that is to support the statement made by Egypt, as well as by Syria, regarding this article. Before making a statement regarding certain proposals, I would like to ask for the word, finally, children in this article, with the names of children and their families in your minds. When we read this article, we feel that the language of the article is not adequate to criminalize child sexual abuse and exploitation online. These provisions don’t address more serious problems, such as animated content or other graphic content that exploits children. This language reduces the impact of efforts to combat these crimes mentioned in Article 14. Children have the right to use technology without being abused or exploited. Therefore, we must cover all aspects of abuse and exploitation, including animated content. That would reflect the international community’s commitment to protecting these children. So expressions such as without right in this convention could mean that there might be legislation in some states that permit the exploitation or abuse of children. There are states that are trying to facilitate the task of law enforcement, but this language could undermine those efforts. In this article, there is an exception made for… images produced by children, and the pretext here is consent. But there is a major flaw in the phrasing of this article. There are many countries and legal systems that do not at all recognize the sexual aspects of childhood or children. Article 14, paragraph 4, mentions a pretext saying that there may be content produced without premeditation in order to ensure that children are not held accountable for producing images. But this idea is wrongheaded in many countries. Even if those countries did not criminalize that behavior by children, still, this concept does not exist because it would undermine their national legal systems and would not at all help protect children. We must correct this flaw in Article 14. We need to follow principles. Article 16, on non-consensual dissemination of intimate images, this is a very limited concept. There are other ways to address this question, which certain states are advocating for. The current phrasing of Article 16 is problematic because it implies that the dissemination of intimate images could be authorized. As we’ve already stated, this article is a problem for many states. Our concerns are not just legal, they’re also cultural. and social. We must keep all of these aspects in mind. The words non-consensual here are a problem. Consent cannot justify criminal behavior. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Kenya, you have the floor, please.
Kenya:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. We thank you for your tireless efforts to find a compromise with regard to Articles 14 and 16. My delegation generally supports the UDTC Revision 3 as drafted save in respect to Articles 14, Paragraph 1 and Article 16, Paragraph 1, where the words without right appear in the chapeau does not necessarily apply to all the paragraphs in that sub-article. For instance, in 14.1A, producing, B, soliciting, D, financing, without right does not apply. The only instance where these words will be applicable will be under Article 14.1C, so as to cater for the law enforcement or other legally authorized personnel who are in possession of child sexual abuse material stored in an ICT system or in other storage medium. We propose a deletion of the seed words without right under Articles 14.1 and 16.1, since the criminal element of mens rea necessary to establish a crime is already provided in the chapeau with the use of the words intentionally. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Venezuela, you have the floor.
Venezuela:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. In line with the legislation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which includes a special law against information crime, as well as the organic law for the protection of children and teenagers in Article 264 and the organic law against organized crime and financing of terrorism in Article 46, among other laws, they establish the pornographic use of images of children and teenagers and the exploitation and abuse in any capacity. All this is considered a very serious crime. Also, Venezuela, as a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and national legislation, considers that 18 years is the legal majority. So Venezuela does not support certain provisions in Articles 14 and 16 that contravene our national legislation and reserves the right to establish its position at a later stage regarding this convention. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Pakistan, you have the floor.
Pakistan:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair. Mr. Vice-Chair, right from the onset, we would like to support the subsequent comments made by the distinguished delegate of Iran. He eloquently explained the differences and further provided comments and rationale for our common positions. Which was presented by the distinguished delegate of Syria in a joint statement which Pakistan… has joined. Chair, I would just like to quickly address one issue. That is from the floor we heard number of countries stating that the chair draft text is a result of long negotiations and balance text is available to us which provides sufficient flexibility to member state for its incorporation or implementation. Chair, we disagree to this approach. The international human rights law pertaining to protection of children does not allow any room or flexibility for definition of material which could be counted as child pornographic content or elements. The flexibility is accorded to states on the basis of age if the majority age is attained earlier as per domestic law or applying different conditions. Those are conducive to the rights of child and according better protection in this regard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. United Arab Emirates, you have the floor, please.
United Arab Emirates:
Mr. Co-Chair, we support the statement by Syria especially when it comes to Article 14, the caveats expressed and also when it comes to the Article 16. These two articles must be consistent with domestic law so that we are able to Apply those articles if they are committed. I thank you
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much Uruguay you have the floor, please
Uruguay:
Thank You mr. Chairman We’re grateful for your efforts and the chair’s efforts to to find Compromised language be brief to optimize a little time that we have to To find solutions to the pending issues in the text while my delegation Has been evaluating all the proposals trying to find acceptable solutions regarding articles 14 and 16 We would like to go on record for our preference for the language in rev 3 Which we believe following extensive discussions reflects a compromise formula With a balance of different visions, thank you very much
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much Belarus you have the floor, please
Belarus:
Thank You mr. Vice-chair for giving us the floor with regard to the comments on Articles 14 and 16 the liner sauce with these statements made by Syria as well as the delegation of Iran First and foremost we’d like to say that both of these articles must be in keeping with the Universal Convention on the rights of the child But we can’t agree with is that in paragraph 1 of article 14 The word without right Those words are used because that fundamentally runs counter to the nature of these offenses, which are Deliberate which and which cannot be legally authorized by the very nature. So we’d like to see them deleted we Fundamentally support what was said by those previous delegations and willing to continue to work toward a acceptable text for all. Thank you
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much the Republic of Korea Thank you
Republic of Korea:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, for giving me the floor. Republic of Korea sincerely appreciate you and your team’s effort to move forward for our consensus on this issue. Regarding Article 14 and 16, we noticed that we’ve been through enormous and tireless discussion with this topic. We’ve tried to find our middle ground to reach our consensus. And Republic of Korea believes that this chair’s proposal is well-balanced for every country. These two articles cannot contain all different regulations of every country. However, Republic of Korea addresses to focus on the issue, whether we can reach our goal with these two articles. In our analysis, chair’s proposal provide room to respect each country’s and region’s culture and the way of regulations. We are on the process to make an international convention, which provides some level of guideline to implement the member states’ domestic regulation. We all know that we can’t have same regulation throughout the world. We need room to make our own regulation, reflecting our own culture and situation. In this respect, Republic of Korea support chair’s proposal as many delegations agree with. And we deeply hope to reach consensus on this topic. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Senegal, you have the floor.
Senegal:
their efforts made since the beginning of our work, and for your efforts, Mr. Chair, as well, to arrive at a consensus on this convention. The delegation of Senegal has listened attentively to the various points of view that have been expressed regarding the deletion or not of the words without right in Article 14. I would like to say that Senegal has no problem with the current language because CANA has ratified the Budapest Convention. And in the Budapest Convention, Article 9, Paragraph 1, the language is exactly the same, and Senegal has ratified that convention. That being said, we also understand the positions of delegations that would favor the deletion of the words without right, and that is why, in order to arrive at consensus, our delegation proposes rewriting this article as follows. We propose a rewriting that would take into account the positions of all states as follows. Each state party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offenses under its domestic law when committed intentionally and in violation of their domestic law. So instead of without right, we would say in violation of its domestic law. That we hope could help us to reconcile the different positions that have been expressed until now.
Vice Chair:
Okay. Thank you very much. Japan, you have the floor, please.
Japan:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair, for giving me the floor again. I would like to reiterate our expectation that despite diversities of views of member states, the committee will be able to achieve a consensus on these critical articles, namely Articles 14 and 16. In joining a future possible consensus, Mr. Vice-Chair, Japan would like to express our understanding of specific terms used in the paragraphs of 2 and 1 and 2. Mr. Vice-Chair, please allow me to go through five points that I would like to make, just as follows. On offering, in paragraph 1A, it is interpreted in the same manner as offering in the Budapest Convention, namely the person offering the material can actually provide it, which is the situation where the CISAME is in possession of the person offering. On procuring, in paragraph B, it means, unlike offering, a conduct that is coupled with the conduct of possessing CISAME. Turning to soliciting, in paragraph 1B, it means, unlike Article 14, conduct of soliciting to persons who are not described in a CISAME in question. As to 1D, we understand it is a provision that allows criminalizing acts separately from subparagraphs A to C in the same paragraph at the discretion of a state party based on the criminalization in accordance with Article 19 participation of the conduct of financing to acts as provided for in subparagraphs A to C. On sexual activity and sexual nature, in paragraph 2B, state parties can can make judgment in accordance with their domestic standards in relation to obscene materials, public order, and morals. Having said that, Mr. Vice Chair, Japan is on its conclusion, meaning the ratification of this convention in the future, determined to combat and prevent criminal offenses in relation to CSAME by clearly and appropriately establishing the scope of punishable behaviors, such as, amongst others, criminalizing acts committed in a pernicious manner and acts committed with clearly identifiable intentions in consideration of multiple perspectives on, such as, the occurrence of CSAME offenses and the varied manners in which they are committed in and outside of Japan and the risk of over-criminalization, as well as a need to prevent the abuse by investigation authorities. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. Jamaica, you have the floor.
Jamaica:
Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. CARICOM waited until the completion of the speaker’s list to take the floor. To you, Madam Chair, Your Excellency, CARICOM recognizes that we are at the 11th hour in these negotiations. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your stellar leadership and the hard work that you, Tahar, and the Secretariat have done in taking us to this stage. We await your final text and remain confident that the UN Convention Against Cybercrimes, committed through the use of ICTs, will bring value to the criminal justice systems of the 193 member states. of the United Nations. Thank you, Your Excellency.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much. There are distinguished excellencies, distinguished delegates. I hand over the floor to Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, my dear George. Thank you for the efforts you’ve made since the beginning of this process. I was selected by the African group to be the candidate on behalf of the African group. And since the very outset, I’ve had the African group behind me, and two vice chairs, Egypt and Nigeria, by my side. And you, my dear George, you’ve been there since the beginning with your untiring efforts. So thank you very much. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. We’ve spent all your energy. Thank you. And the questions, yes, let’s applaud. I understand that this applause also goes to all of the vice chairs who helped us with our work, our dear colleague from Australia and from Japan as well. They also have worked very hard, as well as all of the others since the beginning. We’ve had a great deal of help. I think that I was quite generous in sharing these responsibilities of chair, not to do my personality, but because we need to all be involved in this effort, all in the same boat. So I would like to inform you about the next steps to take. As you know, and I already mentioned, this evening, you will be receiving. the English version of document L. So it’s not REV4 as some might think it is L. That means it’s the definitive text which will be distributed to you. There are three texts, the convention, the resolution, and the interpretative note. These three texts will be submitted for adoption Thursday morning. In the meantime, tomorrow evening, you will receive in the six official languages of the UN the final versions of these texts. So this evening you will be receiving, or at the very latest tomorrow morning, I don’t want to get carried away because sometimes the Secretariat experiences various logistical problems between Vienna and New York. It’s very late today in Vienna already. And so this evening, or at the latest tomorrow morning, you’ll be receiving the latest version in English of document L. And you’ll be receiving the versions in the other five official languages tomorrow evening. Why is this? Because we need by Thursday morning, at the latest, to begin the formal adoption of the three documents that I just described. That is to say the convention, the resolution, and the interpretative note. And the report will be adopted on Friday as scheduled. I’ve just been kindly reminded that I haven’t forgotten that the stakeholders are here and that we must listen to them as well. But before certain colleagues leave the room, I’d like to inform everyone about the order of events. for the next few days. So I like to repeat that we will be adopting the three documents, the Convention, the Resolution, and the Interpretative Note on Thursday morning. And the report will be adopted on Friday morning. So tomorrow will be an off day, that is to say we will not hold any official meetings, but as you’ve seen we still have many disagreements on certain issues. So I strongly encourage you to get in touch with each other and try to find common ground. Because even if we do have the final text, as usual, in accordance with established practice at the multilateral level and in New York, it is always possible to adopt proposals during the adoption of these various documents. We can still accept proposed changes those that already enjoy broad support. So if you have a major concern still, you should contact as many nations as possible and submit to them your proposals. If consensus can be reached, then please contact me tomorrow. I will be in the chair’s office in the room that’s behind this meeting room. That’s the chair’s office. I’ll be there all day with a beautiful view of the East River. And that will allow me to look at something other than four walls. But I’ll be there available from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. If you wish to reach me, I will be available for you. That’s what I wanted to say regarding the way forward and the program for Thursday and Friday. So now I’d like to turn to our dear partners, the NGOs and civil society as well as the private sector. We are all keen to hear from you. And thank you very much again, George. Yeah. Yeah, of course. All right. Please let us resume with the list of our partners. So this, given that I can’t give you the floor during the adoption, this is the last occasion when I can thank civil society and the private sector, members of academia, NGOs. Thank you for your commitment, your participation, your contributions. Many of your ideas were taken up by delegations, and this is an excellent model for participation and partnership between civil society and governments. Without further ado, I’d like to give the floor to Red and Defensa Los Derechos Digitales, and then we have Derechos Digitales, NOMED Institute, and Access Now. So that’s my list of speakers for the floor, for now. Four requests for the floor.
R3D:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much for allowing us to take the floor for a final time. Thank you so much also for your leadership throughout all these almost three years and for setting a precedent for how multi-stakeholder processes should be for the future. We drafted a brief letter addressing some of our comments about some of the proposals that have been mentioned today and also the status of the current negotiations. So the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, independent human rights experts, human rights groups, and industry actors have all identified that the proposed cybercrime convention as presented at the start of the Reconvened Final Session of Negotiations still contains critical shortcomings and poses unacceptable risks to human rights. We maintain that the convention as drafted fails to address the significant concerns raised by civil society and others and should not, therefore, proceed to adoption. At the same time, we took note that in recent statements and consultations relating to the draft convention, states committed to maintain certain red lines and to ensure that the convention is not further weakened. from a human rights perspective compared with Revision 3. Despite this, we are sad to see that the proposal on demand pending provisions of the UDTC and in the other proposals by negotiating states, we have seen language put forward which represents a further deterioration of the text compared with Revision 3 and states agreed red lines. In addition, we have heard of proposals to trade off certain protective provisions in exchange for others where both are necessary and, in fact, continue to fall short to the minimum level of conditions and safeguards required to mitigate risk to human rights. One of these include revisions to the Convention’s title which introduces further ambiguity and appears to indicate there may be cybercrimes not committed through the use of ITC systems. This could be interpreted as defining any criminal act committed by an ICT system or not as cybercrime and will incentivize overly vague and expansive application. Revisions to Article 6 do to introduce a reference to in accordance and in a manner consistent with international human rights law. This amendment introduces unnecessary qualifications and brings further confusion to the provision which appear to be aimed at undermining its protective scope. Finally, proposals to delete the only reference to gender mainstream in Paragraph 10 of the preamble or to replace it with the reference to equality, to compromise on the changing of affirming for noting and to delete the reference to gender-based in Article 53H on gender-based violence which poses serious risks to gender equality and to efforts to protect the human rights of historically marginalized groups. Lastly, I just want to add that revisions to Article 24.2 which limit judicial or other independent review review at the domestic level or as provided in any other legally binding international instruments to which a state party is a party, this could be interpreted to exclude other independent review bodies, including the Conference of State Parties mandated by this convention to monitor its implementation. As we previously stated in previous statements, we all are here to protect the people. Let’s not forget who are we trying to protect and to have a treaty that will really serve us all and not to be in our detriment. Thank you so much.
Chair:
Thank you very much. You will have seen that we did not cut off your microphone for the last session meeting. I had asked there not to be any interruptions to the microphone. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t respect the time limits and try to be concise. So derechos digitales. Are they not present? Very well. Knowmad Institute.
Knowmad Institute:
Thank you. We would like to express our profound gratitude for your efforts to achieve or to try to achieve a consensus on this extremely important treaty. However, we would like to express our serious concern and disappointment regarding the gaps present in the current text and the threat this represents, in particular for children. children, for migrants, and displaced persons, for freedom of expression and the right to privacy. We also share the concerns of some member states regarding extremism and serious crimes. We insist that human dignity must be the central pillar of this treaty. This is why we request that you consider including in Article 14 a mention of the document on terminology suggested by Interpol. This inclusion would close some of the gaps present in the current text and would address some of the concerns expressed by various states. Also, it’s very important to establish a coordinated mechanism for support and rehabilitation of victims and promote international cooperation for the prevention and prosecution of sexual abuse online. It’s important for this treaty to be inclusive and protect the most vulnerable, providing a framework that promotes equality, justice for all. We would like to once again thank you for your dedication and commitment in this collective effort and we hope that the protocols at the end will also be for the common benefit. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Access now. Access now.
Access Now:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, for leading this open and robust process and we appreciate you, of course, not cutting our microphones. We support the comments made by our colleagues at R3D as well as the earlier interventions made by the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights and Human Rights Watch that qualifiers should not be added to the language in Article 6 on human rights. We appreciate the discussion prompted by many states on Article 6 and the use of the term suppression and we note that the term restriction has been considered instead. We wanted to circulate a consideration among states that the other legal term that is accepted in international human rights law is interference with. and that perhaps might allow for more consistency with existing international legal frameworks. Delegates, Article 36 on data protection is crucial to this proposed legal framework. If that language is insufficiently strong or is further watered down, let us be very clear. This convention would be dead on arrival, as they say, impossible for many states to sign on to and ratify, and a framework where each law enforcement act of cooperation would be challenged legally. We also want to reemphasize what we said last week. Articles 24 and 35, in terms of safeguards, miss the legal standard that is required. It is not merely proportionality, but necessity, legality, and proportionality. We think it would be extremely disappointing if the proposed safeguards in Article 24 and 35 seek to turn back the clock or perhaps even delete the current protections around the right to privacy in a digital age. The hack that none of us want to see, Madam Chair, is the UN Cybercrime Convention being used to delete or unjustly alter the last decade and a half worth of international law on human rights law and privacy in the digital age. Procedurally, we note the interpretive notes are part of the official records of the negotiations of past conventions like UNTOC and the Protocols, and are sometimes considered also separate documents. These notes are referred to in the legislative guides for the convention. We urge the Chair to ensure that stakeholder statements and submissions are duly considered in the Trawab repertoire. Finally, we join civil society in the letter to negotiating states regarding the Chair’s proposal and pending provisions, which was submitted by us or made available today, and highlight its assertion in that letter that we have seen language put forward that represents a further deterioration of the text compared to REF 3, and we believe would crucially undermine safeguards and protections of human rights in Articles 6 and 24. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Now I give the floor to Interpol.
Interpol:
Madam Chair, this will be our first and last time. taking the floor at the re-convened concluding session. Thank you for not having a time limit, but since this is the last time that Interpol will be addressing the plenary, we would just like to thank the ad hoc committee, secretary of the chair and the vice chairs for actively involving and engaging stakeholder organizations in the elaboration of an international cybercrime convention. As a permanent observer to the UN, Interpol has had the privilege of representing global law enforcement and policing agencies in 196 Interpol member countries through participation and contribution to the negotiations from the very beginning of this process. If adopted by the UN General Assembly, this convention will become the first binding UN instrument on cybercrime. Interpol believes that this convention has the potential to become a vital legal and policy framework and instrument for international cooperation in the prevention and investigation of cybercrime and the prosecution of criminals. This convention will also have a significant impact on the important efforts by national authorities as well as international organizations such as ours in combating cybercrime. Hence, Interpol would like to reaffirm its commitment to assist member states in the implementation of the convention after its adoption. We stand ready with our wide-ranging policing capabilities, many of which were shared by myself and my colleagues throughout the plenary sessions of the AHC to support all the countries that are present in this plenary room. Lastly, we would also like to express our willingness to work together with other, with the UNODC as the implementing secretary of the convention, as well as other international regional. organizations and the wider stakeholder community to work together in implementing this convention. So we remain optimistic that we will be able to reach a successful conclusion in the remaining days of the negotiations. With that, I thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. I have one last speaker on my list, Electronic Frontiers Foundation.
EFF:
Thank you, Madam Chair. First, we would like to extend our sincere gratitude for your tireless effort on this text and a lot of stamina. We are deeply disappointed with the proposed cybercrime convention as presented at the start of the reconvene session, and we are even more disappointed with all the amendments discussed during the last week’s session. It was very disturbing to hear how states were willing to trade away safeguards necessary to enable cross-border investigations. The text remains, in our opinion, an expanded government surveillance treaty that facilitates or will lead to cross-border human rights abuses. The scope of this draft text significantly exceeds, in our opinion, the intended mandate of this committee. The convention I’ve drafted fails to address significant concern raised by us for all these last three years or two years and a half, and therefore should not proceed to adoption. Is that not aligned with international human rights law, despite recent commitments to states to maintain certain red lines and ensure that convention is not further weakened from human rights protections? Madam Chair, we have already submitted many comments for all this. years, and there is no more than we can add. We just want to say that we are very concerned with the outcome of this document and how it will impact people and marginalized communities across the world. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. That brings us to the end of the list of speakers as far as our partners from the civil society, academia, private sector, and NGOs. Thank you. I want to remind members of the Bureau that we have a meeting tomorrow. The Secretary will let you know the time and place. We will meet again on Thursday morning for adoption. In the meantime, until then, try to agree on final proposals regarding issues that remain, I would say, in advance, because I will submit a text to you, but issues on which there are still some doubts, and as the Italians say, kind of good luck or break a leg. Thank you. Have a good afternoon. See you on Thursday morning.
Speakers
A
Argentina
Speech speed
130 words per minute
Speech length
175 words
Speech time
81 secs
AN
Access Now
Speech speed
208 words per minute
Speech length
484 words
Speech time
139 secs
B
Belarus
Speech speed
166 words per minute
Speech length
148 words
Speech time
54 secs
BF
Burkina Faso
Speech speed
135 words per minute
Speech length
114 words
Speech time
51 secs
CV
Cabo Verde
Speech speed
127 words per minute
Speech length
110 words
Speech time
52 secs
C
Chad
Speech speed
119 words per minute
Speech length
278 words
Speech time
141 secs
C
Chair
Speech speed
119 words per minute
Speech length
1215 words
Speech time
611 secs
C
Colombia
Speech speed
136 words per minute
Speech length
159 words
Speech time
70 secs
C
Cuba
Speech speed
110 words per minute
Speech length
293 words
Speech time
160 secs
DR
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Speech speed
113 words per minute
Speech length
732 words
Speech time
387 secs
E
EFF
Speech speed
153 words per minute
Speech length
251 words
Speech time
98 secs
E
Ecuador
Speech speed
116 words per minute
Speech length
127 words
Speech time
66 secs
G
Georgia
Speech speed
135 words per minute
Speech length
208 words
Speech time
92 secs
I
Interpol
Speech speed
152 words per minute
Speech length
364 words
Speech time
144 secs
I
Iran
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
1339 words
Speech time
523 secs
J
Jamaica
Speech speed
147 words per minute
Speech length
125 words
Speech time
51 secs
J
Japan
Speech speed
128 words per minute
Speech length
411 words
Speech time
193 secs
K
Kenya
Speech speed
124 words per minute
Speech length
178 words
Speech time
86 secs
KI
Knowmad Institute
Speech speed
133 words per minute
Speech length
251 words
Speech time
113 secs
M
Mali
Speech speed
114 words per minute
Speech length
313 words
Speech time
165 secs
NZ
New Zealand
Speech speed
156 words per minute
Speech length
172 words
Speech time
66 secs
N
Nicaragua
Speech speed
124 words per minute
Speech length
244 words
Speech time
118 secs
O
Oman
Speech speed
100 words per minute
Speech length
133 words
Speech time
80 secs
P
Pakistan
Speech speed
111 words per minute
Speech length
212 words
Speech time
114 secs
P
Paraguay
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
359 words
Speech time
163 secs
Q
Qatar
Speech speed
101 words per minute
Speech length
96 words
Speech time
57 secs
R
R3D
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
609 words
Speech time
238 secs
RO
Republic of Korea
Speech speed
122 words per minute
Speech length
219 words
Speech time
108 secs
R
Rwanda
Speech speed
170 words per minute
Speech length
206 words
Speech time
73 secs
S
Senegal
Speech speed
125 words per minute
Speech length
233 words
Speech time
112 secs
S
Singapore
Speech speed
166 words per minute
Speech length
202 words
Speech time
73 secs
S
Sudan
Speech speed
94 words per minute
Speech length
504 words
Speech time
323 secs
S
Switzerland
Speech speed
131 words per minute
Speech length
379 words
Speech time
173 secs
SA
Syrian Arab Republic
Speech speed
119 words per minute
Speech length
588 words
Speech time
297 secs
U
Uganda
Speech speed
151 words per minute
Speech length
474 words
Speech time
188 secs
UA
United Arab Emirates
Speech speed
102 words per minute
Speech length
56 words
Speech time
33 secs
U
Uruguay
Speech speed
159 words per minute
Speech length
103 words
Speech time
39 secs
V
Vanuatu
Speech speed
147 words per minute
Speech length
147 words
Speech time
60 secs
V
Venezuela
Speech speed
120 words per minute
Speech length
156 words
Speech time
78 secs
VC
Vice Chair
Speech speed
94 words per minute
Speech length
495 words
Speech time
317 secs
Y
Yemen
Speech speed
97 words per minute
Speech length
730 words
Speech time
452 secs
Related event
Reconvened concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime Convention
29 Jul 2024 - 9 Aug 2024
New York