(16th 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

UN committee adopts draft convention against cybercrime amidst concerns and calls for consensus

The 15th meeting of the reconvened concluding section of the ad hoc committee resumed with a focus on the revised draft text of the convention against cybercrime and the draft General Assembly resolution. The Chair welcomed participants and announced the availability of the documents in the official UN languages. The Chair proposed minor editorial amendments to the title of the convention for consistency and invited the committee to consider and approve the draft convention, resolution, and annex the interpretive notes to the report of the session.

The Secretary provided a detailed statement concerning the programme budget implications of Resolution A-AC.291-L16, outlining the costs and implications for various departments and offices within the United Nations. The Secretary outlined the estimated costs for the years 2025 and beyond, associated with the implementation of the draft resolution.

A representative from Iran expressed gratitude for the Chair’s leadership but raised concerns about the reinsertion of certain provisions in the draft text despite strong objections. Iran pointed out that there was no consensus on specific provisions and paragraphs within the draft convention, particularly those related to the preamble and various articles. Iran requested further work to resolve outstanding issues and reach a consensus that reflects all delegations’ input.

The Chair clarified the voting procedure, stating that decisions on substantive matters would be made by a two-thirds majority in the absence of consensus. Iran requested votes on specific paragraphs of the draft convention, including Article 6, Article 14, Article 16, and Article 24, which were then put to vote and discussed.

The proposals to delete certain paragraphs from Articles 6, 14, 16, and 24 were rejected based on the voting results. Despite Iran’s reservations, the Chair invited the committee to approve the draft convention and resolution, which were eventually adopted.

Various countries, including the Russian Federation, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, and others, provided explanations of their votes or positions, expressing their views on the adopted text and highlighting their concerns or reservations about specific articles. The main concerns raised by these countries were related to the protection of children, the definition of cybercrime, and the potential for discrimination in mutual legal assistance.

The meeting concluded with the adoption of the draft convention against cybercrime and the draft General Assembly resolution, despite some objections and reservations from certain member states. The Chair announced that the meeting would continue the following day for procedural matters and finalisation.

Noteworthy observations from the transcript include the emphasis on consensus-building, the importance of respecting national legislations and values, and the commitment to protecting human rights within the framework of the convention. The process demonstrated the complexities of international negotiations and the need for compromise and flexibility among member states. The adoption of the convention signifies a significant step towards strengthening international cooperation against cybercrime and sets the stage for further discussions and implementation efforts.

Chair:
Representatives of member states, observer states, ladies and gentlemen, representatives of the various partners, dear colleagues, good afternoon. And welcome to the resumption of the 15th meeting of the reconvene concluding section of the ad hoc committee. We now resume consideration of agenda items three and four entitled revised draft text of the convention and draft general assembly resolution. As announced on Monday evening this week, I transmitted the draft text of the convention, the draft resolution, and the interpretive notes to the secretariat. The three documents were subsequently made available in the six official languages of the United Nations yesterday at 2 p.m. on the official document system of the United Nations and on the session’s website. In addition, an unedited advanced version of all three documents was circulated on Tuesday evening. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, we have the draft text of the convention and the draft resolution to be submitted to the general assembly to which the draft convention will be annexed before us, as well as the interpretive notes to the draft convention, which will be annexed to the report of this session. In the event of approval, the ad hoc committee would recommend that the general assembly adopt the draft resolution to which the draft convention would be annexed. Before proceeding to the consideration of the draft convention and draft resolution, I would like to invite the secretariat to make an announcement concerning the program budget implications.

Secretary:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Excellencies, the secretariat would now read a statement concerning the program budget implications of Resolution A-AC.291-L16. The present statement is made in the context of Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. The present statement has also been distributed to member states. The actions, decisions, and requests contained in the operative paragraphs 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Draft Resolution A-AC.291-L16 would constitute additional workload for the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, Section 2, International Drug Control, Crime and Terrorism Prevention, and Criminal Justice, Section 16, Department of Global Communications, Section 28, Office of Information and Communications Technology, Section 29C, Administration Vienna, Section 29F, and Safety and Security, Section 34. The indicative cost estimates and their underlying assumptions for the requirements are provided in the annex to this oral statement. Resource requirements in the amount of $2,807,300 for 2025 is reflected in Table 2 of the annex. The estimates for 2026 and subsequent years would range between $4.9 million to $6 million, the details of which require further review and finalization. In addition, resource requirements estimated in the amount of $238,300 in 2025 would be required under Section 36, Staff Assessment, which would be offset by an equivalent increase under Income Section 1, Income from Staff Assessment for the respective years. The estimated requirements for 2026 would range between $0.5 million and $0.7 million. Should the Ad Hoc Committee decide to request the General Assembly to adopt the Draft Resolution A-AC.291-L16, the Secretary General would submit a formal statement of program budget implications and report the additional resource requirements as applicable to the General Assembly at its 79th session in accordance with established processes and Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. The indicative cost estimates presented above and detailed in the annex to this oral statement is based on the current text of the Draft Resolution A-AC.291-L16 dated 7 August 2024 and would be updated as appropriate for any changes in the Draft Resolution or the Draft Convention made at the formal meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee and submitted to the General Assembly through the established processes and Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. I therefore propose that the City today consider and approve the Draft Convention and Resolution mentioned and that it expresses its agreement to annex the interpretive notes to the report of this session. Before continuing, I would like to announce a minor editorial amendment to the title of the Convention. I propose adding a semicolon after the words, Draft United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime. I would ask you to take this small change into account when considering the draft text. In the paragraphs of the Draft Resolution, the colon will be replaced by a semicolon to ensure consistency. I would also like to announce a small amendment to the footnote on the last page of the Draft Convention in order to properly reflect today’s process. I propose replacing the word approved in the first line of the footnote with annexed and consequently deleting and annexed in the third line. The amended sentence reads as follows. It is noted that the interpretive notes on Articles 2, 17, 23, and 35 of this Convention were annexed by the Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate a comprehensive international convention on countering the use of information and communication technologies for criminal purposes to the report on its reconvened concluding session held from 29th July to 9th August 2024 in New York. We shall now begin our consideration of the draft text. Before asking you a question, I ask that you leave all statements, including any possible explanations of vote, until the end of this meeting in order to ensure a swift adoption. May I take it that the Ad Hoc Committee wishes to approve the draft convention entitled Draft United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime, strengthening international cooperation for combating certain crimes committed by means of information and communications technology systems and for the sharing of evidence in electronic form for serious crimes. The symbol for this document is A-AC.291-L.15 and the draft resolution for consideration by the General Assembly as contained in document A-AC.291-L.16 and expresses its agreement that the interpretive notes on specific articles of the Convention as contained in document A-AC.291-27-Rev.1 be annexed to the report of the present session. Are you ready to adopt by consensus? Iran.

Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude for your tireless efforts and leadership throughout the eight sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee. Your dedication has been instrumental in guiding us through this complex process. And as we reach the conclusion of our long journey, your presence, Madam Chair, will be missed. I’m sure I will miss you. I would also like to thank the devoted and tireless efforts of the Secretariat almost over the past two and a half years for hard work. I would like to extend my thanks to all delegations for their invaluable contributions and hard work in the negotiations to elaborate this Convention. The collaborative spirit and commitment demonstrated by delegations have been commendable. Madam Chair, after extensive negotiations over the past two weeks, it is very disappointing to see the reinsertion of certain provisions into the draft text, despite facing strong objections due to their inherent flaws. These objections were raised both individually and through joint statements. It is particularly unfortunate that constructive proposals presented by my delegation, along with those from other like-minded countries, have been ignored and deleted from the text. Regrettably, the disregard for the views and positions of many countries in the proposed text undermines the collaborative efforts we have all invested in and poses a significant challenge to the progress we aim to achieve. So I would like to reiterate that there is no consensus on certain provisions of the current text before us, particularly some paragraphs in the preamble, Article 2, Article 6, Article 14, Article 16, Article 24, and Paragraph 22 of Article 40, and Paragraph 1 of Article 60. We should work together to address these concerns and reach a consensus that reflects all delegations’ collective input and interests. For the sake of approving this Convention, by consensus, the flexibility of all delegations is necessary. We are ready, again, to work constructively and collaboratively to resolve the remaining outstanding issues in the text, ensuring that the final Convention is a product of our shared efforts and mutual understanding, one that all delegations could attach themselves to and ratify. I know time is running out, but my delegation is ready to constructively work with other colleagues to resolve these issues. We have tomorrow morning, but we are in your hand, Madam Chair. I wanted to raise only that there is no consensus on certain provisions of this Convention. Thank you very much.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Iran. What is your proposal? At this stage, we are in the process of adopting the Convention, the draft resolution, and agreeing to annex the interpretive notes to the report of our session. At this stage, I need to hear only if you are ready to adopt these documents by consensus or, failing that, if you have an amendment or a specific proposal to put to a vote.

Iran:
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Our Bible on this issue is Paragraph 5 of Resolution 282. So, mentioned, while all decisions of the Committee on substantive matters without approval by consensus shall be taken by a two-third majority of representatives present and voting. So, we have to wait, because mentioned, I have not heard about convening the Bureau to take a decision if there is a consensus or not, because Paragraph 5 clearly mentioned before which the Chair, upon a decision of the Bureau, shall inform the Committee that every effort to reach agreement by consensus has been exhausted. Madam Chair, we are, again, in your hand. If you want to ask us to move forward and know there is no need for establishing the Bureau, again, we are in your hand.

Chair:
Thank you very much. I take note of your point of view. I would, however, like to provide the Committee with my understanding of Operative Paragraph 5 of General Assembly Resolution 75-282. The language of Operative Paragraph 5 of the aforementioned resolution does not provide for automatic voting if there is no consensus on the text. Operative Paragraph 5 simply states that, in the absence of consensus, decisions on substantive matters will be made by a two-thirds majority. In addition, it is my understanding that, except for the above-mentioned matter on the two-thirds majority, the rules of procedure of the General Assembly apply. Because the Ad Hoc Committee is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, based on these rules of procedure, decisions are taken either by consensus or by a vote. However, a vote would only be triggered if it is formally requested. Therefore, if there are no explicit requests for a vote on a concrete proposal, even if some delegations challenge the consensus or express their views on the text, the texts are approved without a vote. In other words, a formal request for a vote on a concrete proposal is necessary to block consensus. and trigger the two-thirds majority to approve the proposal of the state requesting a vote. Since you have raised this issue and you are correct, Resolution 75-282 does effectively mention the need to convene the Bureau, et cetera. Considering the possibility of the situation, the Bureau met this morning at 9 a.m. and I will now read what we decided. Forward, I wish to inform that in accordance with Operative Paragraph 5 of General Assembly Resolution 75-282, the Bureau met this morning to deliberate whether every effort to reach agreement by consensus has been exhausted. The Bureau has decided that indeed every effort to reach consensus has been exhausted. I will only mention this once and we will from this point conduct our business accordingly pursuant to OP5 of General Assembly Resolution 75-282. The Committee will now proceed with the consideration of the proposal. And now I’m awaiting your proposal, dear colleague of Iran.

Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, my name is Nabi in Arabic, you know, means prophet. And really, I was wondering, I couldn’t predict anything. I was wondering how it would be difficult before establishing a meeting, distinguished members of the Bureau know about there is no consensus. I’m only talking about because you mentioned this morning before the session, you established the Bureau and you reached to this decision that there would not be a consensus. But we respect that. Thank you, Madam Chair, for that, for your predictions. I mean, the Bureau’s predictions, prophecy of that. It is very good. I will respect to that. Madam Chair, another question I would like to raise on Paragraph 5. It is a procedural matter. You know, we will start if we are in your hand, the order how to put on vote the articles. But before to that, I would like to raise this question because our reading is different, I think, with your reading. We believe because, you know, in Paragraph 5 mentioned, while all decisions of the committee on substantive matter without approval by consensus shall be taken by a two-third majority of representatives present and voting. So, right now, this text is your text, which many objections made on that. I would like to kindly request the clarifications that because there is this precedent F, a pinholder proposed something and there was objections on that, this is the responsibility of pinholder to ask vote for that. I would like to ask clarification that who should ask vote for, for example, there is no consensus on Article 6, Paragraph 2. I would like to be, be clear about this issue, who will ask. Thank you very much.

Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, dear Navi. I see that you’re trying to sow confusion, so we’ll move slowly, step by step. And since you insist, I must inform the committee that it has been multiple days now that you have been repeating that Iran cannot join consensus without going into details on what exactly, or your exact intentions, or even without mentions all, mentioning all the paragraphs specifically. This morning, you also asked me to ask the committee to agree to an additional postponement with the view to achieving consensus. I believed in good faith that only minor issues were outstanding to be resolved, and I did what I could to help achieve consensus. Now, we’re facing a situation which is very clear. The chair has shared her decision and you are challenging the chair and the chair’s decision and the chair’s ruling. And I ask you now, and you can do this, that is your right, if you wish to ask the committee to challenge a ruling by the chair. It’s up to you. Don’t throw the ball back into my court. What we have on the table is not the chair’s text. It is the result of work that has been underway for five years now, because we started in 2019 with the various elections and organizational sessions, etc. And it is now nearly three years that we have been negotiating. It’s not just a couple of weeks that we’ve been doing this. It has been nearly three years. And now everyone is ready to decide. You have the choice, if you so wish, to request the committee to either vote on your proposal, your interpretation of the rules, or you submit a specific proposal on a specific paragraph, or you decide to, and this is something that could help everyone, you could decide to make a statement, even if it is a long statement, explaining that you cannot join consensus, but you will not oppose to adoption without a vote. You have all of these choices before you.

Iran:
May I, Madam Chair? Can I take the floor, Madam Chair? Yes, of course. Madam Chair, thank you for your guidance. I will never challenge bosses. It is the first rule. Secondly, Madam Chair, really, we have made a lot of progress in the we have made a great job, I mean great efforts, through some dear ambassadors, through some dear delegations, after the suspension of the meeting. We tried to resolve the issues, but unfortunately we proposed some proposals in good faith to resolve the remaining issues, but we have not seen any flexibility, even a point, I can say a point, flexibility to reach a consensus. So anyway, we have shown our intention to approve this convention by consensus, and we tried, but unfortunately there is no choice for that. If, Madam Chair, you’re reading, I should ask for vote. Of course, my interpretation is completely different, but I would like to ask, our proposal is that I will not repeat again ourselves, our arguments on Article 6.2, because I think everybody is tired. I understand that. situations but our proposal is that first I think you know I was in Vienna I don’t know how to vote and maybe the room needs to be clarified how to vote so I would like to ask to remove paragraph 2 of article 6 and also we will go by order if you allow us. Thank you very much.

Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. S’il vous plaît, chers collègues, on reste concentrés. Please, colleagues, let’s stay focused because our dear colleague, whom we appreciate very much, had announced that he had several things he wanted to put to vote so we’ll do things in an orderly manner, step by step. I will switch to English now. Excellencies, representatives, ladies and gentlemen, a recorded vote has been requested on deleting paragraph 2 of article 6 of the draft convention. Pursuant to the rules of the General Assembly and consistent with the resolution 75 slash 282, the issue will be decided by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. Moreover, in accordance with the rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, member states may make brief statements consisting solely of explanations of their vote before the voting has commenced or after the voting has been completed. The representative of a member state sponsoring a proposal or motion shall not speak in explanation of vote thereon except if it has been amended. With regard to the right of members to explain their votes, the rule further states that the chair may limit the time to be allowed for such explanations. I will draw the Ad Hoc Committee’s attention to our very limited time for proceeding with its agenda items. Therefore, to facilitate the conference to finalize its mandates of this session, please allow me to exercise the discretion granted by the above-mentioned rule and allocate 10 minutes in total for all explanation of votes or positions. Therefore, we will wait and allow such explanations only after the voting is completed. 10 minutes mean that we may not meet all requests for explanation of vote or position, but Member States, without an opportunity to speak, may submit their explanations in writing and these will be uploaded to website of the Ad-Hoc Committee. I would like to once again draw your attention to Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, which reads that after the Chair has announced the beginning of voting, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now proceed to the vote. As announced, this question will be settled by a two-third majority of the Member States present and voting. I will now turn to the Secretariat.

Director:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Committee is now voting on whether to delete Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Draft Convention. Those in favor of deleting Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Draft Convention should vote yes. Those against, those who would like to support keeping Paragraph 2, Article 6 of the Convention, should vote no. If I could ask for attention of the room, please. Repeat, repeat. Okay, I will repeat. Those in favor of deleting Paragraph 2 of Article 6 should vote yes. Those who want to maintain Paragraph 2 of Article 6 should vote no. Those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. So please, the voting will begin now. You should be able to press the buttons in front of you on your sets. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? Have everybody, are your votes accurately reflected on the screen? I see nobody wishing to take the floor. So the voting has been completed. Please lock the machine. And if you give us just one minute, please stay in your seats. We will count the votes and the Chair will announce the results of the voting. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The result of the vote is as follows. In favor, 23. Against, 102. Abstentions, 26. There are 125 member states present and voting. The two-third majority of the member states present and voting is 84. Therefore, the proposal to delete Paragraph 2 of Article 6 is thereby rejected. Pas d’applaudissements, s’il vous plaît. No applause, please. The voting on this matter will be reflected in the report of the reconvened concluding session. Je repasse au français. I shall now move to French. May I now invite the Ad Hoc Committee to approve the draft Convention and draft Resolution as contained in documents A.AC.291.L.15 and document A.AC.291.L.16 and agree document A.AC.291.L.27.REV.1 to be annexed to the report of this session. Is the Committee ready to adopt these? Iran.

Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to call vote for Article 14 and 16, but those complex articles, I would like to hand over the floor to my colleague to explain on that. Thank you. May I, Madam Chair?

Chair:
Bien sûr. Certainly.

Iran:
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Please allow me to thank you and also the Secretariat for the tireless efforts made in this process. We highly appreciate your role and also our colleagues in the Secretariat for the important work they have done in this process throughout the whole meeting. Just to be concise, on Article 14, I would like to mention that we attach great importance to fighting child sexual exploitation. That is why we adopt zero tolerance policy in this regard. Throughout this process, we made every effort to make sure that this article adopts a zero tolerance policy in this regard. For that purpose, we requested for deletion of the term without right in Paragraph 1 of Article 14. In our view, and I have to say in the view of many other like-minded colleagues, there is no such right to engage in child sexual exploitation. And that is why we requested for having that deleted. Unfortunately, we heard in this process that some delegations aiming to justify this heinous crime under the view that this might prejudice the measures of law enforcement and judicial authorities. But we do not think that this provision would in any manner prejudice the work of judicial authorities and law enforcement because the purpose of those authorities is to interdict criminals, not to perpetrate crimes. So I do not want to go again into arguments. We have submitted our view and had extensive discussions on this matter, but just wanted to briefly refer to the fact that this article, the way it stands, it does not unfortunately protect our children. It could create loopholes. For that reason, we would like to take this opportunity and request for deletion of the term without right in paragraph 1 of article 14. We have other requests, and I will proceed as you wish, Madam Chair. I thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much. The Secretariat is noting your request. Thank you. S’il vous plaît. Yes, colleagues. We’ve nearly finished. Vest? A recorded vote has been requested on deleting the term without right from article 14, paragraph 1, of the draft of the Convention. Portion to the rules of the General Assembly and consistent with the resolution 75-2A2, the issue will be decided by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. Moreover, in accordance with Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, members… States may make brief statements consisting solely of explanations of their votes before the voting has commenced or after the voting has been completed. The representative of a Member State sponsoring a proposal or motion shall not speak in explanation of vote their own, except if it has been amended. With regard to the right of Members to explain their votes, the rule further states that the Chair may limit the time to be allowed for such explanations. I will draw the Ad Hoc Committee’s attention to our very limited time for proceeding with its agenda items. Therefore, to facilitate the Conference to finalize its mandates of this session, please allow me to exercise the discretion granted by the above-mentioned rule and allocate ten minutes in total for all explanations of votes or positions. Therefore, we will wait and allow such explanations only after the voting is completed. Ten minutes mean that we may not meet all requests for explanation of vote or position, but Member States without an opportunity to speak may submit their explanations in writing and these will be uploaded to website of the Ad Hoc Committee. I would like to once again draw your attention to Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, which reads that after the Chair has announced the beginning of voting, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now proceed to the vote. As announced, this question will be settled by a two-third majority of the Member States present and voting. I will now turn to the Secretariat.

Director:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Committee is now voting on deleting the term, and actually it’s deleting the term and without right, and without right from Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the Draft Convention. Those in favor of deleting the term and without right from Paragraph 14, I mean Article 14, Paragraph 1 should vote yes. Those who want to retain the term and without right in Article 14, Paragraph 1 should vote no. Those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. So I will repeat, those in favor of the decision to delete the term and without right from Article 14, Paragraph 1 should vote yes. Those against, those who would like to retain the term and without right in Article 14, Paragraph 1 should vote no. And those who wish to abstain should push the button for abstentions. So now the vote will proceed. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? I don’t see anybody indicating otherwise. So the voting has been completed. Please lock the machine. And if you will stay in your seats and just give us a couple of minutes, we will count the votes and the Chair will present the results. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Chair:
The result of the vote is as follows. In favor 44, against 98, abstentions 11. There are 142 member states present and voting. The two-thirds majority of the member states present and voting is 95. Therefore, the proposal on deleting and without rights in Paragraph 1 of Article 14 is thereby rejected. May I now invite the Ad Hoc Committee to approve the Draft Convention and Resolution in Document A, slash, AC, dot 291, slash, L, dot 15. And agree to Document A, slash, AC, dot 291, slash, 27, slash, REV, dot 1, to be annexed to the report of this session. Iran? Iran. Iran.

Iran:
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. On this article, we still have objections on Paragraph 3. Paragraph 3 states, a state party may require that the material identified in Paragraph 2 of this article be limited to material that A, depicts, describes, or represents an existing person, or B, visually depicts child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation. Again, we have presented our view on this and why we object to this, but please allow me to very briefly explain our position on this again, and I will be brief on that matter. We have mentioned time and again that there should not be any exception to fighting child sexual exploitation. This provision is a clear instance of those kind of exceptions that, as an international community, we should not give to any member states to consider any exception in fighting this horrendous crime. The point is that this provision also runs counter to the existing related international legal instruments. For example, we have a related optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which does not consider any exception regarding materials that are related to this heinous crime. With this, we are actually rewriting international human rights law. To that particular instrument, 178 member states of the United Nations are party to, and we do not think that we should go against that provision that we have already accepted here, especially to protect our own children. And I’m sure that history will judge all of us regarding how we chose these languages, whether we decide to put this in this convention. A future generation will judge us, of course, on this matter. And I have to say that the provisions of this article should not defeat the purpose of the article. Paragraph 3 is an instance of this matter that actually goes counter to the purpose and objective of the article. It undermines international cooperation and also the purpose of the convention. With that, I would like to mention that we tried our best to move forward and reach a consensual language on this. It was not possible. With that, we have to request for deletion of paragraph 3, article 14, as we read here. And we hope that member states kindly take into account the negative ramification of including such provisions in this convention. I thank you.

Chair:
Dear Delegate from Iran, Dear Delegate from Iran, As you are aware, the sponsor of an amendment is not entitled to give an explanation of a vote. This time, I allowed you to speak as long as you wished. I shall not allow that the next time, because you just have to present your motion quite clearly. And moreover, I personally was lost. Would you be kind enough, please, to repeat the motion that you wish to put to the vote?

Iran:
Of course, we are in your hand, Madam Chair. We do not want to prolong the discussion, and we follow the rules of this committee. We just wanted to explain why we think it’s necessary that this provision be deleted. Our request is to delete paragraph 3, article 14. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you. That’s very clear. We have the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. You have the floor.

Congo:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for having given me the floor. I wish to draw the attention of all delegations speaking along the same lines as Iran. I’m coming back to the same provision and the same subparagraph to request its deletion. As I recall to you, a very important factor. The international or UN legal instruments must be or are complementary. In other words, when we work on a convention of international scope, such as this one, we must also take into account the pre-existing conventions. We have developed arguments to show how dangerous this provision is in the interest of protecting our children and at the same time preserving their future. And this is why we’re coming back to this. The UN Convention protecting the rights of the child is clear. This provision is a flagrant violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This, therefore, is why we request that this provision, this subparagraph of this article, be deleted. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Sir. Delegate from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, you are aware that in the General Assembly Rules of Procedure, time is allocated for explanations of the vote. I can take it that what you said is an explanation of the vote, but you must wait for the process to be commenced and for the Chair to ask that explanations of the vote be given to take the floor. Thank you very much for your kind understanding. So we now return to Iran’s request. Our dear colleague from Iran, the vote has been requested on paragraph 3, deleting of paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the Draft Convention. Our colleague, I repeat, our colleague of Iran has requested the vote for deleting of paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the Draft Convention. Portioned to the rules of the General Assembly and consistent with the Resolution 75-282, the issue will be decided by a two-third majority of members present and voting. With regard to the right of members to explain their votes, the rule further states that the Chair may limit the time to be allowed for such explanations. I would draw the Ad Hoc Committee’s attention to our very limited time for proceeding with its agenda items. Therefore, to facilitate the conference to finalize its mandates of this session, please allow me to exercise the discretion granted by the above-mentioned rule and allocate 10 minutes in total for all explanations of votes or positions. Therefore, we will wait and allow such explanations only, I repeat, only after the voting is completed. Ten minutes mean that we may not meet all requests for explanation of vote or position, but Member States, without an opportunity to speak, may submit their explanations in writing and these will be uploaded to website of the Ad Hoc Committee. I would like to once again draw your attention to Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, which reads that after the Chair has announced the beginning of voting, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now proceed to the vote. The United Kingdom, is this a point of order because we have started voting? If it is an explanation of vote, you have to wait until we finish voting. If it’s not of vital importance, please allow things to continue and move to the decision. The UK, is this a point of order?

United Kingdom:
Yes. Madam Chair, you permitted a couple of other delegations to give their views on this amendment. May I make some comments?

Chair:
Well, normally I should say yes, but I shall explain why I’m going to refuse this, because as from now I’m going to apply the rules literally, including to the Algerian delegation, should they depart from the rules. I am really going to apply the rules, do you understand? Explanations of vote come after the vote. No one will be allowed to take the floor to explain or even less negotiate, and the country requesting a vote is not entitled to give an explanation at length. Things should now be clear. Thank you. I shall turn to the Secretary. Please, Secretary.

Director:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I proceed with the vote, I have to ask the delegation of the Democratic Republic of Congo whether they actually asked for a vote also, just to make sure we record it. So I will ask the delegation, did you also ask for a vote?

Chair:
The Democratic Republic of the Federal. Yes, of course.

Director:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The committee is now voting on whether to delete Article 14, Paragraph 3. Those in favor of deleting Paragraph 3 of Article 14 in the draft convention shall vote yes. Those wishing to maintain Paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the draft convention shall vote no. Those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. I’m going to repeat. Those in favor of deleting Paragraph 3 of Article 14 should vote yes. Those that want to retain Paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the draft convention should vote no. Those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? I see no one indicating otherwise. The voting had been completed. Please lock the machine. And if you stay in your seats and just give us a few minutes, we will count the results and the Madam Chair will present them to you. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The result of the vote is as follows. In favor, 51. Against, 94. Abstention, 10. There are 145 member states present and voting. The two-thirds majority of the member states present and voting is 97. Therefore, the proposal to deleting Paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the draft convention is thereby rejected. May I now invite the Ad Hoc Committee to approve the draft convention and draft resolution as contained in Document A-AC.291-L.15 and A-AC.291-L.16. And agree A-AC.291-L.27-REV.1 to be annexed to the report of this session. I see a request for the floor from Iran.

Iran:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We have certain, of course, observations also on Paragraph B, Paragraph 4 of Article 14, but we would like to move to Article 16, Paragraph 1. The term without right, I will not explain why, because I think we have had explained that in our deliberation regarding Article 14. Okay, just for the sake of time, and then we request, to be clear, we request deletion of the term without right in Paragraph 1 of Article 16. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Iran. Thank you. Dear colleagues, a recorded vote has been requested on whether to delete and without rights on Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Draft Convention. Pursuant to the rules of the General Assembly and consistent with Resolution 75-282, the issue will be decided by a two-third majority of members present and voting. With regard to the right of members to explain their vote, the rules state that the Chair may limit the time to be allowed for such explanations. I will draw the Ad Hoc Committee’s attention to our very limited time for proceeding with its agenda items. Therefore, to facilitate the Conference to finalize its mandates of this session, please allow me to exercise the discretion granted by the above-mentioned rule and allocate ten minutes in total for all explanation of votes or positions. Therefore, we will wait and allow such explanations only after the voting is completed. Ten minutes mean that we may not meet all requests for explanation of vote or position, but Member States, without an opportunity to speak, may submit their explanations in writing and these will be uploaded to a website of the Ad Hoc Committee. I would like to once again draw your attention to Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, which reads that after the Chair has announced the beginning of voting, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now proceed to the vote. As announced, this question will be settled by a two-third majority of the Member States present and voting. I will now turn to the Secretariat.

Director:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Committee is now voting on whether to delete the term, and without right, from Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Draft Convention. Those in favor of deleting the term, and without right, from Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Draft Convention should vote yes. Those that want to retain the term, and without right, in Paragraph 1 of Article 16 should vote no. Those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. I will repeat. Those in favor of deleting the term, and without right, from Paragraph 1 of Article 16 should vote yes. Those who want to retain the term, and without right, in Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Draft Convention should vote no. And those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? I see nobody indicating otherwise. The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine. And if the members can stay in their chairs and wait until we count the votes, the Chair will announce the results of the voting in a couple of minutes. Thank you.

Chair:
The result of the vote is as follows. In favor 38, against 99, abstentions 13. There are 137 member states present and voting. The two-thirds majority of the member states present and voting is 92, therefore the proposal on deleting, and without rights, in Paragraph 1 of Article 16 is there be rejected. May I now invite the Ad Hoc Committee to approve the Draft Convention and Draft Resolution as contained in Documents A. I’ll save you the reading because Iran has already requested – pressed the button to request the floor. I’ll save you reading the whole thing. Iran, you have the floor.

Iran:
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. On this article, we still have objection on Paragraph 3 regarding legal age. Just as you recommended us to be brief, we just simply request deletion of Paragraph 3 of Article 16. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Iran. A recorded vote has been requested to delete Paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Draft Convention. I am obliged – I have to read this, it’s the rules, I’m sorry. The General Assembly and consistent with Resolution 75-2A2, the issue will be decided by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. With regard to the right of members to explain their votes, the rule states that the Chair may limit the time to be allowed for such explanations. I will draw the Committee’s attention to our very limited time for proceeding with its agenda items. Therefore, to facilitate the conference to finalize its mandate of this session, please allow me to exercise the discretion granted by the above-mentioned rule and allocate 10 minutes in total for all explanation of votes or positions. Therefore, we will wait and allow such explanations only after the voting is completed. Ten minutes mean that we may not meet all requests for explanation of vote or position, but Member States, without an opportunity to speak, may submit their explanation in writing and these will be uploaded to the website of the Ad Hoc Committee. I would like to once again draw your attention to Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, which reads that after the Chair has announced the beginning of voting, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now proceed to the vote. As announced, this question will be settled by a two-thirds majority of the Member States present and voting. I will now turn to the Secretariat.

Director:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Committee is now voting to delete paragraph 3 of Article 16. Those in favor of deleting paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Draft Convention should vote yes. Those who want to retain paragraph 3 of Article 16 shall vote no. Those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. I repeat, those in favor of deleting paragraph 3 of Article 16 should vote yes. Those who would like to retain paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Draft Convention should vote no. Those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? I see no indication otherwise. The voting is hereby completed and please lock the machine. I would ask the Members to please stay in their seats, give the Secretariat a few minutes to count the votes, and the Chair will present the results. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Dear colleagues, the result of the vote is as follows. In favor, 34. Against, 99. Abstention, 19. There are 133 Member States present and voting. The two-thirds majority of the Member States present and voting is 89. Therefore, the proposal on deleting paragraph 3 of Article 16 is thereby rejected. May I now invite the Ad Hoc Committee. I stop because Iran is asking for the floor.

Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know everybody is tired on that issue. I promise only to put only two articles. So, Madam Chair, Iran would like to put to vote Article 24, Conditions and Safeguards. I wanted to propose some amendments, but unfortunately the whole is worse for us, so I would like to put the whole article for vote. Thank you.

Chair:
Dear colleague, representative of Iran, we need a clear motion, a clear proposal. What exactly do you wish to delete this article?

Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m sorry, I was not clear on that. Iran would like to ask to delete the whole Article 24 on Conditions and Safeguards. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Encore un peu de patience. Some more patience, please. Our colleague has promised us that there are not many articles left to vote. To delete Article 24 of the draft convention, pursuant to the rules of the General Assembly and consistent with Resolution 75-2A2, the issue will be decided by a two-third majority of members present and voting. With regard to the rights of members to explain their votes, the rule states that the Chair may limit the time to be allowed for such explanations. I will draw the Ad Hoc Committee’s attention to our very limited time for proceeding with its agenda items. Therefore, to facilitate the conference to finalize its mandates of this session, please allow me to exercise the discretion granted by the above-mentioned rule and allocate ten minutes in total for all explanation of votes or positions. Therefore, we will wait and allow such explanations only after the voting is completed. Ten minutes means that we may not meet all requests for explanation of vote or position, but Member States, without an opportunity to speak, may submit their explanations in writing and these will be uploaded to the website of the Ad Hoc Committee. I would like to once again draw your attention to Rule 128 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, which reads that after the Chair has announced the beginning of voting, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order, in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now proceed to the vote. As announced, this question will be settled by a two-thirds majority of the Member States present and voting. I will now turn to the Secretariat.

Director:
Thank You Madam Chair. The committee is now voting to delete Article 24 of the draft convention. Those in favor of deleting Article 24 of the draft convention should vote yes. Those who in favor of retaining Article 24 of the draft convention should vote no. And those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. I repeat, those in favor of deleting Article 24 should vote yes. Those who would like to retain Article 24 of the draft convention should vote no. Those who wish to abstain should press the buttons for abstentions. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? I see no one indicating otherwise. The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine. If members can stay in their chairs until the Secretary counts the votes and the Chair will inform of the results. Thank You Madam Chair.

Chair:
Dear Colleagues, the vote is as follows. In favor 10, against 110, abstentions 30, there are 120 member states present and voting. The two-thirds majority of the member states present and voting is 80. Therefore, the proposal on deleting Article 24 of the draft convention is there be rejected. May I now invite the Ad Hoc Committee. Iran? Thank you Madam Chair. I have no any rush to take forward but for giving time the colleagues to go to Manhattan because we are at the end of the tunnel. So Madam Chair, on Article 40 general principles Sorry, there is a seems that there is a point of order. Russian Federation is for a point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. There was a technical difficulty it seems. Russia voted in favor of Iran’s latest proposal and I ask that you add our voice to those that voted in favor of deleting the provisions referenced in that proposal. Thank you. Merci la Russie. Secretariat, s’il vous plaît. Thank you Russia. Secretariat, please would you record the vote in favor from Russia so that it be reflected in the report that I trust we shall adopt tomorrow. Would any other country wish to take the floor? No. I give you the floor again Iran.

Iran:
Thank you Madam Chair. Article 40 is a long article like our long journey to finish. So I would like to ask Madam Chair to, I seek your indulgence to read the paragraph which I wanted to put on vote. Article 40 is on mutual, on general principles and procedures relating to mutual legal assistance. And Article 22 which proposed I think by one delegation the last session is this. Nothing in this convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to afford mutual legal assistance if the requested state party has substantial grounds for believing that the request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s sex, race, language, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, or political opinions, or that the compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person’s positions for any one of these reasons. This is a new precedent in the mutual legal assistance because of that we requested, we call to put it to vote. Thank you Madam Chair. To remove it. Our request clearly is to delete paragraph 22 of Article 40. Thank you Madam Chair.

Chair:
Dear colleagues, a recorded vote has been requested to delete paragraph 22 of Article 40 of the draft convention. Portion to the rules of the General Assembly and consistent with Resolution 75-2A2, the issue will be decided by a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. With regard to the right of members to explain their votes, the rules state that the chair may limit the time to be allowed for such explanations. I will draw the ad hoc committee’s attention to our very limited time for proceeding with its agenda items. Therefore, to facilitate the conference to finalize its mandates of this session, please allow me to exercise the discretion granted by the above mentioned rule and allocate 10 minutes in total for all explanation of votes or positions. Therefore, we will wait and allow such explanations only after the voting is completed. 10 minutes mean that we may not meet all requests for explanation of vote or position, but member states without an opportunity to speak may submit their explanation in writing and this will be updated to website of the ad hoc committee. I would like to once again draw your attention to rule 1 to 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, which reads that after the chair has announced at the beginning of voting, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. We shall now proceed to the vote. As announced this question will be settled by a two-third majority of the member states present and voting. I will now turn to the Secretariat.

Director:
the committee is now voting to delete paragraph 22 of article 40. Those in favor of deleting paragraph 22 of article 40 should vote yes. Those who want to retain paragraph 22 of article 40 of the draft convention should vote no. Those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. I will repeat. Those in favor of deleting paragraph 22 of article 40 should vote yes. Those who would like to retain paragraph 22 of article 40 should vote no. Those who wish to abstain should press the button for abstentions. Will all delegations confirm that their votes are accurately reflected on the screen? I see no one indicating otherwise. The voting has been completed. Please lock the machine. The members will stay in their seats and just allow a couple of minutes. The secretariat will tally the votes and the chair will inform of the results. Thank you Madam Chair. The secretariat will tally the votes and the chair will inform of the results. Thank you Madam Chair.

Chair:
Excellencies, dear colleagues, the result of the vote is as follows. In favor 25, against 109, abstentions 17. There are 134 member states present and voting. The two-thirds majority of the member states present and voting is 90. Therefore, the proposal on deleting paragraph 22 of article 40 is there be rejected. May I now invite the ad hoc committee to approve the draft convention and draft resolution as contained in documents A slash AC 291 Iran.

Iran:
Thank you Madam Chair. I promise it is my last intervention. Madam Chair, with this understanding that certain provisions of the present draft convention were voted and are not considered consensual provisions or terms and that we maintain our reservation on the set provisions, we could proceed with for adoption of that convention we request that the present statement be included in the report and record it of this meeting. Thank you Madam Chair. Really, I would like to thank you for your patience.

Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. The chair has to put the questions to the committee. I shall repeat. May I now invite the ad hoc committee to approve the draft convention and draft resolution as contained in documents A slash AC 291 slash L dot 15 and document AAC dot 291 slash L dot 16 and agree document A slash AC dot 291 slash 27 slash REV dot 1 to be annexed to the report of this session. I take it that the documents I have just mentioned the first two are adopted in A slash AC 291 slash 27 slash REV 1 will be annexed to the report of this session. Thank you very much. Bravo everybody. Well, you will understand the emotion after three years of hard work with a lot of very, very arduous pressure. It’s been very difficult. Please, for Tahir. For Tahir. For Tahir. Please. For Tahir. For Tahir. I will. I will. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. May I ask those countries which requested to take the floor – yes, we’ve got time. We shall run to the end. We have Russia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Jamaica, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, Sierra Leone, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Singapore, the Republic of Venezuela, Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope that everyone can hear me. There’s so much emotion in the room right now. Dear colleagues, dear colleagues, in the spirit of compromise, Russia took the decision not to go against the consensus on the text of the convention. However, we state we do not believe the title of the convention to be appropriate and to duly reflect the substance of the scope of the document pursuant to the mandate of the ad hoc committee laid down in resolution 747 and 75282. The Russian Federation dissociates itself from the consensus on the title of the convention and intends to make the following interpretive statement when signing or ratifying this instrument. Thank you.

Chair:
Microphone for the Russian Federation, please. Thank you, Nicaragua.

Nicaragua:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Nicaragua, who wishes to take the floor to explain our position regarding the text of the convention that we’ve adopted. We would like most sincerely to congratulate you and express our gratitude for this wonderful work, your patience, and all your efforts at the head of this committee, and also to your team, especially Taha and the Secretariat, to conclude this last session. Our country, from the very outset, has supported the drawing up of this convention, intended to mean fighting together against the use of IC keys for criminal purposes. This convention, which we’ve adopted today, after many long hours of negotiation over more than two years, must be implemented in accordance with the needs and interests of all countries, with no exception pursuant to the principles of sovereignty of states, equality of parties, and non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Our country will always support respect for human rights in this convention, in accordance with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which is the fundamental pillar on this. For Nicaragua, a small country, a developing country, it is vitally important that the convention be implemented, and effectively so, by means of a strengthened multilateralism, solidarity, and international cooperation that is enhanced, breaching the existing digital divide in a way that we can meet the major challenges that we see with the swift progress of ICTs. We say once again that international cooperation must be open, unconditional, and receptive to the needs of developing countries, and it should foster training and transfer of technologies, and mutual judicial support, and the exchange of necessary information, necessary for the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and sanctioning of criminal use of ICTs. Nicaragua, moreover, as a state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, reasserts its commitment to fulfill its obligations pursuant to existing international obligations regarding the protection of our children. Likewise, we urge states, regardless of policies which hamper the development of our cooperation internationally, to refrain from action in this way, and to strengthen our multilateral and international capacities for the benefit of mankind in this new digital age. We would like what we have stated to be officially recorded in a minute. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you, Niger.

Niger:
the floor to provide an explanation of our country in Algiers. Madam, allow me, as I start to speak, to congratulate you and other Bureau members most sincerely on having so remarkably steered at the helm of our committee as we discuss things. May I make the following observations? In the preamble to the Convention, we state that the term gender does not signify the biological difference between the male and female text. Looking at genders, looking at Article 6 and various international legal instruments on protection of rights, gender rights, in the draft Convention, however, we cannot agree to the provisions of Article 2 and Paragraph 6 as it stands. On the exclusion of criminal responsibility in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 14 and Paragraph 4 of Article 15, the inclusion of children in criminal responsibility is a brutal measure, which means that public authorities can pursue criminals pursuant to the optional protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is a contradiction with the norms of the optional protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, pursuant to the sale of children, the prostitution of children, and pornography with children, defining all the sexual images of minors as being child illegal pornography, which should be criminally sanctioned. For all these reasons, Niger distances itself from Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 14 and Paragraph 4 of Article 15. My delegation also wishes to state that it does not accept all the provisions of Article 16 on the non-consensual distribution of images. Thank you.

Chair:
Nigeria.

Nigeria:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First, we like to express our deepest appreciation to you, Madam Chair, for your hard work and personal sacrifices in bringing these three-year-old protests to a successful conclusion. In the same vein, we would like to also extend our thanks, Madam Chair, to your team, especially our friend Taha and other members of the Secretariat, for their hard work. Madam Chair, Nigeria had supported the proposal to delete the use of the word without right in Article 14, Paragraph 1, and Paragraph 3 of Article 14 for being inconsistent with our domestic laws as well as our norms and values from where our laws are derived. It is for this same reason that we also disassociate from Paragraph 4 of Article 14 in its entirety. We believe the best interests of the child should be paramount in any provisions purporting to protect children, and we do not believe the wordings of the relevant paragraphs have achieved that purpose. On that note, Madam Chair, we would like to once again extend our thanks to you, and we would like to have our explanation of votes recorded in the report of this process. Thank you very much.

Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Jamaica.

Jamaica:
Madam Chair, it is my great honor to take the floor for a final time to address the Ad Hoc Committee on behalf of the 14 member states of CARICOM. This is a proud moment for CARICOM as it is for all member states who worked tirelessly over the past two years to ensure that we have a comprehensive global criminal instrument. What we have before us today, Madam Chair, is the result of compromise, hard work, and shared commitment to the multilateral process. Madam Chair, CARICOM wishes to express our deep and sincere appreciation for your dedicated leadership of the negotiation process. Through your effective guidance, we were able to develop an inclusive instrument which benefited from true multi-stakeholder engagement and which gives due regard to the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter while ensuring that human rights and fundamental freedoms are protected. We strongly believe that this convention will serve the interests of all member states. As we pointed out in the very first intervention in the formal session of the Ad Hoc Committee, cybercrime is a major obstacle and threat to citizen security and to the sustained economic development of our region. This convention will contribute immensely to strengthening our criminal justice systems and provide an avenue through which a harmonious approach can be taken in the criminalization of the core cybercrime offenses. The convention also creates a much-needed framework for international cooperation in the collection and sharing of electronic evidence across borders. We sincerely appreciate, Madam Chair, the provisions in the convention which speak to the needs and special circumstances of small developing states like those of the CARICOM. Chapter 7 allows for a critical aspect of our development, that of technical assistance and capacity building in respect of the investigation and prosecution of such crimes. Madam Chair, the historic criminal justice instrument would not be possible without the experience and technical expertise provided by our prosecutors, law enforcement officers, our policy makers and the diplomatic community. Their contributions enriched our deliberations and made sure that practical mechanisms were appropriately defined to enable our law enforcement to effectively investigate criminal offenses which involve the use of ICTs. CARICOM also extends its deepest appreciation to the distinguished delegations of all member states who have participated with diligence, tireless energy and boundless optimism, all with the intention to produce the most comprehensive and far reaching convention possible. In our view, there is never disappointment in compromise that produces a historic and workable result in the multilateral arena. We would also like to extend our thanks to the Secretariat staff who have supported this process from the outset. We are indebted to you for your support and forbearance. In closing, Madam Chair, CARICOM looks forward to working with you in the implementation and, most importantly, international cooperation with all our partners under this convention in the near future. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much, CARICOM. Thank you, Madam Representative. Jamaica, you stood at our side from the very first day. Cuba.

Cuba:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. May I commence expressing the congratulations of our delegation on the work you’ve done, and congratulations also go to the Bureau for doing their hard work for our committee. Our delegation wishes to express Cuba’s main concerns regarding the text of the UN Convention against cybercrime and the strengthening of international cooperation to combat specific crimes committed by means of information communications, technology systems, and for the sharing of evidence in electronic form of serious crimes. From the very beginning of the process to arrive at this convention, Cuba has been in favor of arriving at a comprehensive duty to lay down the foundations for international cooperation that is effective and transparent to combat the crimes that are being committed using ICT. During the negotiating process, the Cuban delegation has displayed a constructive spirit and fostered solutions based on consensus, taking into account the concerns of all parties. Thus, we very much wish to express our gratitude for the leadership and fortitude of the Chair to arrive at this. We have made a step forward, but there are deficiencies which curtail the comprehensive instrument we would like to have seen. The Cuban delegation wishes to see this recorded. We would refer particularly to three points, the lack of comprehensiveness in the content, which does not correspond with the clear intention expressed in the title of the convention, nor with fulfilling the mandate granted to the Committee pursuant to Resolution 74-247. We are also concerned about the small number of crimes covered in the text, when it is very well known that there are many manifestations of criminal activities using ICT. If really we wish to achieve a comprehensive convention effect, we must not restrict or exclude the most serious forms of crime associated with the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. For example, terrorism, the distribution of hate messages, the use of ICTs to overthrow state order, crimes against the environment, inter-alia. The small number of crimes recognised in the instrument will restrict its effectiveness and scope as an instrument of combat against this. Looking at the various articles in this instrument and others which are fully accepted, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocol against the sale of children and child prostitution and the use of children in pornography, and the incorrect definition of different areas of international law, placing some areas of international human rights against humanitarian law, intellectual property, access to technology, the right to development, prosecution of international and cross-border crime, inter-alia. All of this is against treaty law, the way in which states carry out their international obligations and the interdependence and indivisibility of all human rights. In addition, Cuba reminds you that human rights have limits which can be clearly established under national legislation and which are included, indeed, in certain international instruments. The use of human rights in no way should mean the violation of other very important provisions of international law, for example, institution to genocide, which is punished and sanctioned in all its forms in its carrying out or attempts of sanctioning and conditioning to international cooperation by means of this instrument, including mutual legal assistment, denying human rights standards. The drafting of the text here is ambiguous and allows states to cooperate under selective, discriminatory and politicized criteria, thereby undermining the effectiveness of this instrument. The Convention does not say clearly what the standards are when it comes to its implementation. The language on the governance of Internet as a way of protecting cyber state against crimes committed using ICTs. There are flaws in the very use of the term cybercrime, which is not properly defined in the text. It’s open to various constructions according to international legislation. In Cuba’s view, it should be a use of ICTs for criminal activity. Looking at 7 paragraph 2, 8 paragraph 2, 12 paragraph 2, 13 paragraph 2, the term dishonest intention is not legally defined. This is ambiguous and leaves it up to states to improperly interpret the Convention. When it comes to responsibility, states should be able to sanction and prevent crimes using ICTs and communications. Articles 33 and 37 on the protection of witnesses and extradition should not be included in the Convention as these are very specific issues defined by every state in their own legislation and pursuant to bilateral agreements against states. The ambiguities in Articles 57 and 58, there’s no clarity regarding the way in which the new Convention is implemented and looking at the implications for the UN budget. Therefore, we wish to indicate that we do not feel obliged by the aforementioned provisions when it comes to future action. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much. I ask the committee and to those who requested the floor to please limit their statements so that everyone has an opportunity to take their floor. We have South Africa, Djibouti, Egypt, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam, Yemen, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Singapore, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mali, United Republic of Tanzania, Algeria, Islamic Republic of Iran, Lebanon, Argentina, Venezuela, Malaysia, Thailand, Albania, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Syrian Arab Republic, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cabo Verde. So we have a long list and please limit your statements and And let’s have a little bit of quiet in the room so that we can hear the speakers, because here at the podium, I can barely hear anything. Thank you very much. South Africa. MS. SOUTH AFRICA.

South Africa:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So I take the floor on behalf of the Africa Group. The Africa Group would like to express its warmest congratulations to the committee on the adoption of this historic convention. Madam Chair, the journey to crafting this convention has indeed been challenging, reflecting the complexity and dynamic nature of the cyber-threat landscape. Harmonizing diverse interests to create a unified legal framework required extensive negotiations and compromises from all member states. However, this landmark convention thus signifies a very important achievement in the international community. Madam Chair, the group, the Africa Group, extends its sincerest appreciation to you, your Bureau, and the UNODC Secretariat for their unwavering commitment and dedication, including all of them that have tried to integrate diverse perspectives, mindful of striking the perfect balance. This is by no means a small feat. Madam Chair, your dedication and hard work has been instrumental in achieving a successful outcome and has laid the foundation for a united approach to combating cybercrime. And for that, we are sincerely grateful. Madam Chair, today we have demonstrated the importance of political will and our collective determination to prevent and combat cybercrime through international cooperation. The provisions of technical assistance and capacity building offer much-needed support to countries with less developed cyber infrastructures. This ensures that member states can be equipped to effectively carry out their obligations. Madam Chair, we take this opportunity to express our deepest gratitude to our dear brother Tahar for his unwavering dedication throughout this process, Tahar’s willingness to always be available to the Africa Group and the Committee as a whole is greatly appreciated. Madam Chair, this brings us to a very important point, and that is your name, dear Ambassador Fawzia Murbaki, which I am told means victorious, triumphant, and successful in Arabic. Madam Chair, you have indeed been victorious in bringing this Committee to a conclusion by successfully adopting this convention. You have certainly lived up to your name. And Madam Chair, the Africa Group extends its heartfelt congratulations to you, along with our dear ambassadors from Vienna and Geneva. Madam Chair, today the Africa Group stands tall with you. Your victory is our victory. So we wish you well, and we thank you for taking us on board this historic journey with you. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you. We share Bargashni. Yes, dear Bargashni. Without the African Group, nothing would have been possible. I owe it to the African Group for its support since I was a candidate and through today. Without your ambassadors, the ambassador of Egypt, the representative of Nigeria, and all the members of the African Group in Vienna and in New York, we worked hand in hand to achieve success. Thank you very much. Djibouti.

Djibouti:
Distinguished Delegates, I would like to begin by extending my delegation’s warmest congratulations to you and all members of the Committee. I also wish to express our sincere appreciation for your tireless efforts and dedication throughout this process, which led to the historic adoption of the first-ever international convention to combat cybercrime. Madam Chair, Distinguished Delegates, in addition to tightening up on addressing several issues and loopholes in cybersecurity and ICT, this convention aims to implement new measures for capacity building, training, regulations, and review. More importantly, we look forward to member states undertaking the transfer of technology in good faith. However, my delegation still wonders if the international community’s commitment will be enough and sufficient to prevent delays. We have seen several unfortunate instances in the recent past where internationally agreed goals were undermined by various obstacles. Nevertheless, we recognize that once this convention enters into force, it will be legally binding and effective enforcement mechanism will be actively enacted. We would like also to reiterate our strong concern about the potential negative consequences of Articles 14, 15, and 16 in this text. According to the OPSC and other instruments related to the right of children, should not be responsible for their own protections from exploitation on online platforms. Madam Chair, Distinguished Delegates, there are significant gaps in resources and skills needed to combat cybercrime and developing countries are especially vulnerable to its effects. To address this, it is crucial to prioritize capacity building and transfer of technology to help these countries strengthen their defenses against cybercrime. We recognize that bridging these gaps is key to combat cybercrime. There is a need to provide enhanced and continued support to developing countries and our partners of developed countries, given the role perhaps will bear here a special responsibility. The challenges of cybercrime and ICTs in relation to international law are, as noted in the resolution and the convention, spread across a collection of international instruments, including multilateral and bilateral agreement, UN resolutions, diplomatic practice, and so on and so forth. It will be extremely beneficial for the international community to swiftly enact this new legally binding instrument to consolidate the hard-won gains in this field. By adopting this convention, the international community has taken an active stance and did not remain on the sidelines against the increasing frequency and diversity of serious acts in the cloud that threaten our security. The sooner we achieve the required number of ratifications, the better. In the meantime, we should all refrain in good faith from actions that will undermine or defeat the purpose and objectives of this convention. Please reflect our declaration in the verbatim record of this meeting. Thank you for your attention.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Egypt.

Egypt:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Distinguished representatives of the member states of the Ad Hoc Committee, dear colleagues and friends, at the outset I would like to express my heartfelt congratulations to all members of the Ad Hoc Committee for the conclusion of our work and for reaching a final version of a UN convention against cybercrime. I must also express my gratitude and appreciation to our distinguished and able Chair, Her Excellency Ambassador Fawzia Mubarki, for her tireless efforts, her patience, and her wise leadership, which have steered us through a year-long process towards a successful conclusion. My thanks also go to my dear colleague, Tahir Mohideb, for his dedication to the success of this process. I would also like to thank the Secretariat for their dedication and commitment to this process. They have been essential to ensuring the success of our endeavors, and their important input has left this mark on this important convention. I have enjoyed working with them for the past four years, and I will miss them when I leave Vienna very soon. My special thanks also go to each and every country in the room who have helped us to reach this successful outcome. Madam Chair, I have a very long statement of five pages that generally reflects Egypt’s position towards certain articles. So I will stop here, and I’ll send that statement to be registered on the record of the committee. And I thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. It will be published on the committee’s website, Pakistan.

Pakistan:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Allow me to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to you, to Mr. Tahir, and the Secretariat, for your tireless efforts, cooperation, and dedication in guiding us through this challenging process. I also extend my thanks to all colleagues, both present and absent, for their valuable contribution, whether in agreement or disagreement, and for their continued engagement in this crucial work on cybercrime. Madam Chair, consensus is more than a procedural formality. It is a reflection of our shared humanity. It demands that we step back, listen with empathy, and seek common ground despite our differences. This process is challenging and requires us to move beyond mere rhetoric to embrace inclusivity and compromise. Despite our best efforts, we reached at the crossroads unable to reach the consensus or compromise or achieve comprehensive convention we sought. This is not just a procedural setback, but a stark reminder of difficulties we face in our pursuit of global unity. It is disheartening to acknowledge that our collective aspirations remained unfulfilled. Pakistan firmly believes that human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. We are convinced that human rights must be treated globally with fairness and equality, having the same emphasis and consideration to all rights. It is the duty of all of us, irrespective of our political, economical, or cultural context, to promote and protect all human rights and all fundamental freedoms. This duty requires a holistic approach, without selective enforcement or the misuse of terminology not recognized in international humanitarian law. Human freedoms come with responsibilities, yet the current text did not recognize these responsibilities, suggesting either their neglect or outright omission. However, my delegation abstained from voting on this very critical issue, for the reason that we are committed to upholding human rights and believe this issue could have been resolved more constructively. We disagree with the approach of voting on a matter so instructively tied to human rights and our freedoms. Such an approach only leads to deadlock and fails to address the complexities of issues at hand. We also disagree to voting on whole articles. Therefore, we carefully used number four in good faith and remain constructive. Madam Chair, Pakistan’s decision to align with our Iranian colleagues and call for a vote on Article 14 and 16, aligning fully that the current draft text did not allocate best protection to our children, is born from a profound sense of concern and disappointment. We are deeply troubled by the current draft text, which we believe failed to uphold the protection we owe to our future generation, including our own children. We had multiple issues with the Articles 14 and 16, the term without right, material limitation and non-consensual dissemination of intimate image. Madam Chair, having said that, it is vital that our voices and reservations are acknowledged as part of record. I therefore request that our concern and remarks, which are presented here, be duly noted and included in the final report. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Papua New Guinea.

Papua New Guinea:
Distinguished Madam Chair, Excellencies and fellow delegates. On this momentous occasion, my delegation would like to first and foremost pay special tribute and appreciation to Your Excellency, Madam Chair, and your team for the courageous leadership, transparent, inclusive, consultative, and constructive manner and spirit you ably demonstrated in discharging your mandate on this important global agenda on combating cybercrime. Convening the process in two different venues, New York and Vienna, and over the period of the process, in and of itself, with its challenges and how this was managed, is no small feat. It is indeed a clear testament to your able leadership, dedication and commitment, and that of all stakeholders, for a better world in a rapidly and dynamically evolving information and communication technology domain. Well done, Madam Chair. To the Bureau members and the Secretariat team, our commendation also goes to you all for your tremendous and valued contribution in this process. We also want to recognize the important role member states and all other stakeholders played in delivering to we, the peoples of these United Nations, the landmark UN Convention Against Cybercrime adopted today. Madam Chair, let me also take this opportunity to associate Papua New Guinea with the statement made earlier today by the distinguished delegation of Tonga on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum members. Madam Chair, as we noted in our last remarks to this meeting, Papua New Guinea has our own cybercrime legislation called the Cybercrime Code Act 2016, and the jurisprudence on it is evolving at the national level. We have also, under our 2023 to 2027 medium-term Development Plan 4, prioritized national security as Strategic Priority Area 6, which incorporates cyber security. Papua New Guinea is witnessing a rapid increase in the adoption of digital technologies across all sectors. Ensuring the security of cyberspace and the safeguarding of all digital technologies used by governments, our people, and business is critical. That is why my government supports the development of protective systems and technology to reduce our country’s exposure to cybercrimes and cyber security risks. For my delegation, the UN Convention Against Cybercrime we have just adopted will be of added value and benefit to our domestic efforts in better protecting and securing the country and people, not only from the challenges, but also harness the opportunities provided by information and communication technology so that we can effectively address cybercrime and support national sustainable development. Overall, Papua New Guinea is supportive of the intent of the Convention, which is orientated towards protecting society from the misapplication, misuse, and abuse of ICT systems in a dynamically involving digital society and space, and to set appropriate international standards and norms that could help shape and steer the use of such ICT systems and facilities. Madam Chair, having said this, my delegation having consulted with the Capitol on the text of the Convention before us would like to offer the following additional points. In our considered view, there are a number of articles in the Convention that purport to defeat the purpose of the Convention. This includes Articles 14, Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, Article 15, Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, and Article 16. Articles 14, Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 makes allowances for state parties to decriminalize the consensual production, transmission, and possession of material that depicts child sexual assault and exploitation. Article 15, Paragraph 2 also makes allowances for state parties to require an act in federance of solicitation of grooming for the purpose of committing a sexual offense against a child. Furthermore, Article 15, Paragraph 4 enables state parties to make exceptions where solicitation of grooming is committed by a child. Article 16 essentially allows for the decriminalization of the dissemination of pornographic material in the event that it has been consented to. In addition, Article 15, Paragraph 3 allows for pornographic material of a child below the age of 18 to be disseminated with consent if the child is believed to be of legal age and to engage in sexual activity under domestic law. Madam Chair, it is in this context that Papua New Guinea deems it necessary to register these comments in relation to Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Convention. In addition to the articles mentioned, we also wish to flag Articles 33 and 35, which place an obligation on state parties to take the appropriate measures to protect witnesses and assist victims. This assistance and or protection extends to physical and psychological recovery as well as physical protection. This is indeed an important provision in our view. The challenge for us, however, as a small developing country, is the capacity to implement such measures as identified in this important Convention. Whilst we recognize that countries in the first instance will need to address this domestically, but given the capacity constraints, international cooperation in supporting capacity building for countries like mine and many other developing countries will be highly welcomed and useful if we are to successfully implement the Convention at the national level. We therefore look forward to the early operationalization of Chapter 8 of the Convention under the mechanism of implementation with respect to the establishment of the conference of state parties to undertake its functions, including to improve capacity of and cooperation to attain the objectives of the Convention. Madam Chair, in our due process domestically to consider the ratification of the Convention against cybercrime, we intend to conduct due diligence and gap analysis of the Convention as an important step for our national legal clearance for ratification under our Constitution. Madam Chair, before I conclude, I would like to also further address the important issue of reservations, which my delegation spoke to earlier this week. Having further sought advice on this important issue on the permissibility of reservations, we note the International Law Commission’s guide to practice on reservations to treaties, and it is our understanding that states are permitted under international law to make reservations subject to the circumstances set out under Rule 3.1. Accordingly, Papua New Guinea may make necessary reservations formally at the time of accession to the Convention. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Vietnam.

Vietnam:
Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, at the outset, Vietnam congratulates and commends Madam Chair, the Bureau, and the Secretariat for your tireless efforts over the past three years. Madam Chair, your wise leadership has been indispensable in bringing the gaps among member states, leading to the finalization of the draft text of the Convention today. Vietnam welcomes the adoption of the draft UN Convention against Cybercrime. This marks a crucial first step towards the UN General Assembly’s consideration and eventual adoption of the Convention, which we hope will occur as soon as possible, followed by its signing and ratification by member states. Madam Chair, from the outset, Vietnam has actively participated in this process and proposed numerous amendments to enhance the draft text of the Convention, aiming for a balanced and comprehensive global legal instrument. Although not all our amendments and proposals were incorporated into the final draft, we acknowledge that the Convention will play a crucial role in fostering international cooperation against cybercrime, and its perceived shortcomings can be overcome in future supplementary protocols. Madam Chair, in the spirit of compromise and goodwill to establish the first-ever universal treaty on cyberspace, Vietnam supports the final draft text of the Convention. We anticipate that once the Convention enters into force, it will enhance international cooperation mechanisms among law enforcement agencies through mutual assistance procedures, and provide significant benefits to developing states through technical assistance, capacity building, and transfer of technology. Nevertheless, Madam Chair, we would like to make the following declarations regarding specific articles of the draft Convention. On Article 2, sub-paragraph 1, Vietnam reiterates that nothing in this draft Convention should be interpreted as imposing an obligation to legalise or recognise virtual assets as legal tenders. The exact scope of virtual assets should be defined in domestic law. Regarding Article 6, sub-paragraph 2, our delegation believes that all human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. Additionally, our delegation asserts that the term applicable international law refers specifically to obligations under international human rights treaties to which a member state is a party. Regarding Article 16, Vietnam is of the view that nothing in this Convention is interpreted as prohibiting member states from adopting more strict measures than those provided for by this Convention for preventing or combating the offences established in accordance with this Article. I thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Yemen.

Yemen:
Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, I would like to congratulate you and everyone, and I would like to thank you and thank the Secretariat and Mr. Tahir and all the colleagues for their active and positive participation and for all their efforts, and the most efforts came from the Chair and from the Secretariat. I am honoured to see this first international Convention to counter cybercrime, and this is a qualitative addition to the Budapest Convention and the Arab Charter and other relevant treaties. We had some comments related to some of the legal provisions. We will not repeat them here, to be concise. The aim was not to have the Convention’s Articles to run the counter to domestic legislation, and domestic legislation is part of a state’s sovereignty and needs to be respected. The Convention can be modified and there will be supplementary protocols, therefore we can avoid any shortcomings or any gaps not included in the Convention. My other point is that the Convention did not include some crimes, even though it’s part of digital crimes, for example, interception, capture and attacks against data and unlawfully remaining on a website. So the supplementary protocols would be able to deal with this. We are optimistic because of this Convention, because the main principle is international cooperation to implement this Convention, and this is the most important aspect. We are talking about transnational crimes and international crimes, and so without international cooperation, there will be no use of this Convention. So we hope that there will be international cooperation between the different countries and also respect for domestic laws so that this Convention will achieve positive outcomes. This is how we feel, we are optimistic about this, I will not go on for any longer. Once again, we thank the Chair, we thank the Secretariat, and we thank all the colleagues, and we also apologize for any addition or any expression that may have come out in the wrong way from us or any mistakes in the translation. We also want to thank the interpreters for all their efforts during this session and the previous sessions, and we do not want to forget the stakeholders also because they participated through their interventions and we benefited from everyone. Thank you very much to everyone.

Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Yemen Sierra Leone.

Sierra Leone:
Thank you Madam Chair for giving me the floor. Sierra Leone congratulates you and your entire team for this great achievement of the adoption of the first International Cybercrime Treaty. We also thank Member States for their active participation throughout this process. Madam Chair, let it be noted that Sierra Leone, based on our obligations under international law and our domestic law and values, had reasons to vote against certain articles and abstain on others that do not align accordingly. Madam Chair, permit me to take this opportunity to thank Member States who have enabled the participation of women in this process through the Women in Cyber Fellowship. Madam Chair, we want to thank the United Kingdom for their mentorship throughout the three years. Madam Chair, indeed, you have made what seemed impossible, possible. Kudos to you. Thank you.

Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Sierra Leone. Iraq.

Iraq:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The delegation of Iraq would like to express our most heartfelt appreciation for your skill in chairing our meeting. We thank you for what has been made possible over the last two years. Iraq, like other delegations, has participated in the discussions which have led to this convention. We have supported all the efforts made, and we attribute particular importance to combating cybercrime and to cyberspace, particularly in the context of technological development in our world, and the various challenges to our security. We have every respect for the multilateral work which has led to the adoption of this convention. This convention takes into account national legislations, values of societies, and human rights. Human rights does not mean violating public freedom or national values. This is why Iraq has played a part in the endeavours to arrive at this convention and to support international cooperation to combat cybercrime, and we renew our commitments to this. At the same time, we do have reservations on a considerable number of the wordings here, particularly Article 10 of the Preamble, Article 6, and Articles 14, 16, 24, 40, and Paragraph 22. We would like this to be recorded in the minutes, and we thank you once again, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Singapore.

Singapore:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. I take the floor to explain my delegation’s positions on the text of the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime. But before that, allow me to first put on record Singapore’s congratulations and appreciation to you, Madam Chair, for working tirelessly with all member states and maintaining openness, inclusivity, and transparency throughout the negotiations in guiding us to this outcome. Since the committee convened in May of 2021, Singapore has engaged actively, constructively, and in good faith in the negotiations for this new cybercrime convention. Throughout the course of negotiations, we have listened carefully to the views of all delegations. Differing and often strongly held opinions were expressed, but there were also an equally strong effort to try and bridge these differences. The positions on the votes that my delegation and I have taken today continue to be in line with those positions that we have elaborated over this long process. Singapore supports the principles and envisaged objectives of the convention, and we share the view that the convention would give us an opportunity to enhance international cooperation and provide law enforcement agencies with additional tools to counter cybercrime. It is therefore our view that the full benefits of the convention would be better addressed and realized if all the concerns that member states had raised were adequately addressed. Cybercrime is an issue of increasing concern and one that Singapore takes very seriously and is committed to combating. Singapore therefore continues to reaffirm its commitment to supporting international efforts to tackle cybercrime through both multilateral and bilateral platforms. It only leaves me to thank you, Madam Chair, once again, and encore bravo et félicitations.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Dominican Republic.

Dominican Republic:
Gracias. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam, this has been a lengthy and exhausting process for all, for more than three years, the Dominican Republic would like to pay tribute to and thank you once again for your leadership and the wonderful work that you, Tahar, and the whole Secretariat team have done, including the interpreters in the room and the translators in Vienna. All this is to be commended. A special word goes to the members of the Bureau, Brian, Eric, George, and Koichi, for the way in which they have dealt with the virtually interminable informal sessions. I’ve learned a lot in this process as to the true meaning of multilateralism. All of us here believe that we have achieved an ideal scenario, but in multilateralism there is no such thing. There is consensus and a seeking a common view of the Dominican Republic, who is committed to multilateralism, to combating cybercrime, and we shall continue to work in all the forum which we participate here. Thank you very much.

Chair:
Merci. Merci. Thank you. I would like to thank my colleague from the Dominican Republic, Chair of the Group of Linguistic Coherence, which will continue its work. Guatemala, thank you very much.

Guatemala:
First of all, I should like to thank you as you have worked so hard to arrive at a document adopted by a consensus in support of our obligations. After these three years, Guatemala welcomes the outcome of this process. Madam, for my country, the protection of children, boys and girls, is a priority that we resoundingly support. Therefore, we wish to look at paragraphs 14 and 16. However, we would say that, pursuant to our domestic legislation, we don’t recognize a minor sexual consent regarding sexual activity or images or exploitation of minors being allowed. Guatemala respects the international conventions and treaties, the purpose of which is to protect human rights and correctly to use ICTs and telecommunications. Thank you very much.

Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Mali. Thank you very much. Marie.

Mali:
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Thank you very much, Madam, for having given us the floor. I would like to thank you by starting you after these many long years and drawing up this document. Madam, it was more than necessary to allow us to have an international instrument to combat cybercrime. Madam, here, we should like very much to congratulate you, your Bureau, and the Secretariat, while we would also like to extend our thanks to all delegations present here. Madam, we are aware that having this instrument is a vital need. However, there are certain imperatives I should not wish to lose sight of. When it comes to consensus, we agreed to certain articles, to certain dimensions of this Convention. However, we do have reservations, Madam, and we would like these to be taken into account and recorded in the minutes of this Convention. For example, Madam, we would refer to the title, which does not, in our view, comply with the mandate given to the Committee, Article 6, Paragraph 2. We have reservations on that, Madam. Again, Article 14, Paragraphs 1 and 3, Article 16, Paragraphs 1 and 3, Madam, we attribute particular importance to protecting children and minors. This is why we believe that these articles, as they are couched today, would allow, or in any case expose, these in a fairly perilous way in the future, and this is why we express our reservations. The same goes for Article 40, Paragraph 22. Again, this refers to judicial cooperation, which could hamper the internal affairs of states, Madam. So this, then, is what my delegation wishes to emphasize, and we would like this to be shown in the record of the meeting. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much. The President of the Republic of Tanzania.

Republic of Tanzania:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, my delegation aligns itself with the statement made by South Africa on behalf of the African group. Madam Chair, please allow me to rephrase my statement by commending you, Madam Chair, for your leadership during the entire elaboration process. We also wish to register our sincere gratitude to the Secretariat, Bureau, and TAHAR for their tireless efforts in guiding and assisting the Committee in negotiating an unprecedented international convention in combating the scourge of cybercrime and other serious crimes committed through the use of ICTs. Madam Chair, the scope of the convention, in particular the sharing of electronic evidence in respect of serious crimes, including those established in accordance with other applicable United Nations conventions and protocols, is unprecedented and presents the international community with a powerful tool for combating these heinous crimes through international cooperation. Madam Chair, my delegation also wishes to underscore our sincere appreciation for adopting a draft resolution that guarantees the elaboration of additional protocols. We understand several delegations exercised flexibility and concessions in line with the spirit of concessions. We therefore acknowledge and applaud the commendable spirit of compromise. Madam Chair, my delegation opted not to break concessions regarding Articles 14, Part 1, 3, and 4, and Article 16, Part 1. However, for the record, Tanzania registers its concerns about the final text, which is inconsistent with our national values. We shall therefore exercise our rights during the ratification process to ensure an effective implementation of the Convention. Madam Chair, should this be our last intervention, let me seize this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment and unwavering support in the fight against cybercrime and other serious crimes committed through the use of ICTs. My delegation shall continue to take all measures necessary for the ratification of this significant Convention upon its adoption. The far-reaching effects of cybercrimes and other organized crimes which have, through the use of ICTs, increased in speed, scale, and scope, leave us with no choice. We can do nothing less. This is our shared responsibility. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Algeria.

Algeria:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, my delegation would like to thank you, Madam Chair, and the Secretariat for all your efforts, without neglecting to strongly underline the commitment of all distinguished delegations, those efforts that have been conceded and unfailing commitment during these last three years, and to highlight all the work that has been accomplished with the aim of reaching consensus on the draft Convention adopted today. My delegation believes that the different provisions agreed under this Convention take into consideration the various observations and concerns expressed during the sessions of the Committee to date. My delegation would like to express its full support to this Convention as adopted and believes that this instrument could serve as a legal basis for strengthening international cooperation for combating certain crimes committed by means of information and communication technology systems, and for the sharing of evidence in electronic form, especially for serious crime. My delegation also expresses its support to the draft resolution to be considered by the General Assembly as drafted, and we also agree to annex the interpretative notes on specific articles of the draft Convention, both suited to the report of this convened session. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Lebanon.

Lebanon:
Dear Madam Chair, allow me at the outset to congratulate you, your team, and the Secretariat for the tremendous effort deployed during the past three years. My delegation welcomed the adoption of the UN Convention against Cybercrime today. We see this Convention as an important document that will serve as a solid basis for fruitful international cooperation with Member States present here, in fighting cybercrime and collection of electronic evidence, while respecting human rights and safeguards. At the end, allow me, Madam Chair, to say that we will dearly miss you, and we wish you all the best for your future endeavors. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Argentina.

Argentina:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. After more than two years of negotiations, we’ve come to this resumed closing session of the Ad Hoc Committee to arrive at a UN Convention against Cybercrime. We must thank you, Madam, and also the Secretariat for the Herculean task. We’d also like to thank participating delegations who, in a constructive spirit, have cooperated throughout the process, and we therefore welcome the adoption today of this text. From the very outset of the negotiating process, the delegation of Argentina has played an active and constructive part to bring about an agreement on a UN Convention, in other words, with a global scope. Our delegation has also been pragmatic when it has come to what is most significant. The Convention will be of vital importance for international legal cooperation combating cybercrime. This is vital to combat transnational organized crime, which requires daily endeavors when it comes to what we can do fiscally and in every other way. Thank you very much, and many congratulations, most sincerely. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Venezuela.

Venezuela:
Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues, for the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, we would like to express our gratitude and congratulations to you, President Bumasyata Haran, to the entire delegation of Algeria and this entire committee, the Secretariat, for this very hard work, which has finally concluded with this Convention of the UN against cybercrime, strengthening international cooperation and combating specific crimes committed using ICT systems and to prevent serious crimes. This lengthy title is a milestone when it comes to our aspirations for a universal approach which is inclusive for all member states of this organization as we combat the use of ICTs for cybercrime. For Venezuela, this is a quality step forward here, and also when it comes to social and economic development, human rights development, and countering the irresponsible, illegal use of criminal groups of these technologies to combat the noble ideals in the UN Charter, which Venezuela has always defended. We believe that extending the scope of crimes that can be prosecuted has to be a priority, and Venezuela is a leader on this, and we shall continue to cooperate internationally here. We would like to have recorded our position. for what has been adopted today. We have facilitated this throughout the process with a broad-spectrum gaze on the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. As a country of the global south, we wish to see a transference of technology without restrictions, cooperation. However, we must focus on the prevention and combat of cybercrime. In other areas, where we have other international instruments which cover these, and particularly here, when it comes to Article 6.2, 24, 40, 22, we ratify the commitments here. Venezuela, when it comes to human rights conventions, plays an active part. And we are, therefore, against this prejudicing any state party on this, and being a condition for cooperation. There is no precedent for this in other conventions. We have here measures which are intended to support international cooperation. And these could be run counter to the purposes of this convention. So we are reserved when it comes to the measures on international cooperation in the scope covered by these paragraphs. Then lastly, regarding Articles 14 and 16, which were put to the vote this afternoon, 14.1, 14.3, 14.4, and 16.1, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as a state party to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, and taking into account the need to fight for the sacred principle of supporting, protecting girls and boys and adolescents, our position is relative to the provisions on this in the convention. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much.

Malaysia:
Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of the delegation of Malaysia, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to you for your tireless effort in steering the negotiation process over the past three years. We extend our heartfelt congratulations to Madam Chair Tahar, the Secretariat, and all members of the ad hoc committee for bringing this negotiation to a successful conclusion, and for the momentous adoption of this historic United Nations Convention against Cybercrime. We recognize the extensive deliberations, negotiations, and consultations that have gone into shaping this text, and we commend your leadership and dedication. While we acknowledge that the text may not be perfect, and that there are areas that could benefit from further refinement, we also understand the importance of compromise and consensus in this process. In this period of cooperation and mutual understanding, Malaysia fully supports the consensus adoption of the text. We understand that in a negotiation, it’s impossible to satisfy everyone. The goal is to achieve a fair outcome, not necessarily to make everyone happy. We believe that this convention represents a significant step forward, and with the continued commitment of all parties involved, it will provide a solid foundation for our collective goals. Let us move forward with a shared resolve to bring this important convention to fruition. We would also like to take this opportunity to put on record our explanation on Malaysia’s vote on Article 6.2 of this convention, and specifically why we have chosen to vote in favor of deleting this article. This decision was not made lightly, but it reflects our deep commitment to principles that we believe are essential for the equitable and fair treatment of all nations within this ad hoc committee. Malaysia has consistently been a staunch advocate for human rights. Our constitution enshrines the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals, and our government remains dedicated towards ensuring that these rights are protected and upheld. While human rights are universal, their interpretation and implementation can vary significantly based on each country’s legal, cultural, historical, and social context. By outlining a specific list of human rights in this article,

Chair:
we are at risk of imposing values and norms that may not fully align with the unique circumstances of every nation. We request that this explanation of vote be put in the official records of this meeting.

Malaysia:
Shukran jazeelan, Sayyida Rais.

Chair:
Shukran jazeelan, Sayyidati. Thailand.

Thailand:
Madam Chair, Thailand welcomes the adoption of this draft UN Convention. In this regard, I wish to extend my heartfelt congratulations and appreciation to Madam Chair and your team, vice chairs, the bureau, facilitators, co-facilitators, and the secretariat, as well as translator for their unwavering commitment and tireless efforts in bringing this draft convention to fruition. I also wish to convey our profound appreciation to every delegation and multi-stakeholder present here. Your contribution and collaborative spirit over the past two and a half years have been pivotal in shaping this convention. Madam Chair, allow me to deliver explanation of the word as follows. Regarding article six, paragraph two, although Thailand prefer the text to be more succinct, we attach great importance of including safeguard for human rights in the draft convention to create the right balance between the protection of human rights and effective implementation of the convention. Therefore, Thailand voted against the proposal to delete article six, paragraph two. Regarding article 14 and 16 on the term and without right, in Thailand domestic legislation, there is no precise equivalence to the term without right as used in the proposed text. Instead, our legal framework employs the term wrongfully. Therefore, Thailand voted abstain on the proposal to delete the term and without right. Madam Chair, in Thailand, we have faced an increased risk of transnational crimes, especially trafficking of person, online scams, and drug trafficking, to name a few. Tackling these crimes, which have been perpetrated through the use of ICT systems, has been a top priority of our government, but we cannot do it alone. This convention serve as a vital instrument for laying the groundwork for international cooperation and mutual assistance to combat cyber crime. Therefore, Thailand looks forward to the early entry into force of this convention. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Thailand. We shall stop now. We have the following list still, Albania, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Syrian Arab Republic, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Camp of Verde, Russian Federation, Paraguay, Iceland, the European Union, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Islamic Republic of Iran. So what I would propose to you is this. Tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock, we shall resume our discussions. We shall start by listening to the explanations of vote and the various statements to be made. I myself wish to make a statement. Then towards 11 o’clock, half 11ish, we will have the draft report. As you’re aware, this is now procedural. So we will adopt it and annex to this draft report. We shall obviously have the interpretative notes. And then, I’m at your disposal, should you wish to read the matters. We could take 15 or 20 minutes to read through the report and be quite certain of what we’re adopting, and then resume the session for adoption, and then conclude the process. So enjoy the evening. Don’t celebrate too much, because there’s still tomorrow to go. So we’re going to have a two-phase celebration. Well, thank you very much, and until tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you.