(1st 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 convenes in New York to finalise cybercrime convention amid calls for consensus and human rights safeguards

The Ad Hoc Committee convened in New York with the goal of finalising a United Nations convention aimed at combating cybercrime through enhanced international cooperation. The Chair opened the session by acknowledging the delegates’ enthusiasm and the progress made thus far, expressing hope for a successful conclusion. The Chair emphasised the importance of human rights safeguards within the convention and encouraged delegates to work towards consensus on remaining contentious issues.

The agenda items discussed included the reconvening of the committee, which had previously agreed on the majority of the convention’s provisions but faced persistent core points of divergence, leading to the suspension of the session. The committee decided to resume work in New York to finalise the draft convention for submission to the General Assembly.

The Chair presented updates to the draft text, focusing on contentious issues such as the scope of the convention, human rights safeguards, and specific articles on criminalisation and final provisions. The Chair also addressed the organisation of work for the session, including the participation of multi-stakeholders and the Language Consistency Group’s efforts to ensure the consistency of the agreed-upon provisions in six official languages.

Delegates provided feedback on the updated draft text, with some expressing support for the Chair’s proposals and others raising concerns or suggesting amendments. Key issues discussed included the title of the convention, the scope of application, human rights safeguards, specific criminal offences such as child sexual abuse material (CSAM), and the possibility of drafting additional protocols supplementing the convention.

The Chair’s updated draft text aimed to bridge the gaps between divergent views, particularly in areas such as human rights safeguards, where Article 6.2 was introduced to clarify the convention’s scope and exclude activities that are treated differently across jurisdictions. The Chair also proposed a balanced approach to the title of the convention, suggesting a concise “Convention Against Cybercrime” without additional definitions.

Delegates from various countries provided their perspectives, with some advocating for a short and clear title, while others emphasised the need for robust human rights safeguards and questioned the necessity of discussing additional protocols at this stage. Concerns were also raised about the broad scope of the convention, with some delegates suggesting that it could lead to ambiguity and affect the effective implementation of the treaty.

The Language Consistency Group reported on their intersessional work, noting that while they had approved the draft text, some editorial suggestions had not yet been included. The Chair expressed gratitude for the group’s efforts and the countries involved.

The main conclusion from the transcript is that while significant progress has been made towards finalising the convention, divergent views on key issues remain. The Chair and the delegates are committed to working collaboratively to reconcile these differences and reach a consensus on the final text of the convention during the reconvened concluding session.

Noteworthy observations from the transcript include the Chair’s recognition of the delegates’ dedication and the importance of inclusivity and transparency in the process. The Chair also highlighted the need to take into account the views of intergovernmental organisations, civil society, academia, and the private sector. The session demonstrated a collective commitment to establishing a comprehensive international framework to counter cybercrime while ensuring the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Chair:
Dear colleagues, excellences, ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome to New York. I allowed you a quarter of an hour to have some exchanges with your colleagues and I saw just how happy you seemed to be, to be here and everyone’s talking and embracing and happy to be here and I hope that we’ll be able to conclude this long-standing process. We are close to the port, Friday the 9th of August we will reach the port. We have had some windy weather, we had some concerns, choppy seas, but after all this time I can see from the expressions on your faces that you are prepared now to take this last step, bring this ship to port. Thank you very much for your kind words since the last session, the last concluding session. So now we are ready to resume this last part which is the concluding session, the final session. So without further ado, do excuse me but I have a lot of things to tell you and be patient please. You’re going to be listening to me for quite a while now but after that I promise I will make plenty of time for you to be able to speak. But I have to do this, I need to explain to you everything that’s happened since the suspension of the concluding session and now we are at the resumed session. Agenda item 1 – Reconvening of the Ad Hoc Committee The Ad Hoc Committee considered the revised draft text of the Convention and reached agreement at referendum on a majority of its provisions. However, some core points of divergence persisted and, accordingly, on 9 February 2024, the Committee decided to suspend the session and recommended to the General Assembly that the Committee resume its work in New York at a later date in order to provide the draft Convention to the General Assembly still at its 78th session, in line with General Assembly Resolution 75-282. Based on the available conference resources which would allow the Committee to finalise the mandate contained in the above-mentioned decision, the meeting dates of the Reconvening Concluding Session were set from 29 July to 9 August. following the agreement by the Bureau of the Ad Hoc Committee on the 8th and 17th of April 2024. In accordance with the above-mentioned decision, we resume our work today at the reconvened concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee to finalise and approve the draft text of the Convention for submission to the General Assembly at its 78th session in line with the above-mentioned resolution and the roadmap and mode of work approved by the Committee at its first session. Looking back over the last two and a half years, we, that’s to say Member States, Non-Member Observer States and all stakeholders, have worked together very hard to make substantive progress in the preparation of this Convention, which is historic. As we have made major achievements, I would like to thank all of you for your dedication, expertise, your sense of diplomacy and your flexibility. Now, seeing the limited number of provisions that are still sources of divergent views, I encourage you, the international lawmakers and all of your supporters, to join forces to find solutions which will reach consensus. I am confident that, with our joint and unremitting efforts, we will elaborate a treaty which can stand the test of history, of time and practice. At the current Reconvened Session, we will examine an updated draft text of the Convention containing a full draft text, with the provisions agreed upon at referendum to date, as well as my proposals for… compromise solution on the most divergent points, which reflects the outcome of the negotiations held to date, including through open-ended informal consultations and other consultations conducted by myself. This version of the drive text is the result of my team’s and my ambassador in Vienna and myself our continued efforts to bridge the gaps among positions of member states on some of the main elements of the future convention. My strong-held belief is that it is possible to find compromised solutions that could be acceptable to all member states. As we did at the concluding session, the committee will also consider a draft resolution to which the text of the draft convention will be annexed to be submitted for adoption to the General Assembly. In addition, the committee will consider interpretative notes on specific articles of the updated draft convention that we hope will facilitate the consensus reaching on the said document. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I would like to renew my unwavering commitment to a transparent, inclusive and consensus-based process which takes into account the voices of all member states on an equal footing. As you know, there are no small and large states. I feel that all voices here should be equally heard. I’m also convinced that our process can only lead to positive specific outcomes if we take into account the views of intergovernmental organizations, civil society, academia and private sector. Therefore, while respecting the intergovernmental nature of this process, I would once again continue to invite multiple stakeholders to make oral inputs to the session within available time slots. Lastly, I would also like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the Secretariat team for their commitment and professionalism. I trust that I and the Secretariat can still count on your continued support. Thank you. I now declare agenda item 1 closed and we move on to agenda item 2. Item 2 is entitled Adoption of the Organization of Work. For its consideration of this item, the Ad Hoc Committee has before it the annotated provisional agenda of the reconvened concluding session contained in document A-AC291-24-AD1. Before we move forward with this agenda item, I would like to remind delegations that given that this is the reconvened concluding session, the agenda of the concluding session applies and therefore the Ad Hoc Committee is not expected to adopt an agenda for this session. I would also like to recall that as per General Assembly practice, the report of the current session will be a procedural report. The parts of the draft report corresponding to each agenda item will be prepared during the session. by the rapporteur of the Ad Hoc Committee with the assistance of the Secretariat. The part of the report corresponding to the last meeting will be drafted by the rapporteur with the assistance of the Secretariat post-session. The report will be ready for adoption in the afternoon of Friday the 9th of August. I strongly trust that all delegations will do their utmost for our final report to contain a draft Convention and a draft Resolution for submission to the General Assembly. Moreover, as mentioned under Agenda Item 1, I have prepared, with the support of the Secretariat, the updated draft text of the Convention as well as a revised draft General Assembly Resolution. The document is entitled Updated draft text of the Convention, contained in document symbol A-AC291-22-REV3 and revised draft General Assembly Resolution, contained in document symbol A-AC291-25-REV1, are available in the six official languages of the United Nations. In addition, the Ad Hoc Committee is expected to consider the interpretative notes on the draft text of the Convention prepared for this session on the basis of the discussions held at the concluding session and the subsequent informal consultations. The document entitled Interpretative Notes on Specific Articles of the Updated Draft Text of the Convention, contained in document symbol A-AC291-27, is also available in the six official languages of the United Nations. in the six official languages of the United Nations. Excellencies, Representatives, Distinguished Delegates, allow me now to address the organisation of work for the present session. The Ad Hoc Committee, at its reconvened concluding session, will consider the updated draft text of the Convention, hereinafter referred to as the UDTC, the revised draft General Assembly Resolution, and the interpretative notes. Pursuant to the proposed methodology for conducting the work by the Ad Hoc Committee at its reconvened concluding session, which was circulated to Member States on 2 July 2024, the examination of the draft text of the Convention will begin in Plenary. So, today I will present the new elements in the UDTC in order to facilitate its consideration by the Committee. I will also invite the Coordinator of the Language Consistency Group to update the Committee on the status of the Group’s work. I will then open the floor for concrete reactions to the new elements of the UDTC. I would like to kindly encourage you to keep your interventions concise, practical and technical in order to help the Committee find consensus and improve the text of the Convention as needed. Based on the exchange of views, at the end of today, I will inform you of specific provisions that I believe would benefit from informal consultations in parallel with the Plenary. In this regard, I encourage Delegations to hold, today and tomorrow, bilateral consultations and to reflect on possible compromises on the provisions. identified. These provisions and possible compromise solutions will be discussed at an open-ended informal meeting that will be held on Wednesday 31st July at 9am. As from tomorrow, the plenary will continue to work on the UDTC in plenary. Considering the provisions that are still to be agreed at referendum, the Secretariat will be projecting the text of the relevant documents up on the screen and I will invite delegations to consider the text of the Convention, paragraph by paragraph, with a view to agreeing each one of them at referendum. If, following some consideration, no agreement can be found on a paragraph, I will designate a Vice-Chair to informally coordinate with the delegations concerned so as to reach an agreement and to bring back the proposed solution to plenary within an established timeline of not more than 24 hours. Furthermore, I may ask the Vice-Chairs to support me here in plenary as needed. As I said earlier, this coming Wednesday, the plenary will continue with this approach. We will continue considering the provisions of the draft Convention which have yet to be agreed at referendum, moving paragraph by paragraph. At the same time, on Wednesday, there will be an open-ended informal meeting convened in parallel in Conference Room No. 1. There, delegations will be given the opportunity to present to all delegations their proposed compromise solutions. formal meetings might be convened, depending on progress of work at the first such meeting, as well as in plenary. The Secretariat will be supporting the chairs of these open-ended informal meetings as required, and will be updating the website of the reconvened concluding session, keeping it up to date with the latest information on open-ended meetings, for the benefit of all delegations. So every day you will have updated information about the timetable, the rooms where meetings are being held, and all the other relevant information which will help you participate in the negotiations and keep track. Irrespective of any informal meetings being convened, I expect all issues to return to plenary on Thursday 1st August. That’s this coming Thursday. This will offer an opportunity for the Ad Hoc Committee to assess any compromise solutions on issues that remain outstanding in an inclusive manner, and with interpretation offered in the six official languages of the United Nations. It will also afford the Committee sufficient time to review any outstanding issues before Friday afternoon. By the end of the week, I intend to finalise the draft text of the Convention, as well as the interpretative notes, based on the work that we’ve done so far, and that will be completed by then by the Ad Hoc Committee. These two documents will then be made available in the six official languages of the United Nations on Wednesday 7th August 2024. What’s more is, if consultations are needed with capitals and further negotiations, it is expected that an advanced, unedited English version of the documents will be circulated to delegations on Monday of next week. Furthermore, Certain elements of the draft resolution, which may help facilitate consensus on divergent provisions of the Convention, may be considered during the first week. Consideration of other parts of the draft resolution may be conducted in a structured manner and then finalised on the Monday and Tuesday of the second week. The agreed ad referendum text of the draft resolution is expected to be submitted for translation to the translators by the end of Tuesday of the second week to enable the text’s translation into the six official languages so that the six versions are available by Friday next week at the latest. I’d like to highlight that delegations are encouraged to focus on improving the proposed updated draft text of the Convention. The draft resolution and the interpretative notes with the objective of reaching consensus. Delegations are encouraged to refrain from reintroducing previously expressed positions that do not enjoy broad support as well as from introducing proposals on new language or new concepts which have not been discussed up to this point. In addition, given that time is very limited, I will ask all Member States to please avoid delivering general statements. Instead, I invite Member States to focus on providing concrete input, that is, concrete proposals or amendments on each provision under consideration, if needed, including the rationale for their position, if they so wish, but concisely. Furthermore, I kindly ask delegations to avoid making comments on translation because this is something that will be addressed by the Language Consistency Group with the input from the Secretariat. by email to the Secretariat at the following email address cybercrimeAHC all as one word at UN.org Furthermore the language consistency work will be working continuously to review and ensure the consistency of articles that are agreed upon at referendum by the Ad Hoc Committee to ensure consistency in six languages of the United Nations The chair may invite as necessary the group’s coordinator to address the plenary on specific issues that may require further consideration by the group or by the Ad Hoc Committee I’d like to extend my gratitude to His Excellency Mr. Claudio Peguero Castillo Cyber Affairs Advisor at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic who is the Vice Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee and the coordinator of the consistency group. I’d also like to thank all the member states who’ve designated experts to represent the official languages of the United Nations. Thank you for your ongoing support I’d like to underscore the flagship role of the consistency group at this current session. For the Ad Hoc Committee to be able to approve the draft text of the Convention in the six official languages of the United Nations at its concluding session as per its mandate, in order for that to happen the consistency group will need to revise all remaining provisions agreed at referendum within the next fortnight consequently the group needs to get down to work right away in order to perform and complete its task I understand that this will be the case starting tomorrow. Once we resume consideration of agenda item 3 I will be giving the floor to Mr. Peguero in his capacity as coordinator of the consistency group Mr. Peguero will brief the committee on the group’s work during the intersessional period as well as the group’s plans for its work during this current session. Furthermore, a group of editors and translators will be supporting the work of the consistency group. I’d like to thank all of those involved for their efforts in advance. Last but not least, I’d like to underscore that the Ad Hoc Committee needs to make every effort to reach consensus on all of the provisions in a timely fashion. Should consensus on all provisions not be reached by the end of the first week, I will consult with the Bureau and consider possible ways forward, including any decisions that the Committee might take as per paragraph 5 of GA Resolution 75-282. I now turn to the organisation of work, specifically the participation of multi-stakeholders. I’d like to thank the multi-stakeholders for their active involvement and their readiness to support the work of the Committee. As per the modalities for their participation approved by consensus, multi-stakeholders will be given the floor to make general comments at specific moments throughout the session, if possible, bearing in mind the limited time we have available. This will give them an opportunity to provide inputs that might help Member States in their negotiations. I’d like to recall that multi-stakeholder interventions should not exceed three minutes. The floor will be given to as many multi-stakeholders as possible, time permitting, which may vary during the session. Multi-stakeholders are reminded that they may submit their written contributions to the Secretariat for publication on the Committee’s website. To structure our work, multi-stakeholders wishing to take the floor are invited to sign up with the Secretariat at the table to the left. to my left. Following the presentation of the proposed organisation of work for the reconvened concluding session within the framework of the agenda adopted by the committee during the concluding session in early 2024, may I take it that the committee agrees to the organisation of work as I’ve just outlined and as set forth in the methodology document circulated on the 2nd of July 2024? I see no objections. It is so decided. We’ve now concluded consideration of agenda item two and we will now begin consideration of agenda item three and I am going to ask for you to be very patient. I have 42 pages to read out so please patience. Agenda item three updated draft text of the convention. We will now resume consideration of agenda item three entitled revised draft text of the convention. We have an updated draft text contained in document symbol A stroke AC dot 291 stroke 22 stroke rev three. Distinguished delegates, during our concluding session we worked very hard so as to reach consensus. I have the impression that we’re on the cusp of achieving said consensus. I hope that the draft text prepared for this reconvened session will bridge the outstanding divides between member state positions and will enable us to now after almost three years of very hard work to at last approve an international framework for countering cybercrime. With the assistance of the secretariat I’ve made a number of editorial amendments to polish the text, to get rid of any ambiguities and to facilitate the reading of this draft text. which I hope is very close to the final one, the final version. Before we begin our consideration of the UDTC, I will briefly explain the new elements of the draft text and the changes that were made to the further revised draft version of the Convention. What I will also be providing is an explanation about the two documents that are linked to the draft text, specifically the revised draft General Assembly Resolution and the interpretative notes on specific articles of the updated draft text. The revised draft General Assembly Resolution was prepared based on feedback from Member States regarding the original draft resolution, which was considered at the concluding session. The interpretative notes, some of them, were discussed within the context of the package presented during the concluding session, the aim being to facilitate our deliberations. These notes will be annexed as approved by the Committee to the report of the reconvened concluding session, thereby reflecting the understanding, the interpretation of the Committee of certain provisions. Please note that the General Assembly is not expected to take any action on these interpretative notes. The notes will instead serve as an important point of reference for the Convention’s interpretation. As always, my explanations do not intend to preclude any discussion that you may wish to have. I am simply providing context. I am here to facilitate your negotiations. I would like to underline that all of my explanations are contained in the document entitled Explanatory Notes on the Updated Draft Text of the Convention and the Revised Draft General Assembly Resolution. These were made available on the website of the Reconvene Concluding Session. This happened on the 15th of July 2024. As you may have noticed, this document is rather comprehensive. It provides additional explanation, additional colour on the elaboration of the further revised draft text of the Convention in the interest of both transparency and for future reference. Given the limited time available, I will be focusing my oral presentation on new elements of the UDTC. That is, I will only speak to the changes made to the FRDTC, to the further revised version. As mentioned, further details on the provisions that remain unchanged can be found in the explanatory notes on the UDTC, as well as the two previous sets of explanatory notes on the draft text of the Convention and the revised draft text of the Convention. I will not be going through the changes in the order that they appear in the text. I will rather start with the most contentious issues on which we have not yet taken a decision, which I think might benefit from informal discussions in parallel with the plenary. These are provisions of the Chair’s proposals regarding the scope of the Convention, human rights safeguards built into the Convention, and specific articles under the following chapters, criminalisation and final provisions. The remaining changes will be presented prior to the consideration of the respective provisions over the next few days. After listening to your reactions, I will invite delegations which have exhibited a particular interest in certain provisions to discuss these in informal meetings. This will be an opportunity for those delegations wishing to do so to introduce the outcome of their discussions in an open-ended informal meeting which will be held on Wednesday and then in plenary. This will also be discussed in plenary on Thursday. I’d like to thank Mr Eric Duval-Lasega-Segosio, Vice-Chair of the Committee. He has accepted to chair these open-ended informal meetings and I intend to work very closely with him to ensure that these meetings are as productive as possible. I’d also like to draw your attention to the fact that my explanations and our discussions will follow the article numbering of the updated DTC. As you might have noticed, the numbering between paragraphs 4 and 17 has changed, so please be very careful that you’re referring to the correct article when you do take the floor. Let’s begin with the scope of the Convention, specifically articles 3, 4, 23, 35, as well as operative paragraph 5 of the draft General Assembly Resolution. Article 3 on the Convention’s general scope of application incorporates article 3 of the latest version of the Chair’s proposal discussed in the open-ended informal meetings of the concluding session. This provision reflects the two prongs of the Convention’s scope. Paragraph A provides for the scope of application on prevention, investigation and prosecution of the offences established in keeping with the Convention. As for paragraph B, paragraph B pertains to the second prong of the Convention’s scope, that is, the collection, obtaining, preservation and sharing of evidence in electronic form. something that’s governed by Articles 23 and 35 of the UDTC. The reference to Articles 23 and 35 was inserted in the last sentence of Parabeeh in the interest of clarity. Moving on to Article 4, offences established in accordance with other United Nations conventions and protocols. This article incorporates Article 60, 6.0bis of the Chair’s proposal. While this provision could be placed in a different part of the text, I think that placing it under General Provisions is most appropriate, given the current structure of the Treaty and the need to strike a balance between the various proposals. Paragraph 1 stipulates that States parties shall ensure that all offline crimes established by UN conventions and protocols are also prohibited under their domestic law if they’re committed online. This provision thereby makes the convention complementary to other UN criminal justice conventions and protocols. It also helps to ensure the harmonisation of States parties’ efforts to counter crime, regardless of the means by which said crimes are committed. Ensuring that all crimes committed offline are also prohibited online is, in light of the principle of dual criminality, of paramount importance to international cooperation on the collection and sharing of electronic evidence about serious crimes, which is covered by Article 35 para 1c. Paragraph 2 has been included following a proposal made by Member States during the open-ended informal consultation. Consultations held at the sixth session. This is something that garnered broad support. This provision clarifies the purpose of Article 4 by specifying that the aim is not to create a new category of offences under the Convention. Rather, the goal is to enable the use of new mechanisms established in the Convention, such as those under the chapters on procedural measures and law enforcement, and international cooperation to address crimes committed using an ICT system, as the Convention expressly provides for this. Moving on to Article 23, scope of procedural measures. And just as a reminder, I’m taking you through the changes that have been made. Article 23 reproduces unchanged from the previous draft. It’s reproduced unchanged from the previous draft, with the exception of an addition in new para 4. Para 4 clarifies that the powers and procedures, including the conditions and safeguards established under Article 24 at the domestic level, apply at the domestic level. And this is in response to requests for international cooperation. A corresponding note has been included in the interpretative notes, which further clarifies that the powers and procedures, as well as the related safeguards, are applicable exclusively within the territory of each State party. Now, Article 35, general principles of international cooperation. Article 35 incorporates the Chair’s proposal with a few minor modifications. Subparas 1a and 1b correspond to the general scope of the Convention, established under Article 3, paragraph a, on prevention, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences established in accordance with the Convention. As for sub-paragraph 1C, it corresponds to Article 3 paragraph B on the collection, obtaining, preservation and sharing of evidence in electronic form, evidence of any serious crime, including serious crimes established in accordance with other applicable UN conventions and protocols, which are in force at the time of, were already in force at the time of the adoption of the Convention. It’s worth noting that all serious crimes and related evidence in electronic form fall within the scope of this provision, irrespective of whether they’re committed using an ICT system or not. Paragraph 2 states that the provisions governing the collection, obtaining, preservation and sharing of evidence in electronic form, namely the relevant paragraphs, set out in Article 4 on general principles and procedures relating to mutual legal assistance, MLA, such as procedural requirements for an MLA request and related grounds for refusal. The measures set out in Articles 41 to 46 also govern the cooperation covered in Paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 reproduces the language of Article 43, Paragraph 2 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, UNCAC. Furthermore, a note on Article 35 has been included in the interpretative notes. It clarifies that, irrespective of the Convention, States parties may afford another party any kind of international cooperation as permitted by their domestic law or other agreements. Moreover, an interpretative note expressly states how to interpret the term investigations contained in Articles 23 and 35. This term investigations should be interpreted broadly, meaning that it applies not only to situations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, but it also, aside from that, covers situations where the commission of a crime is imminent, as well as situations of ongoing crime or a series of crimes where an investigation leads to subsequent crimes being prevented from being committed or the stopping of crimes being committed. Let us now turn to the draft General Assembly Resolution. In that resolution, Operative Paragraph 5 is also connected to the scope of the Convention. OP5 of the revised draft resolution reflects OP5bis of the Chair’s proposal, which was covered at the concluding session. It provides for the Ad Hoc Committee to continue its work so as to establish a draft protocol on additional offences supplementing the Convention. The original version contained in the Chair’s proposal has been amended to set a more flexible but still expeditious time frame for the convening of the two negotiating sessions on that, one in Vienna, one in New York. That time frame is now linked to the date of the adoption of the Convention by the General Assembly, rather than a predetermined number of years. I will now move on to Human Rights Safeguards. That’s Article 6, 24 and Paragraph 22 of Article 44. First, Article 6, Respect for Human Rights. Starting with Article 6 on Respect for Human Rights, Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the UDTC restates former Article 5 of the Chair’s proposal. which has been kept in there as an overarching declaration about all measures taken to implement the Convention. These measures are determined by human rights obligations undertaken by each State’s party. Paragraph 2 is a proposal of mine. This is my proposal that builds on and narrows down aspects of Paragraph 1 based on a proposal made by several Member States. The inclusion of this provision aims to assuage concerns expressed by several delegations regarding the broad range of crimes covered by the notion of a serious crime. Now it’s worth pointing out here that although the definitions of a serious crime contained in the Convention, as well as in the UN Convention on Transitional Organised Crime, UNTOC, although these definitions are the same, UNTOC applies to serious crimes only when two additional requirements are met. One, the offences must be transnational in nature and involve an organised criminal group. This includes the criteria of direct or indirect financial or other material benefit. Through these additional requirements, UNTOC effectively excludes from its scope of application certain non-material or non-financially driven conduct, such as politically or morally motivated conduct. Such narrowing qualifiers have not been linked to the definition of a serious crime in the context of our Convention. There’s a concern that the wide scope of application of a UN treaty in relation to this concept the introduction of paragraph 2 aims at excluding certain behaviours which could be treated differently across jurisdictions when it comes to a serious crime. to their criminal character or gravity. Thus, this provision reaffirms that the Convention must not be interpreted for the purposes of violating any human rights, whether those rights be economic, social, cultural, civil or political for that matter. This provision includes a non-exhaustive list of rights related to the right of freedom of expression and considered to be particularly susceptible to violations by measures aimed at countering cybercrime. The last part of that last sentence, in accordance with applicable international human rights law, is a general reference to the rules set forth in applicable human rights instruments. Thus it serves as a common reference to assess whether there has been a violation. This includes the permissibility of restrictions of certain human rights and fundamental freedoms under specific circumstances. Article 24, Conditions and Safeguards Article 24 incorporates the Chair’s proposal. As the operational component of the Conditions and Human Rights Safeguards of the Convention, this provision requires States parties to adopt legislation at the domestic level to provide for checks and balances on the powers and procedures established in accordance with Chapter 4 of the draft Convention. Paragraph 1 mandates that all actions of States parties taken in the exercise of those powers and procedures are, in all phases, governed by the conditions and safeguards established under domestic law. These conditions and safeguards should provide for the protection of human rights consistent with the respective international obligations of each State party. Specific reference is made to the principle of proportionality, which generally requires that the exercise of the powers and procedures under Chapter 4 be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and particularly that the limitation on the exercise of human rights shall not be more restrictive than required for the achievement of that aim. This principle, to be implemented in accordance with domestic law, is informed by the obligations of States parties under applicable international and regional human rights instruments and by related jurisprudence. Paragraph 2 sets out a non-exhaustive list of conditions and safeguards that may be required, taking into account the circumstances and nature of the offence, as well as the intrusiveness of the powers and procedures envisaged. This determination will be made on the basis of principles of domestic law, informed by the applicable international obligations of the respective State parties. The corresponding note included in the interpretative notes further affirms that the review referred to in this provision is exercised by the domestic authorities of each respective State party, strictly within its own territory, and does not create supervisory mechanisms at the international level. Article 40. General principles and procedures relating to mutual legal assistance. The only addition to Article 40 of the UDTC is paragraph 22, which incorporates the Chair’s proposal on Article 40, paragraph 20bis. This provision replicates the ground for refusal contained in Article 37, paragraph 15, and gives States parties discretion to not 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 characteristics. The inclusion of this ground for refusal in the UDTC seeks to strike a balance with the intrusive measures set out in the Convention, such as mutual legal assistance for the collection of traffic data and mutual legal assistance for the interception of content data which does not exist in other United Nations criminal justice instruments, as well as some other forms of international cooperation that may be directly implemented by the 24-7 network with no involvement of the judicial channel of formal mutual legal assistance. Article 14 Offences Related to Online Child Sexual Abuse or Child Sexual Exploitation Material We all know how challenging this provision is and how divergent Member States’ positions were at the concluding session. To find common ground, I have aimed at bringing this provision in line with pertinent international rules on this matter which are enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, hereafter the OPSC. I won’t go into the details of the changes which you can read in the explanatory notes that are available. are available on the website. I would only like to make three points clear. Firstly, regarding the definition of the term child. As you know, the discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee showed that opinions remain divided as to whether the definition of the term child found in Article 2 should be based on that of the Convention on the Rights of the Child or on that of the Protocol on Trafficking in Persons, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. As a compromise, I propose not to define this term at all in our Convention, but to leave it to the States’ parties to interpret it according to their domestic law. I have therefore deleted the definition of the term child from paragraph 1i. However, for the purpose of Article 14 alone, the expression child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation material must be defined. Consequently, Article 14 paragraph 2 now sets a uniform age threshold of 18 years. This amendment is intended to bring the content of the provision in line with the current international framework on the prohibition of child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation material established by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, its optional Protocol and the Trafficking in Persons Protocol. You can consult the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child on this subject in the explanatory notes published on the website. Secondly, let us now continue with paragraph 3 of Article 14. Paragraph 3, which was included in the DTC as an optional provision to avoid the possibility of reservations and the associated obstacles to harmonisation, has been retained and amended in the UDTC. This formulation aims to ensure clarity as to the obligations of States Parties while providing a leeway in implementing this article by limiting the definition of prohibited material under paragraph 2 to material with specific characteristics. It is worth underscoring that, besides such clear specifications, the other option to take into consideration the diversity of legal systems of Member States would be to provide explicitly for the possibility for States Parties to formulate reservations on the content of paragraph 2. This second option was privileged in the context of the Council of Europe Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, Article 9, paragraph 4. However, in the view of the Chair, such an approach would weaken the article as it could increase the number of reservations. Turning now to paragraph 4 of article 14, during the concluding session a number of Member States proposed the deletion of paragraphs 4 and 5 while a majority called for their retention. Paragraph 4 of article 14, updated, streamlines and slightly revises former paragraphs 4 and 5 of article 13 of the new version of the revised text. I would like to underscore that, in accordance with international human rights law, Children shall not be punished for producing material depicting them, or for the consensual possession thereof by them or their partners, as emphasised by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Details of the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child can be found in the explanatory notes available on the Ad Hoc Committee’s website. Thus, paragraph A includes the content of former paragraph 4, which allows for not applying this offence to children for self-generated material that depicts those children. Paragraph B incorporates former paragraph 5 and contains an exemption of acts pertaining to material that is consensually produced, shared or maintained. Any material originating from consensual sexual activities should not be criminalised if it is maintained for the private use and with the consent of the persons involved. Paragraph B, therefore, serves as a necessary complement to paragraph A. In paragraph B, the expression legal age to engage in sexual activity under domestic law has been replaced with consensual sexual relationship as determined by domestic law and consistent with applicable international obligations in order to accommodate the pluralism of domestic legal systems. Turning now to Article 16 on the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. Article 16 UDTC reproduces Article 15 FRDTC with the exception of paragraph A. Paragraph 6, which has been removed and included in the interpretative notes as a note on Article 16. This interpretative note on Article 16 seeks to reiterate the principle that the Convention, including its criminalisation provisions, only sets minimum standards on prohibited conduct. Article 16, therefore, is to be read without prejudice to Member States’ liberty to establish, in accordance with their domestic law and consistent with their international obligations, other forms of dissemination of intimate images. Article 64. I will now turn to a provision under the chapter on final provisions, namely Article 64 on the entry into force of the Convention. The current disagreement in relation to this article appears to be the number of ratifications required for the Convention to enter into force. At the concluding session, several Member States favoured a threshold of 60 ratifications, while many other Members called for the retention of the number 40 or for establishing a lower threshold of 30. As drafted in the UDTC, the Convention would enter into force after the deposit of the 40th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. I have retained this number not only to follow the UNCAC and the UNTOC, but also because I found it would bring balance to the text, considering the views expressed by delegations. So, a happy medium between 30 and 40. I see no need to go through a similar exercise as we did during the concluding session, as the Secretariat has taken careful note of Member States’ positions, which we, meanwhile, know very well. I would, however, ask those delegations that favour a higher number if they could support the provision as drafted in consideration of the other new elements, particularly those on the scope of the Convention and its human rights safeguards. This concludes my presentation of those provisions that I perceive as the most contentious and which I believe could benefit from small group informal meetings. I warmly invite you to begin bilateral small group meetings as soon as possible on this issue so that we can reach consensus between now and next week. I would now like to come to the Language Consistency Group and I would like to thank its coordinator, His Excellency Claudio Pagaro-Castillo, for having already started the consideration of the provisions that were agreed at referendum at the sixth and the concluding session. I would now like to give the floor to the coordinator of the Consistency Group to present the progress made so far. You have the floor.

Language Consistency Group:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to everyone. I have the honour of presenting to the committee a report on the activities of the Consistency Group. This report will give an account of how the group prepared for the reconvened concluding session, as well as an overview of our work carried out until today. As the committee members may recall, the Chair proposed the establishment of the Consistency Group with limited participation in the fourth session of the Ad Hoc Committee. A decision on the participants was made at the fifth session, and subsequently, the chair circulated a document with the general parameters for how the group would operate. The members of the consistency group are, for Arabic language, Jordan, Sudan, and Yemen. For the Chinese language, China and Singapore. For the English language, Ghana, United Kingdom, and the United States. For the French language, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, and France. For the Russian language, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and the Russian Federation. And for the Spanish language, Argentina, Ecuador, and Mexico. The group is supported by the secretariat, including substantive officers, editors, and translators. Prior to the concluding session, the consistency group reviewed Articles 4, 61, and 63, which were agreed at referendum by the ad hoc committee. Following the concluding session, the consistency group held four meetings between April and July and revised the draft convention in different stages. The stages involved a thorough review of all articles agreed at referendum, as well as those paragraphs which were agreed at referendum. The consistency group had, as the basis of its work, the draft contained in document A-AC.291-22-Ref.2, published by the chair on 8 February 2024. The consistency group continued to work on the basis of Ref. 2 with the objective of incorporating its revisions into the new draft, contained in document A-AC.291-22-Ref.2. However, the group continued to work after the cutoff date of the incorporation into document Ref. 3, and as a result, some of the consistency group’s suggestions did not make it. into this latest draft that you all have. These editorial suggestions were agreed by the members of the group and will be included in any subsequent draft. A note by the coordinator published on the website of the committee outlines the group’s suggestions, which are foreseen to be included in future text. Finally, the group concluded its intersessional work with the revision of any other provisions in Section A-AC.291-22-Ref-3 that had not yet been agreed upon by the ad hoc committee. Suggested editorial improvements were reviewed by the group and they will also be included in any subsequent draft. These are also contained in the same note by the coordinator. As a result of its intersessional work, the group approved Section A-AC.291-22-Ref-3 and does not have any substantial issues to bring to the attention of the ad hoc committee regarding this draft text, except for those laid out in my note and which will be in the future revision. I also note that late last week, we received more suggestions from the members of the group. These latest suggestions are not in the online document and we will update the committee on further changes. The group will continue to meet during the reconvened concluding session to review articles agreed at referendum in case they are agreed with a change to the current draft text. Under the guidance of the chair, I also plan to call for the group to meet, if needed, after the close of the reconvened concluding session to review any outstanding articles agreed before the draft convention is submitted to the General Assembly. I would like to thank the various members of the Consistency Group and the Secretariat, especially editors and translators. Their work has helped and will continue to help ensure that our work is readily available in all six official languages. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much, the coordinator for the Language Consistency Group. Thank you to you, as well as all countries that take part in that very delicate work. I will now open the floor, of course, to react to the new elements in the updated draft text that I just presented. I would just recall that we are resuming the concluding session, and so now it’s time to put forward specific proposals to bring us forward towards consensus. I think we’ve all heard the general ideas and positions that we have here, so without further ado, and because you’re probably tired of listening to me at this stage, I’ll open the floor, and please ask for the floor in the normal way. Le Brésil. Brazil.

Brazil:
Merci beaucoup, Madame la Président. Thank you very much, Madam President. First, to take, to intervene this morning. Madam Chair, dear colleagues, first, we thank you for the great effort, Madam Chair. You present us with a text that is whole, and in general terms, very close to a text that can be adopted by consensus. We believe the least we change, the less the chance that we upset the balance that we believe the text currently lies on. Still, we would like to bring up some outstanding issues. Starting with the title, we are happy with the title. Since the beginning and throughout the discussions on terminology, we believed that the solution for the title could be found on an articulation of the expressions we are dealing with, cybercrime and crimes committed with the use of information and communications technologies. We heard, however, several countries saying that the title is not yet what they would have. We believe that we could still try to articulate both expressions and we believe that working in Article 2 terminology may be a way to do that. We also believe that it would be helpful to the process if we tackle the issue of the title later this session when we see we are on the right track to adopt the Convention. Our second point, child sexual abuse material. For Brazil, this is a must in a Convention that deals with crimes that growingly affect the most vulnerable members of our societies. Procedurally, however, we are of the opinion that we will be able to further those discussions and the discussions of the Convention as a whole if we tackle the articles on CSAM in their own merits, separately from the discussions on the text of the Convention. Thirdly, Madam Chair, human rights and safeguards. We congratulate you again on the work you have done. We would like to state that we are in favor of the solutions you brought, including on Article 6.2, which we support. We have stated before that we are in favor of safeguards that are concrete and applicable to concrete cases. But we also heard the need countries have to make clear on the text the concepts that need to be protected. Our last point, Madam Chair, is on protocols. You and our colleagues may remember that we were the first delegation… to raise the need for the Convention to be updated and to be adapted to evolving technologies and contexts. We are glad that we have agreed at the referendum on the article about protocols, which is a copy of UNTAC, by the way. In the context of our negotiation, we also heard countries saying that it would be important to continue the discussion on complementary protocols. We know where we are coming from to have arrived to this solution, and we believe that all countries should be able to see themselves in the text of the Convention, as well on the determinations that are to be included on the resolution that will take the adopted text of the Convention to the Assembly General. The solution you bring us, Madam Chair, to continue the discussion after the Convention is adopted by the Assembly General and by this ad hoc committee, with the same modalities that have governed our work, is a good solution. The ad hoc committee would discuss the matter in two sessions, but the actual decision on protocols would be taken by the Conference of State Parties, meaning only after the Convention comes into force. These are our points, Madam Chair. Dear colleagues, we are positive. We are very close to adopting the text of the Convention next week. Let’s continue working hard for this purpose. Thank you very much.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Brazil. Jamaica, on behalf of CARICOM.

Jamaica:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and allow me to, at this outset, extend on behalf of CARICOM our appreciation to you and the Secretariat for the tremendous effort seeking to balance the priorities of Member States with this updated draft text of the Convention. We believe that this represents a good basis for our negotiations to reach a successful conclusion in this session. As you have requested, our feedback on the new elements presented in the instrument will be brief and targeted. With respect to Article 6 on respect for human rights, we have remained consistent in not wanting to overburden this instrument with human rights provisions. As such, CARICOM found Article 6.1 to be applicable to all other provisions within the Convention and therefore adequate, especially when considered with Article 24 on conditions and safeguards. While the Group’s position has been to keep this Article as succinct as possible, CARICOM could give consideration to the inclusion of Article 6.2 on the understanding that Article 6.1 speaks to the implementation of the obligations under the Convention being consistent with applicable human rights law, whereas Article 6.2 addresses the interpretation of the Convention being aligned with applicable human rights law. We would, however, propose to streamline Article 6.2 by removing the listing. Importantly, Article 6.1 doesn’t include such a listing and the preferred approach would be that both paragraphs follow a similar approach to human rights. The provision would therefore read, nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as permitting suppression of human rights or fundamental freedoms in accordance with applicable international human rights conventions. With respect to Article 23.4, CARICOM is desirous of greater clarity on the placement. We recognize that this paragraph was initially included in Article 35 as a proposal. If this paragraph is to remain in the instrument, it appears to have been better placed in Article 35 due to the fact that it addresses the correlation between international cooperation in the sharing of electronic evidence and its interface with the procedural measures within the text. CARICOM is otherwise supportive of Article 23. With respect to Article 24, during the previous session, CARICOM expressed the view that Article 24.2 is important in ensuring that the employment of procedural measures at the domestic level is subject to judicial oversight, grounds for the application of the measures, and effective management of the duration of these measures. We therefore support this paragraph. However, CARICOM questions the relevance of including the right to effective remedy in this paragraph. And we ask, how would this requirement in Article 24.2 translate to cybercrime legislation in the domestic context? We are open to the views of Member States on this particular inclusion in this instrument, but we cannot find a precedent for such a reference in the context of a criminal justice treaty and believe that the section is adequate without such inclusion. On the scope, Article 4, CARICOM can support Article 4 on offenses related to other UN conventions and protocols. The group recalls that this article is the previous Article 17, with which we had challenges because of its previous positioning as an article under criminalization. CARICOM can, however, support its new placement within the text as Article 4. CARICOM also believes that Article 4.2 offers clarity in respect of the import and meaning of this article and strikes the requisite balance within the text. CARICOM is generally supportive of Article 35. This remains a critical aspect of the convention for small developing states, and we recommend that Article 35.1.C remain as is without any further restrictions. During the last session, CARICOM took the position that any discussions on the extension of the mandate of the ad hoc committee to draft protocols was premature at that stage. Nevertheless, we indicated that CARICOM was willing to exercise some flexibility if there was broad support for this paragraph in the draft resolution, so as to bring us closer to consensus. Our position on this hasn’t changed. Taking into consideration the limited human and financial resources that is available to engage fully in these negotiations so soon after the adoption of this convention, especially in the case of small developing states like those of CARICOM, we would not be in a position to accept this language as drafted. However, CARICOM would be willing to support efforts among member states to work towards making the text more agreeable. I thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Your Excellency. Your support is very valuable. Thank you very much for your flexibility. And through you, I’d like to address to all CARICOM member states my gratitude. Since the outset, you’ve been very flexible. I now give the floor to Costa Rica.

Costa Rica:
Buenos días. Good morning, Madam Chair, distinguished delegates. Well, allow me to begin by thanking you for your work during the entire life of this ad hoc committee. We repeat our support to you for this resumed session. We believe that the document under consideration is very close to consensus. Our delegation is concerned about some elements that we would like to highlight, elements of principle. Firstly, the title of the convention. Despite the fact that we are grateful for the effort made to find an intermediate point between positions of delegations, for us, the title of the document is not sufficient. It currently refers to the scope of the Convention and goes further than the actual text of the Convention, so we would prefer the title to be limited to United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime. Secondly, we are also concerned that Article 4 attempts to extend the scope of the Convention. For our delegation, for the purposes of the norms that we are building here, we need to include crimes that are covered by other instruments. As we have previously said, we would request the deletion of this proposal. Thirdly, Costa Rica, during negotiations, expressed the need to include in Article 40 a possibility for Member States to deny assistance if the request is relating to a political crime. We have heard the arguments of some delegations that feel that this is already included in Paragraph 22. However, it is important to understand that there is a substantial distinction between the persecution of political opinions and political crimes, which is something that Costa Rica is referring to with this comment. Political crimes are defined in the legislation of some in the majority of countries and go a lot further than the expression of a political opinion. We would therefore propose to include this in Article 20 that would read, when the request is referring to a crime, that the required part is considered to be linked to a political crime. that formulation already exists in other international instruments. Along the same lines, we’re very grateful that our proposal for Article 37 has been maintained in the text and it’s been included in the current version of the document. Finally, allow me to say that for Costa Rica, the current wording with regard to guaranteeing the protection of human rights and the gender focus is the minimum wording that we can accept in this instrument. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Costa Rica. Thank you for that very tangible contribution. I have on my list the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Islamic Republic of Iran:
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, Madam Chair, at the outset, we would like to express our appreciation for all your efforts during the previous session of Ad Hoc Committee. We also thank the Secretariat for its dedication and tireless work in preparation of this meeting. We trust in your able leadership and professionalism for improving the text of the Convention to effectively prevent and combat crimes committed by the use of ICTs that meets the expectation and address concerns of all participating states. We reaffirm our commitment to work closely with you to address existing concerns and reach consensus on the outstanding issues in the draft Convention. Madam Chair, the important mandate conferred upon the Ad Hoc Committee as pre-resolution 74-247 is to elaborate a comprehensive international Convention to contain the use of information and communication technologies. for criminal purposes. This should be the central focus of the present meeting. Addressing issues that are outside the scope and purposes of the Convention would deviate us from our common main goal, which is to provide the international community with a sound and robust international legal framework to counter crime committed via information and communication technologies. On a general note, we are concerned to observe that after extensive negotiation and strong opposition to certain provisions due to the inherent flow within the draft text, such provisions have been re-inserted into the text again. Equally, we are concerned that constructive proposals presented by my delegation together with all like-mandate delegations on certain provisions have been ignored and deleted in the current text. We will continue our active engagement in the work of the Committee to ensure that the final text addresses serious concerns of my delegation and many like-mandate delegates. Madam Chair, distinguished delegates, we reiterate that the very nature of the Convention and the purposes envisaged for it requires the technical approach akin to the employed in drafting the UN CAC and thus to avoid the duplication of work and avoid addressing matters that in principle fall within the purposes and the scope of human rights treaties. The UN CAC and UN TOC and other relevant treaties to which nearly all UN members have agreed are party or signatory to do not include human rights provisions. The established practices of related to the UN CAC and UN TOC is not involving in human rights throughout their elaboration do not prejudice to importance of human rights obligations rather it signifies the very simple fact that criminal justice conventions focus on a specific technical aspect of fighting crimes and that it remains for other inclusive intergovernmental bodies to address human rights obligations in this area. Along similar lines we concur with the view of many delegations regarding the negative impact of inclusion of certain provisions under the guise of human rights obligations on international cooperation in fighting the use of ICT for criminal purposes. Such provision which do not even commensurate with international human rights law might be considered as an attempt to rewrite human rights obligation while we do not have such mandate or authority. This would only defeat the purposes of the convention and risk the venture and being dragged into politicization and selectivity of few. It would hinder cooperation and prevent us from protecting human rights victims of ICT crimes as well as the society as a whole in the face of criminals who are relentless in blowing legal loopholes in victimized people. Madam Chair, we believe that the current Article 14 is not sufficient to protect our children against horrendous crime of child sexual exploitation online. The main goal of the article is to counter child sexual exploitation and prevent children from falling victim of the hands of criminals. There should be no exception which would allow for commission of any form of child sexual exploitation or otherwise normalize such criminal conduct. However, Paragraph 3 of Article 14 manifestly defeats the purpose of the article and visibly justifies child sexual exploitation when it is not related to a real person. The central element in Article 14 is protection of children, not in the form of the content. Thus, it is surprising to us that few delegations are trying to create artificial boundaries of real and non-real materials in this regard. Misuse of technological advancement and materials depicting child sexual exploitation using technologies such as artificial intelligence tend to normalize child sexual exploitation and increase the possibility of preparation of such crimes. Limiting the scope of the article to real persons or only visual material is not appropriate response. We should not signal to our children that there is an exception in fighting these heinous crimes. We reaffirm our principle position that the child sexual exploitation should be prohibited in all its forms and Paragraph 3 of Article 14 should be deleted for that matter. We reiterate our concerns on the current formulation of Article 16, which did not make into account the position of many delegations who propose or otherwise supported a paragraph to make this article acceptable in domestic law of many countries. During the previous meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, my delegation, unlike mine that the States propose unsupported language that provide latitude to difference among various legal systems without undermining the purposes of the article, inclusion of the caveat paragraph as my delegation suggested before is the minimum requirement for this article to gain support and consensus. Madam Chair, for the sake of the brevity, we reserve our position on some other provisions on the draft convention, including further consideration on the above-mentioned articles. We will reflect them in the course of this meeting. In conclusion, I wish to assure you of my delegation’s full support and cooperation to conclude to comprehensive convention during this session. We are committed to working together to reach consensus and present a draft convention with robust provisions that could ensure the effective fight against the use of ICT for criminal purposes. I thank you, Madam President.

Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Rwanda, do you have the floor?

Rwanda:
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the efforts invested into reaching this hopefully final stage of this convention and for the improvements so far made. Rwanda is generally supportive of the proposed changes with some legal or language adjustments. However, in regard to Article 14 of this draft convention, Rwanda agrees with the proposed provision subject to the substantial change of deleting the statement or the wording without right. If I can read the Article 14, Paragraph 1, each state party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offenses under its domestic law when committed intentionally and without right the following conduct. So the proposed change and deletion is this wording without right. We find the wording without right does not bring any added value, but instead could be detrimental to the intended purpose of this convention, specifically the protection of children against child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation material. Noting that this convention has not come to establish rights that were not envisaged under domestic law, but the convention has come to criminalize conduct that is illegal regarding offenses related to online child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation material. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
That was the proposal of Rwanda. Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Rwanda. The Russian Federation, please. Microphone for the speaker, please.

Russian Federation:
I do apologize. I can’t access my laptop. If you just give me a moment, we’ll take the floor a little bit later.

Chair:
That’s perfectly fine, Russian Federation. Are there any other speakers wishing to take the floor? The Russian… Are you happy to adopt? May I take it that you’re happy to adopt if there are no other speakers? No? All right. Russian Federation.

Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Once again, I apologise for that technical glitch. Good morning, Madam Chair. A very good morning to heads of delegations, delegates… ..and the Secretariat. At the outset, I’d like to read a statement on behalf of the head of the Russian Federation here at the Ad Hoc Committee. That is Ambassador Artur Lukmanov, who once again was denied a visa to the US and will not be able to participate in the work of the reconvened concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee. And here I quote… Distinguished heads and members of delegations, chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee, Secretariat staff, yet again I’m compelled to begin my statement by informing you that the US authorities are erecting barriers to the participation of the Russian Federation in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee. The lion’s share of the Russian delegation was not able to arrive for the start of the session because the US Embassy in Moscow gave visas to our colleagues on the 26th of July. That’s just two days before negotiations were to begin. Nor were we able to take direct flights to the US. It took us over 30 hours to get here instead of the usual 10. And for that reason, we don’t have all of our colleagues here for the start of the session. Now I’ll continue reading the statement. Moreover, the US denied visas to the heads of the current and previous heads of our delegations. That is the special representative of the Russian Federation on international cooperation in the sphere of international security. That’s Andrei Krutsky. and Artur Lukmanov as well, as well as one of the main sources of inspiration for the idea of crafting a convention that is the head, the deputy head of the Russian delegation, Ernest Chernyukhin. We asked the chair of the ad hoc committee to intervene, but no action was taken. We call on the chair and her secretariat to reflect these circumstances in the report that should be submitted to the host country agreement committee, the committee on relations with the host country. Under these circumstances, the chair’s aspiration to fulfill consensus cannot bear fruit. Thus, the Russian Federation is reserving its position on the entire UDTC throughout this session. Distinguished delegates, the ad hoc committee is inching closer to finalizing the first international agreement on information security, the first in history. Negotiations on determining new norms of international law, which lay the foundations for law enforcement cooperation so as to combat ICT crime, has garnered the participation of all UN member states, even those who back in 2019 spoke against such an agreement. Although the thrust of that agreement was to overcome a neocolonial dependence of some states on foreign ICTs. The fact that everyone is now participating so actively attests to the fact that Russia’s call to develop new international legal forms on the secure use of ICTs and in keeping with UN charter principles that attest to how relevant our call was. The document the chair submitted to the session contains key components of the future work we undertake. Part and parcel of these are provisions on states’ cooperation, technical assistance in investigation of ICT crimes by exchanging electronic evidence. countering fraud and financial crime, the dissemination of illicit information and child pornography. All of this is a principled step forward on the way to overcoming digital inequality among states and the implementation of the governing principle enshrined in the UN Charter, the principle of the sovereign equality of states. Having said that, the current draft convention does not meet our mandated objectives. That is to come up with a comprehensive convention. The proposed text restates the articles of the outdated Budapest Convention, aside from its infamous Article 32b, although we do have some concerns that Article 27 on the provision of information can be interpreted in several ways. Its wording can give rise to the opportunity for one state to access data stored on the territory of another state, circumventing the competent national authorities. What’s also omitted are crimes linked to the transfer, processing, and distortion of information using ICTs. What I’m referring to here are terrorist and extremist ideas, calls to engage in narcissist actions, information about trafficking in persons and illicit drug trafficking and weapons trafficking. Some delegations say that there’s no need to cover these topics because such offences are covered by bilateral and multilateral agreements. Yet these agreements do not help us to prevent, suppress, nor invest crimes committed using ICTs. These crimes are transnational, these tools are anonymous, and all of these agreements are full of loopholes. ICT specifics were not taken into consideration in the draft text, although there is every grounds for doing so. There is national legislation, multilateral agreements, UN Security Council and GA resolutions. In 2021, the Russian Federation submitted a draft convention underpinned by legislative and law enforcement practices. is common to most states, including those states who have spoken out here at the Ad Hoc Committee against broader criminalization. The fact that they’re not cooperating on countering cybercrimes with other states is just another sign that they’re engaging in double standards. Luckily, we didn’t have to convince delegation about the need to combat child pornography, although some states did try to hamper these efforts as well by clarifying the limits of criminalization when it comes to naked children’s bodies disseminated through ICTs. Such disregard to the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee was exhibited at a very crucial crossroads. That’s the terminology of the convention and its title. On the last day of negotiations during the seventh session, the Secretariat tried to present the title Cyber Convention as a fait accompli. Let us remind you that resolutions 74-247 and 75-282 call for the elaboration of convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. All states voted in favor of this, although the number of states in favor and against was not equal. Let us also remind you that in 2018, the GA adopted resolution 73-187, which introduced into the agenda of the Third Committee an item on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. As a consequence, the Secretary-General drafted a report on this topic, and since 2018, this ICT terminology put down strong roots in UN documents. Another blunder, the renewed version that contains references to human rights. These provisions prompted objections and criticisms on our part, and yet the drafters outdid themselves, introducing even more vile terminology in there regarding freedom of expression, freedom of assembly. what were the drafters guided by? Clearly not by the mandate. There’s nothing about that in there. Rather, they were guided by the stances taken by states in favour of the Online Freedom Coalition and self-styled human rights defenders the world over. These are countries who, on the pretext of protecting human right, well, they’re seeing a dissemination of hate speech and they’re seeing a dissemination of paedophilia, violating religious and moral norms, promoting drug use, glorifying Hitler, and so on and so forth. Pumping a text full of references to human rights is just a way to shirk from implementation of its provisions, specifically on the provision of assistance to countering ICT crimes. This can also be used as a pretext to hamper cooperation by law enforcement bodies of third parties to interfere in domestic affairs. We believe that the new wording of Article 6 is non-consensual. We call on the Secretariat to either overhaul the wording or consider putting this contentious norm to a vote. Distinguished Delegates, Russia’s approach is strictly in keeping with UNGA Resolutions 74-247 and 75-282. We call on all participants to be guided by these foundational agreements and to refrain from introducing non-consensual ideas. We have lengthy and tense work ahead of us so as to be able to fulfil the mandate which hasn’t been fulfilled to date. Russia is in favour of honest, transparent work on ways forward, compromises, all in the interests of consensus. However, given that unilateral proposals have been put forward, proposals that have nothing to do with the mandate, our overarching principle we’ll be sticking to is nothing is agreed unless everything is agreed. That’s the end of that statement. Thank you for your kind attention.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Paraguay.

Paraguay:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Once again, we’d like to begin by thanking you and your entire team for the efforts to bring forward these negotiations. We’d like to reaffirm Paraguay’s commitment to finding consensus and our full commitment to multilateralism. You can count on our support during this new session. We believe that the Zero Draft is a balanced document. It’s very close to consensus, similar to what we’ve achieved in previous years. I think under your leadership, we’ll be able to arrive at a consensus document before the conclusion of this resumed session. I’d also like to make some individual comments. We’ve seen in the Spanish version there are some aspects that could be improved, and we will be giving the Secretariat a document with our suggestions in this regard. Then with regard to the substantive matters in the English version, we have the following suggestions, and I’m sorry to speak at such length, but these are points that we consider to be important. Paragraph five of the preamble, we would stress here again that international cooperation must be reflected in this paragraph. Article two, A, we would reiterate that the definition of service provider should include physical persons, not just private entities, otherwise we would be leaving open situations where service providers are not entities or individuals. In the same article, we welcome the reference to 6.2, and Article 14.2. we would once again suggest that we exclude written material. In Article 16, we believe that we should clarify that private images can be either consensual or not consensual. With regard to Article 19, I’ll speak at a little greater length. This article aims to deal with crimes that will be dealt with under the future convention and typify them. But we feel that it should expressly exclude part of Article 11. Article 11 is related to the Preparations themselves. Some of the acts that are sanctioned in Article 11 are clearly precise in that article. But the Preparatory steps will be difficult to limit. Therefore, specifically, we would suggest that we expressly exclude from Article 19, Letter A.1 and B of Article 11. We believe that we would wonder what the point would be of a provision or the Preparatory steps for that provision to facilitate this step. What would this be? With regard to Article 28, Paragraph 4, this should be done according to national legislation, domestic legislation. Article 30, we suggest changing the expression in the territory because this would be difficult to achieve for global service providers. We would suggest referring to in their territory or towards their territory. That would remove that particular obligation. Article 40, paragraph 8, we believe that double jeopardy is important for reciprocal mutual legal assistance. In the same article, Article 40, paragraph 15A, we think we should add any data that will make it possible to identify the person or article. In Article 41, we suggest that the information for the contact points be circulated on an annual basis by the Secretary. At Article 42, double jeopardy should be unavoidable and with regard to the extension mentioned in the last paragraph of that article, we believe that there should be a deadline for extension established, perhaps 90 days as it was in the previous draft. In Article 45, as we said in Article 30, once again we suggest changing the expression in their territory with from or towards their territory. In Article 52, we need to use similar language to the UNCAT document with regard to return and disposal of property. There are necessarily maintenance charges that are involved and they need to be taken into account. Finally, we proposed a specific reference to country provisions for landlocked countries. The proposal aimed to cover the various factors that place landlocked countries in a disadvantageous situation because we do not have a coastline, so there are issues relating to this. We are committed to consensus and we do not feel that this is the forum for discussion. discussions of sovereignty of data. So we won’t insist on that previous proposal that we made. We wish you every success, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Paraguay. Before giving the floor to Lebanon to be followed by El Salvador, I would recall that there’s no time limit, so you can read out your statements more slowly, because otherwise it’s difficult for the interpreters to keep up with you. We have until August, Friday, August 9th. So let’s just try to remember that everybody has their speed limits, and let’s protect the interpreters’ voices. Lebanon, please.

Lebanon:
Madam Chair, forgiving Lebanon on the floor, let me start by thanking you for the effort you did to align points of view and try to find the middle way where points of view are really divergent. We fully support your proposition related to CSCAM, Article 14, and thank you for that. We also support your proposition related to human rights and safeguards, as you would like to maintain the level of safeguards provided in the proposed text of the Convention. And we thank you for your proposition to add political offenses as a ground of refusal. We also support the scope of the future treaty as long as the safeguards are maintained. We also approve the number 40 for the entry in force for the exact reasons you mentioned. We only have two comments, one regarding the title and the second regarding the additional protocol. As for the title, we are not of the point of view that the term cybercrime should be defined in the title, especially that we don’t agree with the definition, and I don’t think that the name should be so long or that definitions should be included in the title. The second comment is related to the second protocol. Actually, we question the necessity of discussing the continuation of the discussions and an additional protocol where we really have a divergent point of view. And I think that it’s better to leave this subject after the adoption and the entry of the force of this treaty. And I thank you so much.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Lebanon, El Salvador, and then Cote d’Ivoire, and then Ecuador. El Salvador.

El Salvador:
Thank you very much. Madam Chair, it’s a pleasure for us to see you in the chair. And we welcome you and the interpreters and the other members of the other delegations. El Salvador would like to congratulate you on the long-term, this long work that’s been done by the Ad Hoc Committee in producing this revised version of the current text of the draft convention and the corresponding interpretative notes. My delegation, in general, believes that the current updated text does show progress in a balanced representation of certain aspects. However, there are still some issues that need to be refined during this concluding session. In terms of norms, my delegation is very grateful for the interpretative notes. We believe that some aspects reflected there would be better included in the updated text itself, rather than being approved as annexed notes to the report of the session. For example, the interpretation in provision 35, that would be better applicable if it was included in the text, in order to provide greater legal certainty to the parties to the convention. Now, the comments of El Salvador. Salvador in summary form, I share with you as follows. As part of the preambular section, our delegation identified that the wording is balanced, however, there are some aspects that should be reflected in order to reflect aspects in the operative part of the text. One of those is the reference to capacity building and technology transfer by mutual agreement on which Article 1 relating to statement of purpose that El Salvador can support, by the way. Additionally, we feel we need to strengthen letter C and refer to technology transfer under conditions of mutual agreement. And still in the preambular section, paragraph 3, where we talk about avoiding the impact of information technology, ICT, on the speed and scope of crimes, we could be flexible and we could go along with deleting the list of crimes that are mentioned here, terrorism, transnational organized crime, arms manufacturing, amongst other things, because these can be eliminated, they won’t change the scope of the instrument. That’s consistent with the technical recommendations of limiting the scope of the Convention to cyber-related crimes and not those that have an enforcing effect in cyber space. If we go too far in the scope, it could make the… Convention difficult to apply. Then further on, we’re concerned about the general scope of the instrument with regard to Article 4, with regard to other UN protocols. There, we feel we need to establish the relationship of applicability that this convention will have with other instruments relating to research and processing of those crimes identified under other conventions and that have been committed using ICTs. With regard to provisions relating to crimes related to online content that show sexual abuse of children, girls and boys, my delegation sees a lot of ambiguity in the text, particularly in paragraphs 3 and 4, and that’s why we hope that we’ll be able to solve those concerns in our debate, all aiming at protecting the rights of the child, which are paramount. And then on preventive measures, we can support the Chair’s proposals. However, we need to stress the importance of strengthening Letter C. On cyber security investigations, we should provide better guarantees so that when in the exercise of their functions, problems are seen with the ICT systems and they are duly reported before they can be used for malicious purposes. That’s critical in order to ensure the integrity of our computer systems. With regard to the effects of the convention, Article 60, my delegation will be making a proposal for minimum requirements later. in line with international treaties and define the rules applicable with regard to successive conventions in this area. And in order to make the norms in this text clear with regard to other conventions, this particular paragraph will be very important. Thank you very much.

Chair:
Thank you, El Salvador. Thank you, El Salvador. Cote d’Ivoire, please.

Cote d’Ivoire:
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Madam Chair. And many thanks to the Secretariat. In the spirit of consensus, we’re going to make a considerable effort so as to hopefully finalise the process in the next two weeks, acting in that same spirit, establishing an international legal framework to combat this scourge that is cybercrime. Building on comments made by our number of delegations, we’d like to make the following comments in a national capacity. First of all, the title of the future treaty, the UN Convention on Cybercrime, that is through the use of ICTs, that is the proposed title for the treaty which includes the use of ICTs. And that gives the impression that we’ve defined the term cybercrime. As a number of delegations have already recalled, there is no collective agreement on the title. One has not transpired throughout our discussions. And under Article 2, for example, there are certain offences that have been recognised which is worth noting. Article 6, respect for human rights. On this, we believe that… Keeping this important provision in there will help us to garner an agreement on other provisions as well. Additional protocols, the establishment of additional protocols. Of course, negotiating an additional protocol one year after the adoption of the future treaty is something that might draw resources from states. These are going to be very complex negotiations after all. So states would focus on negotiating a protocol rather than implementing the treaty. We believe this would be polarizing and would actually undermine the implementation of the treaty shortly after it is finalized. Turning now to the interpretative notes. Given what was said, we hope that the interpretative notes will not be subject to stand-alone negotiations given that we are really on the cusp of negotiating and finalizing the treaty. It’s our last meeting. We are therefore in favor of abolishing the interpretative notes. Article 16, non-consensual use of intimate images. The interpretative notes on that article shouldn’t be included in the article itself. That isn’t compatible with the approach we’ve adopted when looking at other criminalization articles. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Ecuador, please.

Ecuador:
Thank you, Madam Chair, dear colleagues. The Ecuadorian delegation would like to express our thanks to you, Madam Chair. For the efforts you’ve undertaken to provide us with Rev 3 of the document. which is a very good proposal to achieve consensus. As we’ve done in the past, Madam Chair, Ecuador, in general terms, supports the text that you have proposed. We would just like to make a few observations. Firstly, we’d like to thank you, Madam Chair, that in the preamble, as well as in Article 54, you have referred to technology transfer because that is a fundamental aspect for developing countries. With regard to the title, we would prefer to keep the title short, Convention Against Cybercrime. We believe that the text in brackets could be placed in Article 2, the definitions. With regard to the safeguards and human rights, we agree with the text proposed in Articles 6, particularly Paragraph 2, Article 24, and Paragraph 22 of Article 40. And we would like those to not be changed. Finally, with regard to the negotiation of a protocol, which is mentioned in Paragraph 5 of the preamble, we would like to state that for Ecuador to begin these negotiations one year following the adoption of the main instrument would be too early. Ecuador would draw attention to the fact that not all countries have the same capacity to apply the main instrument. And that’s why we hope that efforts will be. focused in overcoming these asymmetries rather than beginning new negotiations on possible new crimes. And we’re very grateful that Articles 14 and 16 are being dealt with in informal meetings because we there have some difficulties with the text proposed in those two articles. Thank you very much Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Colombia followed by the United States, Vietnam and Mauritania. Colombia please.

Colombia:
Thank you Madam Chair. Allow me at the outset to highlight and commend the work that you and the Secretariat have done during this process. Your leadership has been essential in successfully concluding this stage of the negotiations. You and other delegations can continue to count on the Republic of Colombia with regard to finding and building consensus around this draft. Madam Chair, my delegation, as we’ve said previously in the process, feel that the text promotes and strengthens measures to prevent and effectively fight cybercrime for Colombia. It’s essential that we promote, facilitate and strengthen international cooperation and that should be without any conditions and on the basis of mutually agreed terms. Therefore, changes in Preamble 6 to the language is something that we can’t agree to. Also, we should remove the term where possible from paragraph 1 of article 51. With regard to the title, my delegation believes that the current wording is not appropriate because from the point of view of criminal law, cybercrimes have substantial differences to other kinds of informatics crimes, and that’s why we say that the title should just refer to cyber crimes and we should not use any alternative vocabulary. With regard to Chapter 2, we have the list of crimes, conducts that affect the availability and reliability of computer systems, as well as additional things such as child pornography. For Colombia, international cooperation in criminal proceedings in an extensive way is very important for the text and that’s reflected in Article 35, particularly with regard to 1c. Although during the last session we had debates on that language, the definition of this category is limited to a minimum and maximum period of four years, as established in the Palermo Convention. It’s true that it can be included, but it would be difficult to have international cooperation for crimes of a lesser duration. We’d also stress that the protection safeguards of fundamental rights are essential in the text. They are necessary for the success of this process. That’s why we’re very happy to see the inclusion of the safeguard provisions with regard to Articles 6 and 40 that make it possible to deny cooperation if discrimination or freedom of expression is being attacked. We also support the inclusion of the proposal made by the Delegation of Costa Rica and we suggest that it remain in the articles, in the operative parts. Finally, it’s been the Colombian position throughout all of the negotiations that we defend and include a gender approach. That needs to be central in the interpretation of the cooperation and investigative and criminal measures within this text. instrument. In that regard, the additions in the preambular paragraph 10 are not acceptable for my delegation because they limit the scope of protection. And following that position, we could not give a green light to any attempt to weaken this language. Thank you very much.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Columbia. The United States.

United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning. I want to first start by thanking you and your team for everything that you did in arriving at this version of the treaty. It shows incredible commitment, incredible efforts to try to balance all interests. We are committed to work with the international community to fight cybercrime. We work and will continue to work with many states represented here today to arrest cybercriminals and disrupt their networks. The United States already provides unparalleled levels of training and mentoring to develop investigative and prosecutorial skills around the world, as well as programming to support digital development and cyber resilience. This is a core element of our recently released international cyber strategy. As we negotiate this new instrument, we are resolute in our commitment that the same human rights offline must be protected online, including particularly relevant rights such as freedom of expression. This also is affirmed in our new cyber strategy. We look forward to working with member states to achieve a positive outcome to our work. That is a rights-respecting cybercrime treaty that will enable all United member states to cooperate better in the fight against this scourge. I’d like to now offer some preliminary comments on some of the articles that you highlighted in your presentation. First on Article 6, the Convention is a UN criminal justice instrument which we hope will be universal. It should clearly reflect our shared understanding of what is within the scope of the treaty and exclude application of the treaty to infringe on agreed and established human rights. The Convention’s unprecedented scope presents clear risks of the Convention being misinterpreted or misused. It’s worth reiterating that Article 6 only requires parties to act consistent with their existing international human rights obligations. It references specific rights because those rights are particularly relevant in the context of this treaty as it deals with the use of powerful law enforcement tools to investigate and prosecute crimes relating to information and communication technology systems and with the sharing of electronic evidence. It does not create any new obligations. We support Article 6 as drafted. In addition, we support the improved safeguards in the mutual legal assistance articles of this draft and the principle reflected in Article 23.4. Taken together, these safeguards go a long way towards matching the expansive scope of this Convention, though we believe further improvement and strengthening could be warranted. On the title of the Convention. In our view, the title should not define cybercrime with an open-ended reference to ICTs that is confusing and does not reflect the content of this treaty. Cybercrime is the globally accepted term for these issues. It is immediately clear from the title, Convention Against Cybercrime, what conduct this treaty covers and why. On Articles 14 and 16, we support the Articles as drafted. They’re not ideal from the U.S. perspective, but they do reflect a hard-won and delicate compromise reached in good faith by a large number of delegations working in the spirit of consensus. We believe we should not upset that hard-won compromise at this late hour. On the protocol, we’ve been asked to consider a proposal to continue the work of the AHC with a view to almost immediately elaborating a protocol. While not part of the draft text treaty, it is a part of the scope of the convention and must be addressed. The proposal to negotiate almost immediately supplementary protocols, focusing primarily on additional crimes, ignores the fact that the core offenses currently in the draft have achieved consensus and are sufficient to cover a wide range of criminal activity, including many of the harms raised by those seeking additional criminalization provisions. It further overlooks the wide range of cooperation allowed through the collection and sharing of electronic evidence for serious crimes. An immediate protocol negotiation also would overburden states, and as has been noted by others before me, by diverting resources to more negotiations rather than focusing on ratifying and implementing this convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Vietnam, followed by Mauritania.

Vietnam:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The delegation of Vietnam is pleased with the latest draft convention submitted by the Chair, which includes a good number of positive elements. First, the draft convention preamble acknowledges the links between IC systems and crimes like terrorism and trafficking, as well as recognizes the goal of global criminal justice in protecting society against all types of crimes. Second, the draft convention also highlights the need for international cooperation, especially for developing countries in combating cybercrime through technical assistance and capacity building. Furthermore, it details specific procedures, measures, and safeguards, ensuring domestic safeguard standards applies also to international cooperation. Third, we appreciate the Chair’s initiative to publish the draft convention. With this interpretive note, we will aid the national legislation in implementing the future convention. Madam Chair, while this delegation fully supports your efforts and appreciates the updated draft convention, we believe that further technical calibrations are needed to ensure its relevance, considering rapid technological advancement. First, the definition of key terms in Article 2 are outdated and do not reflect and current technological realities. Most importantly, the definition of ICT systems should cover both hardware and software producers. The service provider should include very large online platforms. In addition, the exact scope of virtual asset in Article 2 should be clarified as whether domestic law would define or some international guideline will apply. Second, the draft does not differentiate between national and global cyberspace or recognize it as a unique domain which is essential for state responsibilities and authorities. Notably, Article 6 of the draft convention is problematic and potentially undermining the self-determination of member states within their own national cyberspace. While we now fully support the principle of respecting human rights, the inclusion of overly broad language on human rights protection in numerous provisions risks unbalancing the convention and jeopardizing the consensus on the final text. Third, the draft is failing to address the advancement in AI technologies in video editing which could render Articles 14 and 16 ineffective if AI is used to evade prohibitions. Fourth, responsibilities placed on law enforcement agencies to protect third parties’ interests in Article 24.3 or mandatory cooperation with non-public entities in numerous provisions should be clarified and be made flexible to optimize the investigation and prosecution processes and avoid obstructing justice. Fifth, the international cooperation under this convention is no longer guarantees upon having numerous non-discrimination clauses within the convention as seen in Article 37 and 40 although safeguards were provided for in Article 30. 23 and 24. Sixth, the addition of provisions on why hackers need careful examination to prevent arbitrary intrusions into state-owned computers’ network or critical ICT infrastructure, which could lead to chaos or false alarms or misperception and miscalculation in cybersecurity. Eighth, the amendment proposal conditions should not be limited to five years, given the rapid evolution of ICT, and should be left to the conference of the state parties. Last, but not least, the very last line of the draft convention, our delegation seeks the deletion of the phrase authorized by their respective governments, as this delegation is authorized by the state presidents as the higher authorities. We are ready to engage further with other delegations in presenting our language proposal for the aforementioned issues in the coming informals. Madam Chair, the journey to establish a global framework on cybercrime at the UN has started more than a decade ago, with the UNODC Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime, mandated by the UNGA Resolution 65, Slot 230, in April 2010. And the fact that every year, when discussing cybercrime at CCPCJ or first committees, we are amazed at the pace and impact that new technologies have allowed cybercriminals to inflict loss and damages on businesses and ordinary people, or even threatening governmental ICT systems. At the first ever UN Treaty governing cyberspace, and the bedrock for us all to achieve a cyberspace of humanities, scientific knowledge, meaningful connection and exchange, this delegation calls for a convention that may stand the test of time in dealing with cybercrimes. and expressed its strong support for a convention designed for the context and reality of 2024, which recognizes the authorities and responsibilities of member states for their own national cyberspace. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you. Mauritania, to be followed by Albania, Uruguay, Chile, and China. Mauritania, please.

Mauritania:
Thank you, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen. In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful, Madam Chair, please allow me to thank you for your extensive efforts in putting forward this draft text. I also thank your team. Please allow me to thank the Secretariat for its efforts. First, I have a question in relation to the interpretative notes. Are we going to discuss these notes, and what legal value do these notes have? On the title of the convention, my delegation believes that we should opt for a shorter title. The title should be limited to cybercrime only. In our opinion, this title is enough and does explain the intent and the purpose, and it also explains the scope of this convention. The additional element included between two parentheses is confusing, and it’s better to delete it. On Article 6, and particularly Paragraph 2 of Article 6, we support the countries that asked for the deletion of the listing or enumeration in this paragraph. In fact, this enumeration is not comprehensive, and therefore it’s better to remove this listing, and this will help us achieve consistency between Paragraphs 1 and 2. On Article 14, we also support the reservations expressed by some Member States, particularly on Paragraphs 3 and 4. These paragraphs weaken the requirements and weaken the main purpose of this article. We have similar remarks in relation to Article 16. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Mauritania. And then the notes will be annexed to the report. This is what I said in my presentation this morning. They will be annexed to the report of the session. That’s all on interpretative notes. Thank you very much for your input. Albania, you have the floor.

Albania:
Thank you, Chair, and in capacity of my representative of Albania, let me consider and let me express all my esteemed consideration to your great and hard job and to your team as well. Let me express also that we are committed to work against cybercrime and we are all in line with the efforts of all members here and behind us, the old teams that are working so hard. And we also dream and we are doing our best efforts to achieve a positive outcome on this draft convention to become a convention. Albania has these following comments on the convention. Regarding the Article 6, we support as it is drafted. Also we support the principles as they are drafted in Article 24. We have our considerations on the title of the convention that we’d like to, like previous distinguished delegations, to be a short title as UN Convention on Cybercrime. To our opinion, it covers all crimes that this convention is drafted for. We also support the Article 14.16 as they are drafted. Regarding the additional protocol, we are of the opinion that it is premature as far as we are concerned. spending a lot of efforts for this convention, for the drafting of protocol, we would consider that this draft protocol should be in discussion after we come up in a final version of this signing of this convention. Regarding the interpretative notes, somehow we would consider that it would be great as an attachment, but not as just interpretative notes as you mentioned. We support the scope of the future UN treaties as long as the safeguards are maintained, and if possible also we would consider adding the political offenses as a ground for refusal. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Albania. Uruguay.

Uruguay:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Uruguay, thanks the Chair, your team and the Secretariat for their tireless efforts and for providing us with revised documents with regard to our future convention, which we feel represent a very good basis for being able to conclude this negotiating process over these two weeks of work. We’re at a crossroads, I think, where delegations now need to show flexibility straight away so that together we can find a compromise that will allow us to reach this consensus that we all desire after so many years of work. This is what Uruguay has been doing with regard to some of our proposals. Over and above a few nuances, we think that the solutions proposed are balanced and they attempt to reflect in a balanced way the discussions that we’ve had over the last two weeks. in this committee. In particular, with regard to articles linked to human rights and safeguards, in particular articles 6 and 24, in Uruguay’s view, the current wordings in their entirety represent the minimum that’s indispensable that should be contained in this instrument. Also, with regard to the title of the Convention, we would like to reiterate our preference for using the short-term cybercrime. Madam Chair, you can count on the delegation of Uruguay to continue to work on this process. In that spirit, we will be participating in these meetings with the primary objective of ensuring that we don’t miss this opportunity that is before us. Thank you very much.

Chair:
Thank you very much, Uruguay. Thank you very much for the spirit of flexibility you’ve exhibited and that’s something I’ve noticed throughout the entire process. Thank you very much. On my list, I have Chile, China, New Zealand and Nigeria. And we’ll stop after Nigeria. Chile, please.

Chile:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to congratulate you and members in the room. We’d like to thank you for the efforts that you have put into this process. We’re sure that your professionalism will enable us to reach a consensus that meets the needs of all states’ parties in these final weeks of the work of the ad hoc group. We very much appreciate the updates in REV3. We think this represents substantive progress towards consensus. This Convention requires clear safeguards. The protection of human rights is essential, but it’s not enough unless we explicitly recognize fundamental rights. In this process, we have as our aim a universal and binding treaty for member states and to also include regional standards in this area. It aims to give a reflection of the current situation as well as the challenges, problems and threats that people face due to the rapid changing world of cybercrime, particularly using these technologies. So we need to be guarantors of human rights and we need to ensure that this forum is not used unduly by states for political ends. We cannot persecute people for behavior that is not a crime or for actions that are not violations of human rights under the pretext that they are committing a crime. For those reasons, we firmly support the inclusion of Article 6.2 in its current wording and we’re very grateful for your leadership on that wording that you’ve put forward to us so that it is included as such in the text. It’s important to recognize, Madam Chair, the complexities of international cooperation in the area of cybercrime. Safeguards on international cooperation will make it possible to deal practically with these concerns. Those provisions should help to prevent abuses of privacy and ensuring that the Convention is legitimate. We support Costa Rica’s view here with regard to Article 40. Cybercrime requires adequate approaches given that it’s so complex. The provisions on international cooperation are designed to cover the specificities of cyber and the various legal frameworks of participating states. It’s important to ensure that human rights are clearly protected in the text, thus improving the effectiveness and universal acceptance of the treaty. Therefore, the current wording with regard to the safeguards on human rights is important, and that’s the minimum that would be acceptable for my delegation. In that regard, we support the current wording of Articles 14, 15, and 16, and in particular, we would like to thank you for efforts to include elements in Article 14 that we feel guarantee the superior interests of the child in this wording. We think that the UN Convention Against Cybercrime is an adequate title. Cybercrime is used in the United Nations in other documents approved by consensus, but additionally, we’d also like to highlight something that was mentioned by the delegation of Colombia, namely that the title is sufficient for the action that we are talking about taking. Delegations should prioritize the implementation of the current draft before we consider additional protocols, and in that regard, and with regard to the internal ratification procedures of countries, that’s important. There needs to be adequate representation of this convention in terms of its coming into force. That’s why we support the proposal of 60 ratifications made by Mexico. That’s not a small point for our delegation. We feel it’s a minimum in order to be able to negotiate additional protocols on the drafting of the current document. As other delegations have said, additional effort needs to be made to help delegations with limited resources, and also perhaps the scope of this instrument could be extended, but that needs to be the subject of consensus. Finally, the implementation of the convention assessment should include civil society in order to ensure its effectiveness in implementation. We’d like to show flexibility here. We’re open to discussions that we will be having. during these next two weeks. You can count on our support, Madam Chair, and we thank you and the Secretariat for your dedicated efforts. Thank you.

Chair:
Thank you very much. Chile, China, please.

China:
Distinguished Madam Chair, colleagues. At the outset, I wish to thank Madam Chair and the Secretariat for the hard work put into this session. Since 2022, the Ad Hoc Committee has already had seven sessions, during which we had in-depth discussions on the Convention. Looking back at the three-plus years of negotiation, all delegations, Madam Chair and the Secretariat, have all put in tremendous efforts and energy into this process. We all hope to see this process brought to successful fruition through this concluding session. China is of the view that this Convention, whose aim is to counter cybercrime, should provide a universal, inclusive, robust legal framework for strengthening cooperation between states, and also be equipped with foresight and flexibility. At the same time, we must be cognizant of the fact that to conclude the negotiations of the Convention, we must do our best to accommodate the concerns of each other and seek reasonable and balanced solutions. In this regard, China believes that the UDTC proposed by Madam Chair has already, to the largest extent possible, reflected various concerns and provides a good basis for reaching consensus. China is of the view that countering cybercrime and safeguarding human rights are mutually reinforcing, as the former will be an important pathway to the latter. Therefore, the human rights safeguards provisions in the Convention should aim at promoting international cooperation rather than creating barriers for it, much less serving as excuses for refusing it. Compared with other UN criminal justice conventions, such as UNCAC, the present draft convention has already included in it a number of additional human rights protection provisions. However, on criminalization, the convention has not fully addressed the practical needs of countering cybercrime. Therefore, China fully supports the formulation on additional protocols in OP5 of the draft resolution. This has always been an important element in a discussion around the convention and will play an important and constructive role in reaching this compromised text. China believes that through negotiating a protocol, we will strike a balance between countering cybercrime and strengthening human rights protection, and we’ll also be able to discuss important issues including criminalization. This will serve as an important basis for reaching a comprehensive and balanced convention. Colleagues, we only have two weeks on our calendar. To conclude the convention, we expect to see all colleagues bringing to bear to this process our joint wisdom and flexibility, and we believe we can tackle these contentious issues and find compromises acceptable to all. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much, China. Thank you for exhibiting the spirit of flexibility and the constructive approach you’ve adopted as well. New Zealand, please.

New Zealand:
Thank you, Chair. We commend you, your team, and the Secretariat for… for all of the work and preparation for this session. In the updated draft, we recognize that some progress has been made and we thank you, Chair, for your unwavering efforts to help us reach consensus. At the outset, I would reiterate New Zealand’s longstanding fundamental concern regarding this convention’s broad scope. The current scope, particularly the procedural measures and international cooperation chapter, extends beyond the primary purpose of the convention, namely combating cybercrime. As we previously noted, this creates uncertainty about the true function of the convention and how different states will interpret and apply it. This is a significant concern for New Zealand and we took note of your opening comments, Chair, recognizing how the scope related to serious crime is unprecedented and differs significantly to UNTOC. We also recognize that many countries have sought and value this broader scope and that consensus is a delicate balance. We accept that in some areas we may have to work towards what we can live with rather than what we ideally want. However, for New Zealand, robust safeguards are essential for us to accept this broad scope. In this regard, we welcome the addition of Article 6.2. This provision helps clarify what the convention can legitimately cover by excluding a range of activity that states treat in very different ways, including in relation to criminalization. We think it has been carefully crafted and we support it as it is currently drafted. We also welcome the inclusion of an anti-discrimination clause in Article 40.22, aligning this convention with previous UN precedents. We would again suggest placing this clause in Article 35 for clearer application to the entire international cooperation chapter. This adjustment could help streamline the text by eliminating the need for a separate anti-discrimination clause in Article 37.15. We also support Costa Rica’s proposal to add a political. offence grounds for refusal in Article 4021, and we appreciated their explanation as to the difference between a political offence and an offence related to political opinion. Costa Rica’s proposal would bridge that gap and we will consider the text that they’ve put forward. On Article 23.4, while we support the main thrust of Article 23.4, we do have questions around its placement. It could potentially be better situated in Article 24 or even Article 35. We are also considering whether some minor edits could help give its application more clarity, including as to whether it needs to apply to more aspects of the Convention. We’re pleased that Article 24 has been included, but note the addition of a new qualifier in Article 24.2 compared to previous versions. The shall aspect of this paragraph is now sandwiched between two qualifiers. In accordance with and pursuant to the domestic law of each state party, such conditions and safeguards shall, as appropriate in view of the nature of the procedure or power concerned, and so on. We recommend amending Article 24.2 to remove the new qualifier, or at the very least, remove the second qualifier to ensure clarity. On Article 4, we have questions about the purpose and scope of this article. The reference to applicable UN conventions raises questions. It is unclear which conventions fall under this category, and indeed, are we certain all of the criminalisation provisions are of a nature that they could be committed through the use of an information and communications technology system. Clarity is crucial in a binding international legal instrument to avoid ambiguity and to ensure effective implementation. On OP5 of the resolution, this addition, which proposes extended negotiations for more criminalisation provisions, impacts the delicate balance of scope in the conventions. We have a range of concerns related to OP5, including the resource strain it will entail, especially for smaller states, and the fact it will likely undermine swift adoption of the main convention while states wait to see what happens in the negotiation toward a protocol. Additionally, OP5’s introduction warrants careful consideration as it may alter the original intent behind the inclusion of the broad provisions in the procedural measures and international cooperation chapters. These provisions were meant to facilitate cooperation on serious crimes for those countries seeking a broader criminalization framework. If further negotiation toward more crimes is going to be seriously considered, then we believe that may necessitate revisiting the broad scope to ensure the careful balance is retained. On the title, Chair, we support the comments from others highlighting problems with the current draft, and we suggest the title is kept concise and clear. We would support what was previously proposed, the Convention Against Cybercrime. These are our comments, Chair, on the aspects of the text you flagged in your opening remarks. I would also note we will have suggestions on other aspects of the text with an aim for improving clarity. For example, in Article 41, we can see opportunity to improve the clarity of that article, especially in relation to Article 41.3c. Our edits would be designed to ensure the 24-7 network operates effectively, taking into account resource limitations, but we will save those proposals for when we come to discuss that article. Chair, we are looking forward to working constructively over these two weeks toward a consensus outcome and again reiterate our support for your leadership towards that goal. Thank you, Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Nigeria, the last speaker for this morning’s meeting. We will resume our proceedings. this afternoon at 3 p.m. the EU, India, Mexico and Indonesia. That’s all we have on the speakers list for now. Nigeria brother you have the floor. Thank you.

Nigeria:
Thank you Madam Chair. Nigeria. Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Nigeria joins many delegations who have spoken earlier to express our appreciation to Madam Chair and her team for the current draft. It is obvious from the UDTC that Madam Chair has demonstrated great commitment to produce a draft that can take us to the finishing line. Indeed the task to accommodate divergent views of Member States and bring them closer to the middle is huge and we sincerely appreciate all the efforts in this regard. Madam Chair’s explanatory notes are also quite helpful in understanding the rationale for some of the changes that have been effected in the current draft. As the saying goes, it is impossible to have a perfect draft as long as it remains one and as such we would like to make the following points. A, first that the language in parameter paragraph 10 on gender mainstreaming is problematic for our delegation as well as some others that we have discussed with. Particularly commencing the paragraph with the word affirming may have diminished entirely any consideration for its retention. We are not in a position position to affirm something that we do not know its utility. But in the context of being constructive, we believe that this paragraph does not belong in this part of the text. It may find better placement in Chapter 6 on preventive measures. However, in the spirit of seeking consensus, we are still committed to go further and we could consider its retention, the retention of PP10, if the word affirming is replaced with another word, say noting. B, the current wording of Article 35 is the minimum we can accept in the light of the numerous caveats appearing in the relevant articles and paragraphs of Chapter 5, including Articles 36, 1, 37, 15, 40, 22, 45, and 46. We will see, we will support the Convention Against Cybercrime as the title, as this brings clarity to the objectives, scope, and content of this draft text. Madam Chair, Nigeria also notes the delicate balance in Madam Chair’s proposal in OP5 of the draft resolution regarding timelines for a protocol. We believe, as Brazil mentioned, that this new proposal provides sufficient flexibility and a way forward, and a way forward to the negotiations. We thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair:
Thank you very much Nigeria. You are released for lunch. I recall that we have a meeting of the Bureau at 2.15. The plenary will resume its proceedings at 3 p.m. Thank you.