(3rd 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
30 Jul 2024 10:00h - 13:00h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
International committee debates draft UN Convention Against Cybercrime with focus on human rights and consensus-building
The international committee’s meeting, chaired by the distinguished Chair, was dedicated to discussing the draft of the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime (UDTC). Representatives from various countries provided their positions on the draft, with a particular focus on the convention’s title, human rights safeguards, specific articles and provisions, the ratification threshold, and the potential for additional protocols.
A significant portion of the debate centred around the title of the convention. Many delegations expressed a preference for a shorter, more precise title, “United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime,” arguing that it is clear, concise, and widely accepted. This title was seen as accurately reflecting the purpose and scope of the convention, whereas a longer title with additional descriptors was considered potentially confusing and less effective in conveying the convention’s objectives.
Human rights safeguards were a prominent topic of discussion, with many delegations emphasising the importance of including such protections in the convention. Articles 6 and 24 were particularly highlighted as containing essential provisions for human rights protections that should not be diluted. The inclusion of human rights safeguards was seen as crucial for the successful adoption and implementation of the convention, as they provide a necessary balance between the broad scope of the convention and the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
Delegates discussed various articles of the draft convention, including: – Article 4: Concerns were raised about the necessity and clarity of the article. – Article 14: There were discussions on offences related to online child sexual abuse and the need for exceptions to avoid over-criminalisation. – Article 16: The debate centred on non-consensual dissemination of intimate images and its implications. – Article 40: Proposals were made for the inclusion or exclusion of political offences as grounds for refusal of mutual legal assistance.
Opinions varied on the number of ratifications required for the convention to enter into force. Some supported the chair’s proposal of 40 ratifications, while others, like Mexico, proposed increasing it to 60 to ensure broader support and a more universal application of the convention.
The idea of negotiating additional protocols immediately after the convention was met with concerns about resource allocation and the need to focus on implementing the convention first. Some delegations argued that the focus should be on ratification and implementation before considering additional protocols.
The chair and the committee expressed commitment to reaching a consensus by the end of the session. The chair conducted informal consultations with multistakeholders to further the goal of consensus.
Noteworthy observations from the transcript include the collaborative spirit among delegations, despite differing perspectives on specific aspects of the draft convention. There was a general consensus on the importance of the convention and the need for international cooperation to combat cybercrime effectively. The discussion also highlighted the dynamic nature of cybercrime and the necessity for the convention to adapt to emerging challenges.
In conclusion, the session was characterised by a collaborative effort to bridge differences and achieve a meaningful consensus on the draft convention. The inclusion of human rights safeguards and the balance between the broad scope of the convention and necessary protections were seen as crucial for the successful adoption and implementation of the convention. The chair’s leadership and the committee’s commitment to consensus were evident throughout the meeting.
Session transcript
Chair:
Distinguished representatives, dear colleagues, I might get a bit cross. Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, a very good morning. Please take your seats as we are about to begin. We have a long list of speakers. So I will read the list, Thailand, Tanzania, Sweden, Turkey, Peru, Venezuela, Iraq, Italy. France, Uganda, Germany, Bulgaria, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Russia, Nigeria, Austria, Slovakia, Ghana. I hope I have read everyone out. I will close the list there, and I will give the floor now to Thailand.
Thailand:
Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to be the first to take the floor this morning. At the outset, let me join other delegates in thanking you, Madam Chair, and the Secretary-General for the Thailand efforts in reconvening this concluding session. which is now on the second day, and for producing the updated draft of the Convention or the UDTC. Thailand found it as a good basis for our current negotiations, which could bring us closer to consensus. Thailand also attaches great importance to the adoption of this Convention, and we are committed to continue participation in the negotiation in good faith and in a constructive manner, and to being as flexible as we can in the spirit of fighting compromise. Madam Chair, I wish to highlight Thailand’s observation on some specific aspects of the UDTC as follows. One, on the title of the Convention, I wish to join a number of delegates before me who prefer the succinct term of the Convention title as the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime, the term which Thailand believes is widely acceptable and suitable enough for the purpose of the Convention. Two, on Article 4, Offences Related to Other United Nations Conventions and Protocols, although Thailand prefers the text to appear as Article 60bis, as previously proposed, we could join the consensus and support the text as drafted. Three, Thailand attaches importance to the inclusion of the clauses on respect of the human rights in the text, but for the sake of streamlining the text, we support the proposal made by CARICOM, also supported by a number of delegates yesterday, to take out the listing of human rights issues in Article 6, Paragraph 2. Four, on Article 64 regarding entry into force, Thailand supports the entry into force of the Convention at the earliest opportunity, as we believe that to counter cybercrime is a matter of urgency. However, we also see the benefit of the universality of the Convention. Therefore, Thailand is flexible on the number of ratifications, whether it is 40 as currently drafted or 60 as some delegation proposed, and wishes to see the consensus on this matter. 5. With regard to OP5 of the revised draft resolution for consideration by the General Assembly, Thailand does not have an objection to additional protocol negotiation proposal. However, we have a similar concern with a number of delegates that the immediate convening of the negotiation could put more burden on domestic implementation of the Convention. For Thailand, we also need to go through our internal procedures, which will take some time to complete the ratification of the Convention. Madam Chair, Thailand will continue our principle of flexibility and further elaborate our position regarding other specific aspects of the UDTC in the days to come, as well as in the informals. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Please, United Republic of Tanzania.
United Republic of Tanzania:
Allow me to join other delegations in congratulating you, Madam Chair, and the Secretariat, for the manner in which you have been steering the work of the Committee, the significant efforts in striking a delicate balance amongst divergent views through an updated draft text of the Convention, and the explanatory notes speak volumes of your abled leadership during the entire elaboration process. My delegation continues to pledge its unwavering support to you and the Bureau to ensure the attainment of the intended objectives of the Committee. At the outset, my delegation wishes to express its overall satisfaction with the further revised text. In particular, the new proposals made by you, Madam Chair, which we understand required a great deal of careful consideration of the positions of all delegations during the previous sessions. We remain optimistic that we are very close to reaching a consensus, albeit at the expense of necessary concessions that must be made by all delegations. Madam Chair, on the proposed title, my delegation is flexible with the proposed vision, which accommodates proposals from both sides and reflects the mandate given to the Committee by the UN General Assembly. Madam Chair, on human rights safeguards, Tanzania had previously objected to the redundancy in the text of the human rights provisions for being inconsistent with existing United Nations Conventions. However, given the intrusive nature of the Convention, we continue to support Article 6 Paragraph 1 as well as the revised formulation of Article 24, including the reference to the principle of proportionality. However, we would support CARICOM in calling for the deletion of the phrase, I quote, the right to an effective remedy. Madam Chair, my delegation has made this concession cognizant that a broader scope of the application of the Convention, particularly on the sharing of electronic evidence, would require necessary concessions on the inclusion of necessary conditions and safeguards. In a similar vein, my delegation is willing to accept the inclusion of Article 40 Paragraph 22, which is unprecedented since UNTOC and UNCAC contain a similar provision only on extradition. We make this concession. However, we cannot support the inclusion of Article 6 Paragraph 2 for being redundant. We are of the view that deference to domestic law’s safeguards… the overarching provision of Article 6, Paragraph 1, revised formulation of conditions and safeguards under Article 24, provisions on dual criminality, grounds for refusal, as well as an unprecedented inclusion of a non-discrimination clause in MLA are more than sufficient in addressing the human rights concerns. Similarly, we do not support the proposal made by a distinguished delegate of Costa Rica on Article 40, Paragraph 21, of adding a clause on political crime or offence as among the grounds for refusal of MLA. As clearly articulated by other delegations, the term, I quote, political offence or political crime, is vague and may be prone to subjective interpretations since there is no agreeable universal definition as to what amounts to a political crime. This is in contrast to Article 40, Paragraph 22, which allows a member state to refuse MLA if it believes that the request relates to a politically motivated investigation or prosecution. Madam Chair, my delegation understands that some regional and multilateral treaties contain a specific clause that references a political offence, political crime or political character as among the grounds for refusal of MLA. However, such instruments, for instance, the Scheme Relating to Mutual Legal Assistance for Common Wealth Countries, also known as the Harare Scheme, contains an explanatory note as well as a clause which specifies offences that shall not be considered political offences, consistent with the formulation of Article 44, Paragraph 4 of UNCAC. And my delegation understands that this formulation was also omitted in the final revised text of the Convention. It should be noted that a similar phrase, as I say, was omitted from the draft text of the Convention. Madam Chair, my delegation also does not support Article 23 Paragraph 4, which extends the provisions of conditions and safeguards in international cooperation. The proposed formulation changes the existing formulation of international cooperation in all UN Conventions. The proposed formulation dictates how Member States will handle requests for international cooperation. The existing framework, which also exists in similar international UN Conventions, defers the handling of MLA to domestic laws of requested States, particularly procedural matters pertaining to the respective request. On the other hand, Madam Chair, the formulation may also hinder international cooperation, since some of the conditions and safeguards listed in Article 24 do not have a universally agreeable standard and are therefore prone to subjective interpretations. Madam Chair, on Articles 14 and 16, my delegation understands that the current formulation is the result of considerable efforts during plenary and numerous informal consultations. My delegation can therefore exercise flexibility and accept a revised formulation in line with the spirit of consensus. In Article 14 Paragraph 4, we understand that the provision is discretionary and therefore does not contain an imperative connotation, while in Article 16 we are satisfied with the explanatory notes on the proper import of Article 16. Madam Chair, on the revised draft resolution, my delegation supports OP5 to accommodate, among others, some of the offences which were omitted from the draft text of the Convention. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much.
Switzerland:
Madam Chair, thank you for giving us the floor. We too would like to commend you for your tireless commitment in this process and would also like to thank your team and the Secretariat for their efforts. We welcome the careful revision of the previous version of the text and see the updated draft text of the Convention as an important step that could lead us to consensus by the end of these two weeks. We continue to support your approach and are ready to work constructively with all delegations. The updated draft text of the Convention goes in a positive direction, striking an improved balance between a very broad and unprecedented scope and therefore necessary safeguards. We would like to reiterate that by considering expansion of international cooperation to cover the sharing of electronic evidence for serious crimes, Switzerland is making significant concessions in the spirit of compromise, as we were among those delegations that advocated for a narrow scope. At the same time, we acknowledge that many delegations have made considerable concessions to showing widespread willingness to reach consensus. We are negotiating a Convention in an area that will largely determine how the phenomenon of cybercrime is dealt with in the future. Any cooperation on and access to data, some of which is and will remain very sensitive for our citizens, needs to be treated carefully and sensibly. The updated draft text of the Convention therefore provides for an absolute minimum of safeguards and it would be not sufficient to just replicate safeguards from UNCTAD and UNCTAD. Any weakening of the language in Article 6, in particular Paragraph 2, in Article 23, 24, 35 and 40 would put the whole Convention out of balance. They are necessary baseline requirements for us to be able to present a future Convention to our national parliament. Also we would like to reiterate that inclusion of safeguards is an essential enabler of international cooperation and law enforcement. as it was mentioned several times throughout the process. In practice, international cooperation will only be possible if certain shared minimum standards can be assured across borders. In this sense, we also support a proposal mentioned by Costa Rica, and we do share similar concerns around Article 23, Paragraph 4, as mentioned by the UK. And we do support moving the provision in Article 40, Paragraph 22, to Article 35, as proposed by New Zealand. Madam Chair, as other delegations, we are also not convinced by the proposed title of the Convention. While we very much appreciate your efforts aimed at reconciling various positions, the proposed title would risk leading to an overly broad and unspecific definition of the well-established and widely used term, cybercrime. This concern relates not only to the title itself, but also to Paragraph 4 of the preamble. We therefore support further discussion on the title and related parts of the Convention text. Also on the topic of multi-stakeholders, we noted the changes made to Article 57, Paragraph 7, relating to the involvement of stakeholders in the mechanism of implementation of the Convention. The current changes significantly reduce the possibility for the multi-stakeholder community to engage meaningfully in a future review mechanism. In our view, the proposed changes also do not accurately reflect the so-called gold standard of multi-stakeholder participation of the AHC process. Comparison to other criminal justice instruments like UNCTAD and UNTAC risks to fall short as meaningful involvement of non-governmental stakeholders is vital to contribute to ensuring that the Convention we are currently negotiating is not misused. We preferred the previous formulation, and we would also like to stress that the previous paragraph was agreed at referendum, reflecting the valuable contribution that non-state actors bring to fighting cybercrime. With regard to Articles 45 and 46, we are open to consider the proposed language in the spirit of compromise. However, we want to reiterate once again that we should not forget that these are very intrusive measures that, if included, need to be part of a balanced overall framework in order to be able to go forward in the discussions. Furthermore, we support a higher number of ratifications for the entry into force. And lastly, on protocols, we would like to echo other delegations by stressing that this is a complex issue, and we would therefore recommend to focus on the implementation of this Convention first, rather than establishing a whole procedure for the negotiation of protocols at this premature stage. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you. Turkey. Thank you. Turkey.
Turkey:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We wish to thank you for your efforts throughout this entire process. We are hopeful that a consensual outcome will be achieved at the end of this session. We support the continuation of the Committee’s work towards drafting protocols to incorporate other criminal acts, such as crimes related to terrorism and incitement to violence. We are flexible, however, on when the Committee shall start this process, as some delegations voiced concerns that it may be too soon. On the implementation of the Convention, we believe that the engagement of NGOs and other stakeholders should be consistent with UNTAC and UNCAC. On the rest of the outstanding articles, while we reserve our position with regard to Article 14, we are mostly content with current provisions related to international cooperation. human rights and safeguards. On this note, we believe that streamlining the current listing of rights in Article 6, slash 2, could be more beneficial. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Peru is next.
Peru:
A very good morning. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I’d like to thank the Secretariat and I greet all other delegations. A very good morning to you all. Peru also aligns itself with the gratitude that has been expressed to your chairmanship, Madam, which has allowed us to have this excellent document, this revised document. And quite rightly, inside that document you have included important proposals to try to help us to overcome the sticking points that we still have to iron out. The Peruvian delegation supports overall the proposals, but like other delegations who have spoken before us, we do think that we would like to raise some specific comments, which we hope will help us to take a final decision. First of all, we support the preamble making an express reference to human rights and to including a gender perspective and to including civil society as well. We also think that it’s also very important that we expressly… consider promoting technical assistance and technology transfer. This will make it possible to have a balanced efficient exchange between all countries in their efforts to implement the future convention. We would particularly like to thank you for including the virtual articles in article 2e, the virtual aspects there. We think they will be very important in enhancing future cooperation in the implementation of article 17 which punishes cyber crime and which also is in line with what is laid out in paragraph 9 of the preamble. We also think that the additions and inclusions in article 6 and 24 are particularly useful because they bolster the protection of human rights and they also make safeguards consistent in the reference to the legal procedures that could be triggered. Finally, we note that consensus and the goodwill that we are certain that all delegations share will, we hope, make it possible for us to conclude our session successfully so that we can overcome our current differences which are still notable when it comes to the number of ratifications that are required and the name of the convention and certain other points that we still need to get beyond. We think that more than the actual number, we need to look at the reasonable, within the reasonable time frame, having an instrument that will help all states to achieve their goals and to achieve their goals. jointly in the international forum to counter this very serious form of crime which is characteristic of the 21st century. Beginning negotiations on potential and future protocols should also be one of the topics that states could consider so that we don’t have that be another source of disagreement for the next few years. Once again, Madam, we would like to thank you and your team. We are very happy to be part of this effort and we thank you again.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Peru. Venezuela is the next speaker.
Venezuela:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues. At the outset, I’d like to greet you all on behalf of the delegation of Venezuela and we once again would like to thank you, Madam, for your leadership at the helm of this complex, crucial process which we hope will ultimately lead to a text that is acceptable for all states. As you know, we have always been advocating for this from the very beginning. We’d also like to thank the Bureau and the Secretariat for their hard work. First of all, I would like to reiterate our position that we wish to see the title, the original title, maintained because we think it’s most faithful to the goal of the Convention. On Chapter 1, General Provisions, Article 2e on service providers, the current wording, which mentions public or private entities, leaves out natural persons. So we think that the legally appropriate wording would be natural and legal persons. On the reference to human rights in Article 6.2, while we do endorse these commitments, and indeed we are a party, an active party to human rights conventions, we would stress that this is not a human rights convention, it’s a crime prevention convention, on how we also address crime as well. No article in the convention can include or be interpreted as addressing the human rights issue because states have their own institutional frameworks to do that. In addition, this is very important Madam Chair, we see that there is still a reference to the number and nature of safeguards and caveats pertaining to human rights, such as 23.4 and some of 24, which is unprecedented in other conventions and it prejudges what states’ parties may do in the domain of human rights. These are measures that rather than fostering international cooperation would rather be counterproductive for the goals of the convention and indeed contrary to the UN Charter, and that is why these caveats cannot be acceptable to our delegation. We support Provision 2 in Article 21, which refers to the prerogatives to determine offences committed by states on critical infrastructure. We don’t agree with slowing the entry into force of the convention, that is why we would restate our position that there should be 30 states required for the convention to enter into force. We support the inclusion of specific provisions on continuing work on additional protocols, including the scope of the areas of criminalization that would be discussed therein. This is critical in allowing us to continue to bridge the gaps that we are currently seeing. Finally, Madam Chair, we are fully available and willing to continue… working to finalize the necessary agreement so that we can agree on the text of the convention. Thank you.
Iraq:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Iraq wishes to express its appreciation to you for your laudable leadership and for the efforts of the Secretariat. To establish a comprehensive convention on countering the use of ICT for criminal purposes in the past two years, and during this very important session, so as to pave the way for a convention that can aim at achieving effective and meaningful international cooperation to prevent and combat crimes perpetrated through ICT systems. Madam Chair, while we stress the need to combat cybercrime, we look forward for the adoption of a criminalization mechanism that is based on respect of relevant international conventions and the provisions of the proposed convention, namely international conventions of international human rights law, throughout the implementation of the convention. We wish to stress that the mandate of the Committee does not include any ability to amend the provisions of these instruments or adopt revisions running counter to them, namely the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights of 1966 and the Convention of the Rights of the Child of 1988. We stress, once again, the importance of avoiding selectivity and the departure from the human rights framework that was adopted by the international community. There is a dire need to adopt procedures that have long been adopted when or during legislative drafting of international law. Therefore, this legislative drafting must be based on a hierarchy of procedures so that we adopt texts that complement and support others, and so as we prevent the adoption of texts that run counter to obligations and commitments provided for in customary rules, international conventions, and international law. These must be respected at all costs. We have various examples that we can draw inspiration from at the international level, namely the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the United Nations Convention Against Transborder Organized Crime and many other conventions. We wish to stress that we support the statement made by the Distinguished Representative of the Arab Republic of Egypt. We once again stress that we reject the provisions of Para 10 of the proposed preamble and Article 14, namely the provisions of Para 3. We also do not support the provisions of Article 16, including various orientations and language that cannot be internationally acknowledged, which is what we seek in this convention. We stress the need to remove Para 2 of Article 6 included in the text, which was supported by a great number of Member States in their statements. We also request that we do not condition legal assistance, as this will constitute a precedent in international cooperation. This was provided for in Para 22 of Article 44, and any hindrances in this regard will adversely impact the effectiveness of this convention that is based on international cooperation. Madam Chair, Multilateralism and Consensus is the principle and goal that we aspire to achieve. We are convinced that many distinguished representatives of states partaking in these meetings carry this goal to heart. However, this requires an approach that ensures that we achieve this while ensuring a margin of flexibility to make advancements. But at the same time, we must take up firm positions to prevent the inclusions of policies and rules that are contentious amongst member states and that may go against the will and desires of a number of states, which curbs the achievement of consensus. There can be no imposing of cultures and national orientations that run counter to the cultures and orientations of a number of countries, and these will not be given up. If this convention is permeated with references to human rights, this will be a departure from our main goal, and this will not allow us to achieve our goal, which is to counter cybercrime. We once again stress the need to set our differences aside and prevent the extension of negotiations and discussions, which in turn can curb the achievement of our goal. Once again, we wish to stress that we stand ready to support you and your efforts, and we are convinced that you will guide us to a successful outcome. Thank you.
Chair:
Italy.
Italy:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, first of all, allow me to express Italy’s gratitude and deep appreciation for the outstanding and tireless efforts, balance, and steadiness Your Excellency has shown in chairing this committee, as well as for your teams. Mr. Tahar Modbet’s and the Secretariat’s efforts and professionalism throughout this long and complex process. We also wish to commend the progress made in the elaboration of the Convention and the constructive commitment shown by many States. This positive attitude has made it possible, through dialogue and confrontation, to make substantial progress towards what we hope will be a Convention adopted by consensus. We reaffirm our commitment and stay ready to support your work in order to solve the pending issues and reach an agreed solution. Madam Chair, Italy aligns itself with the statement made by the EU and wishes to add a few remarks in its own capacity. We have listened carefully to the statements made so far, and we deem it important, while expressing our concern in particular on the issues of title of the Convention and the additional protocol, to reiterate that a strong and clear commitment in the Convention to human rights and safeguards is crucial in order to strike a fair balance between the intrusive powers requested by the effective investigations and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. We want to underline that providing for the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in different chapters of the Convention, depending on the context and the scope of the relevant provisions, is not a redundant, futile exercise, nor does it undermine the effectiveness of the future Convention. It’s quite the opposite, because not only does it clarify the general umbrella principles that inform the Convention, but it also clarifies to what extent and under which conditions we are committing ourselves to introducing and enforcing criminalisation in our domestic laws. To what extent and under which conditions we are committing ourselves to establishing and applying powers and procedures for the purpose of specific criminal investigations or proceedings, either for domestic investigations and proceedings or for the purpose of international cooperation. To what extent and under which conditions we are committing ourselves to affording one another international cooperation. Clarity and trust are fundamental in order to make international cooperation really work. Moreover, sharing and respecting fundamental human rights is the only way to make cooperation effective. Hence, the need to provide for appropriate provisions not only in Chapter 1, but also in chapters on procedural measures and international cooperation. Madam Chair, allow me one last remark on one of the most controversial issues about criminalization. No doubt at all from our side that protection of children against sexual exploitation online is an integral component of this Convention. But when it comes to criminalization, a space for exemption from criminal liability must be granted precisely to protect those freedoms and rights related to sexuality that many legal systems also recognize for children, provided that they are able to freely express consent and no abuse or exploitation is committed against them. And if states’ legal systems differ on this space, there is no other solution than to stick to the area of criminalization on which there is a consensus. Let me give you just one example to be concrete. Let’s say a 17-year-old boy takes nude photos of himself. and his 19-year-old girlfriend. The two exchange photos and keep them for themselves. They are both consenting, at the age required by national law to freely express consent to sexual relationships. Let’s say they are even married. There has been no abuse, no exploitation, no violence, no threat. Well, if there were no liability exemption clause, the two guys would finally have to be prosecuted. This is not acceptable in our legal system. Since this convention is a criminal justice instrument, the golden rule can only be that of the minimum common standard. Each state is free in its domestic law to raise the bar and widen the area of criminalization, but it cannot force other states to do the same. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Grazie. Sweden. Sweden, please.
Sweden:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sweden would like to commend you, your team, and the Secretariat for your hard work with this updated draft text of the convention and in steering these negotiations. Hopefully, the negotiations are now reaching the end. Sweden is one of 27 member states of the European Union. I will not now list which all those 27 states are, but I just wanted to highlight this fact. As such a member state, we align ourselves with the statement of the European Union. In our national capacity, we would like to highlight only a few important aspects. The safeguards are included in this convention to facilitate international cooperation, not to hinder it. Trust and common understanding are necessary for such cooperation. that is built through clear safeguards in the text of the Convention. They are now at the bare minimum and should be strengthened through, for example, the proposal of Costa Rica. Article 6, paragraph 2, is absolutely essential to clarify the scope of the Convention. It sets out the basic understanding of how this Convention can be used, or more specifically, how it cannot be used. We can see that you here have taken into consideration the concerns of many delegations in this regard in your proposal of an updated draft text that strikes a balance of different views. There are proposals to weaken it and to make it less clear. We would strongly advise against that, as we would not like to put the whole balance of the text of the Convention into question and have to revisit the scope in other aspects. Regarding the start of negotiations of a protocol as soon as within one year of the adoption of the Convention, we share the concerns raised by many delegations. Also for Sweden, these negotiations would steal important resources that could be put to better use in the fight against cybercrime. Further, we took note of the convincing arguments put forward by Mexico regarding the number of ratifications. We also took note of the many interesting ideas put forward by New Zealand on how to improve the text with regards to its structure and legal clarity. That should be in the interest of all of us. So we look forward to building on that during the discussions this week. Sweden is dedicated in our ambition to contribute to the elaboration of a UN Convention against cybercrime that is as useful as possible in the important fight against cybercrime. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. United States, please.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Give me one moment to get into my system. We have listened carefully to Member States’ interventions, and we would like to join many in supporting two proposals highlighted yesterday and this morning. A political offense ground for refusal, as proposed by Costa Rica, and an increased entry into force threshold, as proposed by Mexico. We’d like to note that these are not new proposals. They’re sensible proposals, in our view, that will promote wide adoption of this convention. The Costa Rican proposal in particular should not be controversial. A grounds for refusal related to political offenses is common across relevant regional conventions that, like our draft treaty, provide for broad mutual legal assistance. This includes Article 35.1 of the Arab Convention on Combating Information Technology Offenses, Article 9C of the Inter-American Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, and Article 27-4A of the Budapest Convention. On another issue, the United States notes host country-related matters, including those related to visa issuance, should be discussed not in this forum but in the appropriate forum, which is the Host Country Committee. We are firmly committed to upholding our obligations under the UN Headquarters Agreement, and continue to urge delegations and their representatives to submit applications as early as possible. And as a fact, we issued all but one of the visas requested for this meeting in accordance with U.S. laws, and we note the very strong Russian Federation representation in this meeting. The naming of delegates who have previously been denied a diplomatic visa for UN activities is unconstructive and distracts from the important work of this committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Syria, please. Syria. Syria.
Syria:
Good morning, everybody. I’d like to thank the Chair of the AHC. Madam Chair, thank you for your tireless efforts at the helm of the Committee. We’d also like to thank the Secretariat for their efforts over the last two years and at this reconvened concluding session. Thank you for your attempts at making the various viewpoints converge. Thank you to all those who contributed to the elaboration of this comprehensive international convention, also a balanced convention, geared towards countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes, as well as to establish an international cooperation mechanism in this sphere. And it’s despite the various tensions that have made the achievement of the main objective of this convention elusive, that is to combat the spread of these crimes. There are some crimes not covered by the convention, including crimes linked to terrorism using ICTs. We express our support for the statement delivered by the Russian Federation yesterday during the afternoon meeting. Madam Chair, the Syrian Arab Republic endorses the statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of the Arab states, as well as other states. We’d like to underscore the concerns raised in that statement, specifically the concerns that were mentioned at previous sessions. Human rights-linked issues, no matter how important they are, taking them into consideration when discussing crimes in all their forms. But when we’re talking about this convention, it should be part and parcel of the approaches we’ve adopted when working on other conventions, all the while affording various human rights safeguards, as UNTOC and relevant protocols thereto already do. This is not a human rights convention. It’s a convention covering crimes, criminalization. So the Bits that have been added into this text are already covered by other conventions related to the protection of human rights. Therefore, Article 6, Paragraph 1, needs reworking. We don’t need to list the rights in Paragraph 2. We also have a question. Why are some rights highlighted in that paragraph to the detriment of other rights, which are fundamental human rights? What’s more is, this list in Paragraph 2 could be harnessed for political purposes or used to meddle in the domestic affairs of states. For that reason, we would like to express our support for what was said by previous delegations, that is to just keep the first paragraph and then delete the second paragraph of Article 6. Moving on to Article 14, we welcome the fact that provisions have been included related to protection of children through the Convention, especially everything related to child sexual abuse. However, we are disquieted by Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 4 of Article 14. Specifically, we do not support Paragraph 4 in this article. We would like to suggest deleting this Paragraph 4 for the reasons expounded on by Egypt on behalf of the Arab states and other states as well. We would like to reiterate what we said at previous sessions regarding Article 16, that is the article on non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. We should delete this article from the Convention as well to ensure that we do not undermine the ability of states to address the dissemination of such images. Turning to Paragraphs 23… Apologies, Articles 23 and 24, procedural measures and safeguards, the current wording is not clear. It mentions measures, measures which cannot be found in any other conventions, especially Paragraph 4 of Article 23 and also the bit in Article 24 referring to safeguards. The links between these two paragraphs is unclear, the way in which they’ve been tied together. This could hamper states’ ability to implement international law as well as their sovereignty. The representative of Egypt spoke very eloquently on this, just like he did on Article 37. As for the additional protocols, despite their importance, we believe that at this stage we’d be best placed to focus on the Convention and on its implementation rather than focusing on the drafting of additional protocols. We support the proposal put forward by the Chair, that is the 40 states threshold. Madam Chair, we hope that the Committee will arrive at a consensus-based wording of the Convention so as to put an end to these crimes. We must continue our efforts so as to adopt the Convention and ensure we have a consensus-based text that strikes the right balance responding to the concerns of all states. Thank you, Madam Chair.
France:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Microphone for France please.
France:
Sorry, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. France aligns itself with a statement by the European Union, which was delivered yesterday, and we’d like to make some additional comments in our national capacity. First of all, we’d like to thank you and congratulate you and your team and the Secretariat for all of the work that you have done since the beginning of the negotiations, and especially for the last version of the text, which we think is a balanced draft. We think that the text can still be improved upon, but we need to have the spirit of compromise, which is encouraging, and we would like to say that you can count on France to continue to participate with this constructive spirit. Just on some details, I’ll be brief, but we’d like to come back to some issues on which you wanted to see Member States’ reactions. On the title, first of all, as many other delegations have already said, the term of cybercrime best reflects the content of the Convention in our eyes, and it is that which enjoys the most consensus. It is also clear and concise, and therefore we are in favour of keeping this mention of cybercrime in the title. On Articles 6 and 24, France would also like to recall that the content of the Convention contains robust guarantees to ensure a balanced implementation of international convention, and that is the reasons why these Articles 6 and 24, as have been proposed in the last version, are the minimum guarantees which we should have to bear in mind the true scope of implementation of the Convention as is laid out in Article 3 of the current text. We’d also recall that these provisions when it comes to safeguards for human rights are not new obligations for Member States. For this very same reason, on Article 40, we echo those delegations who supported Costa Rica’s proposal here. On Article 64 and the issue of the entry into force, we’d also support the proposal to increase the number of ratifications required for the reasons that were expounded by Mexico and supported by many other delegations. Finally, on the negotiations on future protocols, we have heard many delegations who outlined the difficulties that could be entailed by the swift opening of negotiations and the need to focus first of all on implementing the Convention. To be inclusive, we think that it is premature now to define the precise modalities for this process. Thank you very much.
Uganda:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Republic of Uganda thanks the Chair and the delegations from different States for the work done so far through the negotiation sessions on the latest version of the draft Convention. Uganda appreciates the effort made to reach a consensus in the negotiations and would like to make the following remarks in national capacity. To begin with Article 14.1, the inclusion of the words without right, when read together with paragraph 1A, can be interpreted as clearance for production, offering, selling, distribution, transmission, broadcasting, child abuse or sexual exploitation material. The use of the words abuse and exploitation are not actions that should be justified by right. Criminal law and practice sanctions intention which makes the words without right unnecessary since intention is already captured. In paragraph 4, it is our considered opinion that the age of majority is different from the age of criminal responsibility. The criminalization section therefore should capture that. The exact age of criminal responsibility may differ in states but it is not necessarily 18 which is the majority age. This should be aligned with the provisions of Article 18 and more specifically 18.1 on the liability of legal persons. Article 2H which is the definition of serious crime should inform the provisions of Article 21.2. It is our suggestion that the true seriousness of the crime is informed by aggravating factors. The two should speak to each other. In Article 35.1 paragraph A on international cooperation, Uganda believes that the use of the word and makes it appear that international cooperation cannot be offered for each independently. The paragraph states the investigation and prosecution of and judicial proceedings in relation to the criminal offenses established in accordance with this convention including the freezing, seizure, confiscation and return of proceeds from such offense. International cooperation should be accorded for investigation, prosecution or judicial proceedings as opposed to The use of the word and is a connecting word that makes the three move jointly, yet in practice either can suffice. We therefore propose the use of or instead of and. The same should be adopted in paragraphs B and C. In the proposed article 22.5, or was used instead of and and gives clarity to the provision. The proposed article 40 has detailed provisions on mutual legal assistance in 32 paragraphs. In paragraphs 1 and 2, Uganda suggests the replacement of the word and with or still for the same reasons for purposes of interpretation and of execution of mutual legal assistance. Uganda appreciates the inclusion of 2M because it makes law enforcement and implementation realizable. In paragraph 9, Uganda suggests the addition of virtual hearings where necessary to avoid physical movement of persons in custody to give testimonies in other jurisdiction. In paragraph 20, Uganda suggests the need to observe the confidential nature of information acquired through mutual legal assistance by replacing the word may with shall and maintaining the rest of the paragraph. The use of may attracts flexibility that may compromise sensitive investigations as well as international relations depending on the nature and subject of investigation. In articles 17 and 31, we suggest the addition of the word instrumentalities to read proceeds and instrumentalities of crime. The aspect of several jurisdictions raised in the Proposed 39.1 should be captured in the Proposed Article 22 on Jurisdiction, given the borderless nature of cybercrime. As a matter of international practice, mutual legal assistance is declined if the request is made with respect to political fences. In fact, the requesting states have to declare that the subject of investigation is not a political fence. The requests are declined if this declaration in the request is not made by the requesting state. Determination of what amounts to political fences has to be left to domestic legislation. This is in respect to the Proposed Article 40, Paragraph 1, on grounds of refusal for mutual legal assistance. In Article 37.9, Uganda believes that the call to simplify evidential requirements lacks clarity. This is because extradition is a creation of statute, and evidential requirements are subject to domestic law. To this end, the aspect of evidential requirements should be subject to domestic legislation. In Article 54, Uganda suggests the addition of recovery of proceeds and instrumentalities of crime in Paragraphs 1 and 2. This is because detection, prevention, investigation, and prosecution do not necessarily address the current trends of crime if the motivation is including, but not limited to, virtual assets for personal gain. This aspect has been accurately captured in Article 50, Paragraph 1. 40 paragraph 3J, and should be maintained on all proposed articles of proceeds of crime. Madam Chair, it’s Uganda’s consideration that all articles that have proceeds of crime should capture instrumentalities of crime, because the two move hand in hand, they’ve been selectively used in different articles, which I would want to think it’s a typing error. In the articles providing for mutual legal assistance and international cooperation, central and competent authorities have been used interchangeably. For coherence and given the global nature of the proposed convention, the two should be used coherently to avoid interpretation delays during the implementation. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Uganda. Germany, please.
Germany:
Thank you, Madam Chair. As one of its 27 member states, Germany aligns itself with a statement of the European Union. In our national capacity, we would like to add the following. First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for your and for your team’s leadership in these negotiations. We believe that we have come a very long way in agreeing on a possible future convention, and we would like to thank you and your team for your tireless efforts. We believe that we have been able to make considerable progress since we last met in January. The UDTC provided by you provides a sound basis for our final deliberations, which we sincerely hope to successfully conclude by the end of next week, and as France has perfectly said, in the spirit of compromise. With this convention, we are creating an instrument with an unprecedented scope and with very intrusive tools for international cooperation in the fight against cybercrime. We therefore need to ensure a balance between scope of application, safeguards, and protection of human rights. Your draft provides for a minimum we would be able to subscribe to. In this regard, we would like to stress our support for Article 6.2 as drafted. Additionally, we would also like to stress our support for Article 14 to 16 as drafted. We think that these provisions carefully reflect the difficult discussions that have taken place during the last sessions. The exemptions in Article 14 reflect the bare minimum that we can subscribe to. They do provide a balance between our different cultures that are present here, the cultures of the world, and our respective legal provisions. As for Germany, we can, as also Italy has said, not criminalize conduct between children that is considered perfectly legitimate by our legal systems. Still, important items of concern remain for us. First, as stated by others like Cote d’Ivoire, Thailand, or Singapore, the title of the convention should reflect the content of the convention and not make any reference about its scope or provide for a definition. Therefore, as stated by many delegations before us, the term cybercrime is globally accepted and we cannot support the extended title and would like to see the original title retained. Secondly, we believe that once adopted, our legal systems will need to work on implementing this convention. A future convention can only bring value for all of us if all countries are in a position to transpose the regulations negotiated here into national law and also implement them in their practical processes. We therefore fear that negotiations on an additional protocol will provide for a wrong signal. and divert our attention from what we really need to do. Thirdly, as stated by the United Kingdom, trust and confidence are key to making this Convention a success. We therefore would like to support the proposal of Mexico to raise the threshold to 60 countries. We also support the proposal of Costa Rica on Article 40 and political offenses for the same reasons which have been eloquently given yesterday by the representative of Georgia. Lastly, we would like to support Switzerland on Article 57.7 and the involvement of stakeholders. Our goal should be to create a gold standard for the involvement of multistakeholders, and we do not support the weakening of this provision in this draft. Madam Chair, we believe that there is a realistic chance for us to achieve a global Convention in the fight against cybercrime. We would like to assure you of Germany’s support in reaching this goal and achieving a landmark in the fight against cybercrime. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Bulgaria.
Bulgaria:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With the statement made on behalf of the European Union, I would like to add a few points in my national capacity. Madam Chair, allow me to begin by expressing my delegation’s appreciation for your impressive work thus far, including for your efforts to guide us towards reaching a compromise solution. Bulgaria appreciates that the draft text carefully balances the Convention’s scope with a basic framework of human rights standards and safeguards. We believe that the Convention can only be truly effective if it includes at least a minimal framework of human rights and procedural safeguards. A mutual commitment to these standards will generate a level of trust that is vital for the cooperation that this Convention will hinge on. One example of this is Article 6, Paragraphs 2, where rights vulnerable to violations by cybercrime countermeasures are listed, providing crucial assurances. Removing this, as some have suggested, would, from our perspective, limit international cooperation and e-evidence sharing. Regarding the title of the Convention, we believe that it should accurately reflect its purpose. The term cybercrime is recognized and accepted worldwide, and widely used to describe the criminal activities addressed by this Convention. Bulgaria, therefore, supports the current text of Articles 14 to 16, and would not be in a position to support revisiting these provisions. The exceptions in Article 14, for example, are essential in preventing the over-criminalization of legitimate conduct. We believe that a UN Convention can and should only criminalize behaviors that are universally acknowledged as criminal. Article 24, Paragraph 2, outlines universally accepted procedural safeguards, as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is therefore appropriate and logical for a new UN instrument to explicitly mention this right. Finally, I would like to echo Costa Rica’s proposal regarding Article 40, Paragraph 21, as well as the concerns of other delegates from a number of states about initiating immediate negotiations for an additional protocol. I thank you.
Chair:
Before continuing, I will read out the list of speakers. Republic of Korea, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Austria, Belarus, Slovakia, Namibia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Cuba, Portugal, Holy See, Jamaica, Ireland, Burkina Faso, the Republic of Moldova, Fiji, Luxembourg, Iran and Nicaragua. As you see, we have quite a long list and we absolutely must finish the list this morning because this afternoon we’ll have to go to practical measures. So without further ado, I give the floor to the Republic of Korea.
Republic of Korea:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. I’d like to join other delegations in expressing sincere gratitude to you, Madam Chair, for all the efforts by you and your team, as well as the Secretariat, including the preparation of the updated draft text for this session. In general, my delegation is of the view that the draft text is balanced well, incorporating diverse perspectives and guiding our way to get closer to the consensus. My delegation would also like to note that a set of safeguards were included in the draft and we are in support of these articles, such as Article 6, Article 24, and Article 40, Paragraph 22, to name a few. On the title, my delegation would like to support a shorter one, namely the United Nations Convention Against Cybercrime. The term cybercrime is widely used and clear enough to represent the purpose and scope of this convention. On Article 4, my delegation shares a similar concern with that of United Kingdom, Liechtenstein, Canada, and others. Though we understand that this article is placed here to balance different views, it is not clear in itself whether this article is necessary or what this article is aiming for. The article needs further clarification. avoid ambiguity and confusion, and we’d be happy to hear from others who could provide us better rationale behind this article. On Article 3A, it mentions prevention, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses as to the scope of application. In our view, this paragraph could be improved by adding judicial proceedings after prosecution, unless there are specific reasons not to do so. This term, judicial proceedings, is also used in other articles such as Article 35 and Article 40, so we believe it would be more comprehensive and consistent to mention judicial proceedings in Article 3A as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Poland.
Poland:
Madam Chair, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Madam Chair, Poland greatly appreciates your tireless effort during this negotiation process. Poland associates it with all statements delivered by the representative of the European Union. I would like to add the following in my national capacity. The Committee has reached an advanced stage in this work on the text of the Convention. We hope to close the session with an agreement on an effective international instrument which would allow States to closely cooperate to counter cybercrime. We understand that a compromise is a situation in which no one is completely satisfied, but everyone appreciates the final solution. In this context, let me present the following remarks. First of all, according to Poland, the title of the Convention should be short. clear and corresponding to its scope. Therefore, it is necessary to remove the second part of the title found in the parenthesis. Poland fully supports the reasoning indicated by the Czech Republic, pointing out that the terms that have different meanings cannot be equated. Moreover, the provision in Article 24.2, which lists in a non-exhaustive manner the minimum procedural guarantees that are universally accepted, remain crucial for Poland. The right to an effective remedy is universally recognized inter alia under Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly. Therefore, leaving the indicated article in the Convention should not raise any doubt. Poland hopes that all UN Member States will ensure that human rights are respected in an appropriate manner. Poland will continue to negotiate constructively and in a good faith to ensure a Convention that creates an effective and universal framework for international cooperating to fight cybercrime. Let me thank you again, Madam Chair.
Saudi Arabia:
Madam Chair, at the outset, we would like to thank you for the efforts you have made throughout the work of the Committee in order to reach this version of the Convention. We would also like to thank your team and the Secretariat for their continuous support. We would like to join the statement made by the Honorable Delegate of Egypt and we would like to express our position regarding a number of articles, starting with Article 6. We believe it is important to manage this article so that it is compliant with international human rights conventions. and only specific to conventions to which the state is party and not international law in general. We also believe it is important to add the phrase international human rights conventions to which the state is party. As for paragraph two out of article six and given the numerous human rights relevant to the article, it is important for this paragraph to be general and states’ obligations should be commensurate with the conventions that they are party to and not international human rights law in general. This is also included in paragraph one, therefore we believe that we should omit paragraph two out of article six. Madam Chair, given the expression without right in article 14, we believe that this expression is not suitable in this context because the criminalization of distributing or producing or streaming content with a sexual impact on children comes from the perspective of protecting children themselves. As for paragraph four of the same article, we believe that it should be omitted because this sets a precedent in international law with regards to children’s rights and it may be taken advantage of to circumvent legal texts that prohibit the abuse or exploitation of children in a sexual context. We also want to emphasize that this is not a convention specialized in children’s rights, therefore terminology relevant to this matter used in this convention should be consistent with that used in other conventions and if any such terms need to be changed, this should be done in the CRC and then that would accordingly reflect on other conventions including this convention. For that reason, we are against any formulations that contradict the CRC, specifically any exceptions that could undermine the rights of the child or the definition of child. As for Article 16, we believe it is important not to formulate it in a manner that could undermine the state’s right to criminalize the dissemination of intimate pictures, whether this is consensual or non-consensual. This is in order to promote and maintain general morals in a manner that is not inconsistent with national laws in effect. We also believe it is appropriate to add text in the chapter on criminalization to criminalize the production of any sexual content with those without agency. This is to prevent their exploitation. We also support statements given by a number of delegations to reject the expansion of the scope of implementation of Article 24 to include any other parts of the Convention, including the unprecedented use of conditions and safeguards as a cause to reject cooperation. We also support the addition of the phrase, to which the state is party, to Paragraph 1 of this Article so that implementation is subject to the national laws of each state. As for general principles of international cooperation that are mentioned in the chapter on international cooperation, specifically Article 35, we believe that reference should be to international conventions and their protocols, and this should be in the chapter on international cooperation and should include the phrase, to which the state is party. And on Article 37 on extradition. We believe that the broad scope of the use of grounds for refusal in Article 37 on extradition may undermine the use of this article, and this could place unprecedented obstacles in the path of the implementation of our Convention, especially as the Convention aims to increase international cooperation in combating these crimes. We believe that grounds for refusal in the current draft are used too liberally in other parts of the Convention, especially compared to other international instruments on criminal justice relevant to the work of the UNODC. We believe that these observations cover certain parts of the Convention, and we will make other remarks in the following meetings. Thank you.
Chair:
Sierra Leone.
Sierra Leone:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. At the outset, the delegation of Sierra Leone reiterates our full support for the work of the Chair and extends similar appreciation to your entire team for all your hard work over the past sessions. Our delegation is optimistic that the updated draft text of the Convention proposed by you, Madam Chair, provides a good basis for reaching consensus. Madam Chair, Sierra Leone is generally pleased with the UDTC as presented and would like to make the following reflections in our national capacity. On Article 14.1, offences related to online child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation material, our delegation is of the view that the term without right in this article makes it both ambiguous and open to abuse in this regard and in the spirit of reaching consensus. We would like to propose the term without legal authority, which would mean one must have been given the legal right, either by law or by a court of competence jurisdiction or power to perform a certain act. The article will now read as follows, each state party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offenses under its domestic law when committed intentionally and without legal authority the following conduct. Madam Chair, with regards to the threshold for ratification, we believe the Chair’s recommendation of 40 presents a balance and we could therefore support 40 for ratification. With regards to OP5 of the draft resolution, although my delegation supports the negotiation of an additional protocol supplementary to this convention, we are however of the view that the timeline of one year after the adoption of the convention would be inadequate for member states to determine the effectiveness of this convention. We therefore recommend that a defined timeline of three years be provided in this regard, which we believe will allow sufficient time for the state parties to assess the fruitful implementation of the convention. On Article 40.22, we propose deletion of the entire addendum beginning or that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person’s position for any one of these reasons. We believe this does not give added value to the entire Article 4022 and that the statement weakens the Convention and further affects the ingenuity of the requested party. I thank you Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Nigeria please.
Nigeria:
Thank you very much Madam Chair for giving Nigeria the floor. From the outset we would like to express our appreciation to you Madam Chair for your leadership and guidance of our proceedings. Please permit my delegation to respond to some comments made by some Member States after our initial intervention. Our comments will focus on OP 5 of the draft resolution as well as the chapter on international cooperation. Madam Chair, someone who has not followed our discussions in the last two years would really be confused listening to comments from Member States on the provision of OP 5 of the draft resolution. It may be important therefore to refresh our minds on where we are coming from. Madam Chair and colleagues may recall the various discussions we had in the last two years regarding the inclusion of some cyber-enabled crimes particularly incitement to extremism and terrorism. The lack of consensus and understanding by delegations that further consideration of those crimes could delay the process led to the proposal or suggestions to discuss these crimes specifically in a protocol to be followed soon thereafter. We may be wrong but my delegation continued in this process on the understanding that a protocol will be negotiated immediately to address this grave concerns. Madam Chair, the truth is the current UDTC has not addressed these issues. For instance, where a state does not criminalize incitement to violent extremism and terrorism and does not consider it a serious crime, the current provisions in the scope as well as in the international cooperation on collection of electronic evidence will still not be useful to that delegation. This is because such a crime has not been criminalized in the requested state, and there is no international legal instrument available to the requesting state at this point. This is why my delegation believes that these two offenses be included as a minimum the need for a protocol to address them. Madam Chair, the situation is different from the understanding by some member states that the envisaged protocol is about the review of the current draft, which may be premature. This is a miscommunication that needs to be addressed. We must clearly understand that a new protocol that would come sometime five, ten years would only address some of the outstanding issues in the current provisions of the UDTC, but the OP5 make reference for delegations who had wanted to address some of those serious crimes that were formerly put in clusters seven and eight, later in article 17 that was taken out to now have those issues addressed in a protocol immediately after the adoption of this draft convention. If the issue is about the timing of the negotiation for a new protocol, we could discuss that and find an acceptable time frame. Again, if it is about the resources and cost, especially to developing countries, we could have genuine conversations which could lead to further amendment of OP5 of the draft resolution. However, it would be unfair to states who suffer the impact of the serious crimes of online incitement to violent extremism. and terrorism that the reason for not discussing them in a protocol is the aversion for this crime by some member states. With this attitude we may be playing into the hands of criminal elements. It is equally unfair to prejudge a process that is yet to commence. Please delegates let us weigh the impact of these crimes against the grounds of objection by some member states. If it may be of any use we could agree that the draft proposal would only go to the Corp for consideration where it is adopted by consensus or overwhelming majority of member states. That is to address the concerns of some delegations who may think that we are 40 member states from the Corp, those member states could actually decide a potential protocol. That is also bearing in mind that a draft protocol will be negotiated by all member states and not potential 40 member conference of state party for the new convention. Finally we could further adjust the wording of op5 of the draft resolution to have a foreseeable time frame for the negotiation of a protocol to address these important crimes which cannot be addressed by the provision of article 57 paragraph 5 of paragraph G of the UDTC. Madam Chair we make this point because of our experiences with similar article in the UNCAC with regard to a protocol on asset recovery. UNCAC is over 10-12 years today yet member states in the conference of state parties have not agreed on the need for a protocol where we understand that chapter 5 of UNCAC on asset recovery had not addressed the concerns of member states. Finally Nigeria will also like to call for the deletion of article 23 paragraph 4 for setting a dangerous precedent. Also we cannot support the proposal of Costa Rica on the addition of a criminal or a political offense in Article 40. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Austria, please.
Austria:
Thank you. The Austrian delegation would like to thank you, Madam Chair, for the tireless efforts and the hard work, and would like to commend you and your team for the draft you have put forward. We align ourselves with the statement of the EU and would like to add the following in our national capacity. On fundamental rights, the inclusion of fundamental rights provisions is essential to balance the unprecedented scope of the Convention, like the distinguished delegate of the UK and many others have pointed out very eloquently. Like Switzerland, we would also like to highlight the relevance of those safeguards for the daily practice. Our experience is that cross-border cooperation is facilitated and improved if safeguards are already set out in the Convention. We dare say a safeguard a day keeps refusal away. And I’m relieved to hear that not everyone lost their sense of humor over fundamental rights. So in other words, the more safeguards we have, the better it will be for efficient cooperation. On child sexual abuse material and exceptions referred to in Article 14, Para 4. We would like to seize the opportunity to explain again why it is critical, of critical importance, that we have these exceptions, because we do not want to perceive to be blackmailing this committee. Under our national law, children may, as of the age of 14 and above, have sexual intercourse. We understand that this age is low compared to other states, but many countries have similar national legislation. Our national understanding is that children above the age of 14 have a right to develop sexual relationships. Children at this age may choose to have a sexual relationship with a person that is, for example, 19 years, therefore an adult. You may ask why we are explaining all this when Article 14 is about child sexual abuse material. The reason is that children might produce pictures in the course of sexual engagement and share them with each other. It is our conviction that pictures produced as part of a legal and voluntary relationship should not be criminalized. If we do not have these exceptions, we would be obliged to criminalize children for producing pictures of their sexual engagement, although such engagement would be legal. We are further convinced this issue cannot be solved through prosecution policies. Such material should not be criminalized in first place in accordance with our national law. We would also like to refer to the submission of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights that says that the discretionary commitment mentioned in Article 14, therefore, does not provide adequate protection for the rights of the child as guaranteed under international law. On multi-stakeholders and Article 57. Our national experience shows that close cooperation and exchange with industry and non-governmental organizations is crucial in the fight against cybercrime. In the framework of regional instruments, engagement with civil society and industry is actively sought already. It will be important that multi-stakeholders can also engage directly with any future review mechanism as it was foreseen in the previous version of the text. On the resolution and, in particular, the issue of protocols. Like the distinguished delegate of Ecuador, Lebanon, and many other delegations that have spoken, we have a clear preference for ratifying the Convention as quickly as possible to provide our practitioners with this valuable instrument of cooperation. Due to limited personnel resources, we would not be in the position to negotiate a protocol at the same time. Prioritizing the ratification would also have the benefit that any possible shortcomings of the Convention identified in practice could be addressed through the negotiations of a protocol. Last but not least, we are firmly convinced the Convention will contribute to the fight against cybercrime. We all have a lot to gain if the Convention is adopted by consensus and a lot to lose if we fail to achieve consensus. Having said this, we would like to voice our hope that everyone in the room can focus on the possible gains. and less on issues that cannot reach consensus. We are grateful, Madam Chair, that you and your team are not giving up on our objective of the adoption by consensus. Many thanks.
Chair:
Thank you. Sudan.
Sudan:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and allow me to join the previous delegation in commending your outstanding efforts as well as the Secretariat and your working team in managing the committee’s work and meeting. And we pledge our unwavering support to you. With your permission, my delegation would like to point out some issues which we believe are necessary to raise in several of the topics under discussion today. At the outset, we align ourselves with the statement delivered by the esteemed representative of the Arab Republic of Egypt and would like to add the following points. Regarding the preamble, in paragraph two, we find ourselves unable to agree with the use of the word affirming for the reason we mentioned in the previous meetings regarding the use of mainstreaming gender. Our concerns are based on the following points. We still insist that the term mainstreaming gender may not align with the cultural and religious values of many Islamic countries. We believe that language should be inclusive and respectful of the diverse cultural and religious content of all member states. The interpretation of the mainstreaming gender would lead to a lack of understanding to legal obligations that may conflict with the domestic law and policies of our countries. We emphasize the importance of respecting national sovereignty and legal framework of other countries. Additionally, the concept of gender mainstreaming, as understood in the international discourse, may not have a direct equivalent or practical application within the legal and social system of many Islamic countries. We prefer language that focuses on equality and non-discrimination in a manner that is contextually relevant and acceptable to all parties. Regarding Article VI, my delegation holds that singling out specific human rights in Paragraph II might inadvertently imply that these rights are of a higher importance of relevance than others. This selective emphasis undermines the holistic approach of Paragraph I, which encompasses all human rights in a broad and inclusive manner. By focusing on a subset of rights, we risk neglecting the interconnectedness and equal importance of human rights. We believe the first paragraph’s broad language ensures that all human rights are treated with equal importance, highlighting specific rights in subsequent paragraphs may suggest a hierarchy that does not exist in the principle of international human rights instruments. All human rights are universal, indivisible, and independent, and should be reflected as such in the conventions. A comprehensive approach in the first paragraph provides a stronger foundation for protecting human rights in their entirety. It prevents any unintended exclusion of rights that may be critical in different contexts or situations. Specific mention of certain rights could lead to narrower interpretation, potentially overlooking other important rights. In light of this point, we advocate for maintaining the inclusive and comprehensive language of the first paragraph, ensuring all human rights are equally recognized and protected, with unnecessary emphasis on specific rights. This approach aligns with the fundamental principles of human rights and promotes a balanced and equally equitable framework for all member states. Madam Chair, we continue to view the current formulation of Article 14.3 as inadequate restriction, limiting the criminalization of online child sexual exploitation to content that depict real children. This narrow focus fails to address other harmful materials, such as animation, cartoons, or other visual representations that involve sexual exploitation of children. Such limitations compromise the effectiveness of combating online sexual exploitation and undermine the very purpose of Article 14, to create a safer online environment for children and ensure they can use technology without falling victim to exploitation. The Convention should cover all forms of child sexual exploitation, including animated and cartoon content. This comprehensive approach will eliminate potential loopholes and demonstrate the international… communities’ commitment to protecting children from exploitation. Furthermore, terms like without right in the Convention may imply a pre-municipal access to child sexual exploitation material, potentially awakening effort to combat such crimes and embedding international cooperation, while some countries advocate for including without right to simplify regulation and aid law enforcement. This could undermine the Convention’s objective and hinder effective prosecution and adjudication of related offences. Regarding Article 16, the term non-consensual dissemination of intimate images is very specific and reflects the view of some countries. Many places have a different way of dealing with this issue. This doesn’t mean that dealing with the problem of searching such content is unimportant, but it does suggest the language in Article 16 needs to be adjusted to fit different legal systems. This is our observation in some articles, and we will return to comment on the other articles. Madam Chair, I thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. I will now leave you in the very, very capable hands of the Vice-President from the Dominican Republic, Claudio Peguero-Castillo. I will be back this afternoon. Thank you very much. A very good afternoon to you all. We will Now continue with the list of speakers. Belarus, please. Slovakia, Namibia, Belarus first.
Belarus:
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, we’re delighted to be seeing all of the delegates here in the room. We’re particularly grateful to the Chair and to the Secretariat for all of their selfless efforts throughout the work of the AHC, the Ad Hoc Committee. We stand convinced that with you at the helm, we’ll be able to achieve our common objective, that is, adopt the draft Convention by consensus. We’re very much in favour of constructive international dialogue. Thus, Belarus would like to reaffirm its commitment to the generally recognised principles and norms of international law in combating crime and achieving criminal justice. In light of current circumstances and the acceleration of ICTs, the problems and challenges to stability and to the security of our societies, which stem from ICTs, are not only a cause for grave concern, but they undermine democratic institutions, equality, values and deal a blow to sustainable development and law and order. Under current circumstances, small and developing states cannot fully and independently combat ICT threats relying on their own resources alone. We pin a lot of hopes on the future Convention. It should be comprehensive, fully-fledged and adapted to current circumstances. Thus, we believe the AHC’s mandate is appropriate for an expansive interpretation of everything the Convention aims to incorporate. All of the various crimes, terrorism, extremism, human trafficking, drugs trafficking, weapons smuggling and crimes against minors. Thus, we should continue working on additional protocols which would add to the Convention. We’re against broadening the text to include subjective conditions and concessions, including those that have been trumped up, such as human rights pretexts, which are artificial obstacles to international cooperation in combating ICT crimes. We urge partners to reconsider this approach, because we risk losing the whole point of the document, the basis for which is combating ICT threats using multilateralism. We stand convinced that the adoption of the International Convention on Countering the Use of ICTs for Criminal Purposes will make a significant contribution to developing an effective mechanism on combating cybercrime and crimes using ICTs. We stand convinced that if we are truly committed to having a fully-fledged document and if we have the requisite political resolve, we will be able to achieve our stated outcome. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you, Belarus. Slovakia, you have the floor.
Slovakia:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Slovakia highly appreciates the excellent work of the Chair and the team and the secretariat and guidance provided to the Ad Hoc Committee on its way to reaching consensus on the Comprehensive Convention. We align ourselves with the Statement of the European Union and we would like to state the following in our national capacity. As regards the title, I will not repeat all the arguments already provided by numerous delegations in support of a short title, UN Convention Against Cybercrime. In our view, this properly represents the content, the purpose and understanding of the Convention. One of our common goals is to enrich the world of legal instruments and, among others, to give the opportunity to competent authorities of Member States to request and obtain the assistance from partners worldwide. The scope of procedural measures of this Convention is rather broad, and it will provide for the opportunity to fight cybercrime effectively. Saying so, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the balance that was reached in the presented proposal of Article 6, in particular of its Paragraph 2, as well as in the safeguards Article 24. The text contains the minimum standards necessary. In many states, fundamental rights are protected directly by the constitutions. Therefore, everyone, and in particular competent authorities, must act in compliance and with a full respect of such rights. What does this mean? Let me use the example of international cooperation that is in the center of our interests. Both requesting and requested authorities are obliged to respect fundamental rights while performing their duties. Competent authorities must review the formalities of the request and its substance, then it has to look to measures available under the national law and requirements for applying such measures. By executing a request, the requested authority steps into the shoes of requesting authority and tries at best to obtain the evidence by legal means that also include respect for fundamental rights. To cut a long story short, we are drafting a convention that will provide the gateway to worldwide international cooperation and obtaining evidence. Respect for fundamental rights and conditions and safeguards are in the hands of parties and those will provide a key to open the gateway. Therefore, our understanding is, as already pointed out by many delegations, that fundamental rights and safeguards cannot be considered as a barrier to cooperation. On the contrary, they help to create mutual trust and allow for cooperation. cooperation. For us, Comprehensive Convention also includes the universality. We believe that this goal would be achievable through the proposal of Mexico to increase the number of ratifications to 60 in Article 64. We all know that reaching the consensus on the text of Convention is only a half-way to success. The Convention will be successful only if the practitioners in member states would use it and apply it. Therefore, the importance of a higher number of ratifications lays in the fact that both states needing evidence and states keeping the evidence are aboard. As regards Articles 14 and 16, we support the draft as presented. We would like to thank Italy in particular for providing a practical example that may help to clarify the importance of exemptions in order to avoid over-criminalization. We believe that avoiding over-criminalization also helps to protect the rights of children. Finally, regarding the provision on the draft resolution dealing with the immediate negotiations of an additional protocol, Slovakia wishes to join the group of states that express concerns to such idea. We believe that limited capacities and resources available should be focused first on the implementation of the Convention. By concluding my intervention, Mr. Chairman, let me thank again for your team and for your efforts and the Secretariat, and of course, I would like to assure you that you can count on our support to bring the ship to the port. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Slovakia. Namibia, go ahead.
Namibia:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, from the onset, my delegation expresses its deepest gratitude to the Chair and her team for her tireless efforts in compiling the updated draft text before us. We commend you for accommodating our diverse viewpoints and tactfully striking a delicate balance between our two countries. in your revised draft which aims to bring us closer to consensus. Namibia fully aligns itself with the joint statement delivered by the Distinguished Delegate of Egypt. We echo the sentiments expressed, particularly regarding the importance of international cooperation, the transfer of technology, and the need for technical assistance and capacity building in the fight against cybercrime. Therefore, building on the collective position outlined in the joint statement, Namibia would like to make a few remarks in our national capacity. On the preamble, Namibia supports the views expressed by the Distinguished Delegate from Nigeria regarding the preamble paragraph 10 on gender mainstreaming. We support replacing the term affirming with noting in this context. The term noting acknowledges the issue of gender mainstreaming while providing member states with flexibility in how they approach this matter within their respective legal frameworks. Moving on to the draft resolution, Namibia supports paragraph 5 regarding an additional protocol. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that emerging technologies continue to bring novel forms of cybercrime that our current framework may not adequately address. For our convention to maintain its relevance and potency, it must be future-focused. An additional protocol provides the necessary mechanism for this forward-looking approach, allowing us to effectively address emerging cybercrimes and existing cybercrimes not covered in this convention. Namibia, however, remains flexible on the timeline for negotiating this additional protocol. In conclusion, Mr. Chair, please continue to count on our support in the spirit of consensus. Namibia remains committed to working collaboratively with all member states and stands ready to engage in further discussions to bring this extensive process to a successful conclusion. I thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Namibia. Sri Lanka, you have the floor.
Sri Lanka:
Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Sri Lanka takes this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to the Chair and the Ad Hoc Committee for your untiring efforts in bringing the text of the Convention closer to consensus, reflecting to a great extent the concerns of all Member States. Sri Lanka wishes to extend the fullest support to you, Chair, and the Ad Hoc Committee in the spirit of consensus. We believe that human rights safeguards in Articles 6 and 24, which provides for the protection of human rights in line with applicable international human rights law and domestic law, are important components of the Convention, which seeks to enhance international cooperation in combating cybercrime. Turning to the title, Sri Lanka is of the view that the title should be clear and precise without including any contents within brackets, as with other international conventions, including UNCAC and UNTOC. We appreciate the efforts made by the Chair in striking a balance between the different concerns of Member States on the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 on offences related to online child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation material and non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. We believe that the provisions in Articles 14 and 16 with regard to a child should be in the best interest of the child and should ideally reflect internationally accepted standards. The number of ratifications in Article 64 on entry into force in the updated draft text of the Convention reflects more or less the number of ratifications in UNCAC and UNTOC and is acceptable. Sri Lanka, however, remains flexible with this provision. On the Operative Paragraph 5 of the revised draft resolution, while Sri Lanka has no objection to a protocol supplementary to the Convention, which is facilitated under Article 61 of the Convention, it would be prudent to allow sufficient time to start negotiating a protocol after adopting the new Convention. I thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Sri Lanka. Cuba has the floor.
Cuba:
Thank you very much. We would like to thank you and the Chair and the Bureau of the Committee and the Secretariat. Under your leadership, we’re certain that we will be successful in the work we have to undertake. My delegation aligns itself with a statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of 33 countries, and in my national capacity, I would like to make the following comments. The use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes is a growing phenomenon, and it is leading to a great deal of concern, particularly given the vertiginous pace with which these technologies are developing. This is also a domain in which there is a major legal vacuum within the international domain. This is a very important process, therefore, for developing countries in particular. We are facing an increasing digital gap and additional stumbling blocks to access ICTs and to build capacities that would allow us to tap into their full potential. That is why Cuba has always supported the idea of drafting a comprehensive international convention to combat the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. Mr. Vice-Chair, I would like to reiterate our determination to play a constructive and active role in this last phase of the process of discussions and negotiations within this committee. Resolution 74-247 establishes a clear mandate and we must comply with this mandate. In this regard, Cuba believes that the title of the Convention should be fully in sync with this mandate. We fully support the proposal for a title that the Chair has presented. We think that is an appropriate solution of compromise between those delegations who are in favour of a minimalist solution and others, such as Cuba, who would prefer a broader approach to the title. As we have already stated in previous meetings, the instrument which is the outcome of our deliberations must have a strong component based on international cooperation and technology transfer, and the transfer of resources and knowledge to the South as well. This will allow developing countries to have the appropriate personnel, tools and infrastructure to prevent and pinpoint where ICTs are being used for criminal purposes in their respective jurisdictions. Nevertheless, we are concerned to see that the international cooperation component appears to be limited to investigative or procedural cooperation or judicial assistance between the competent authorities once a crime has been seen to have taken place. But we believe that the extensive use of the denial of cooperation or the references to the potential for the cooperation could be denied would make the Convention seem less obligatory and it would hinder international cooperation and create obstacles. There are many references to the potential for cooperation can be denied, particularly when we compare this text with other similar texts such as UNTOC and UNCAC. Mr Chairman, the future instrument should contain references to the protection of human rights, but we should not… overlook the fact that the final text should ultimately focus on preventing crime and criminal justice, because this ultimately is the overarching goal. We think that the current text is ultimately imbalanced. There are many references to human rights, while there are no references at all to specific crimes or criminal uses of ICTs. When it comes to human rights, we think this is a constitutional mandate to protect the best interests of the child, in line with the international obligations we have undertaken pursuant to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In this regard, we wish to stress that we do have significant reservations when it comes to Article 16 on the non-consented dissemination of intimate images. We cannot concept a text that appears to contradict the CRC. In this article, it should be clear that the dissemination of intimate child images is a crime that should certainly be categorised as child pornography. Chairman, in conclusion, my delegation would like to just clarify something on the automatic applicability of international law to cyber security issues. In the debate that we had yesterday afternoon, it was stated that in the open-ended working group of the First Committee, all Member States agreed that the United Nations Charter and international law automatically apply to cyber security issues. We wish to reiterate that during the discussions we had in the OEWG from 2019 to 2021, and in the current OEWG, Cuba has agreed with the validity of the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter in cyberspace, particularly those pertaining to sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference in the internal affairs of states when it comes to the use of information and communications technologies. However, given that cyberspace is an extremely dynamic area and the nature of events that could lead to disputes is different from those that we often see in the domain of international security, we can’t address the increasing threats from the malicious use of ICTs by automatically applying the tools that we have under existing international law. We have already spoken about this in previous meetings and our stance on this issue has not changed. Thank you.
Chair:
Muchas gracias, Cuba. So I have in my list Jamaica to be followed by Ireland, Burkina Faso, Moldova, Fiji and Luxembourg. Jamaica, you have the floor.
Jamaica:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Permit us to intervene specifically on Articles 14 and 16. Now concerning Article 14, Paragraph 1, CARCOM has no difficulty with the CHAPEAU as drafted and we can support Paragraphs A, B and C as they have been drafted. The current iteration of Article 14, Paragraph 1, subparagraph B in the UDTC has been slightly altered to refer specifically to the financing of activities in Paragraphs A to C and CARCOM can be flexible on that. CARCOM can also support Articles 14, Paragraph 2 and Article 14, Paragraph 3 as drafted. Turning to specifically to Article 14, Paragraph 3, the CHAPEAU of that article uses the word may and CARCOM submits that it gives individual member states the discretion to avoid over-criminalization based on our current legal and cultural realities. CARCOM can support that CHAPEAU as drafted as well. In respect of Article 14, Paragraph 4, subparagraphs A and B of the UDTC, DTC, it appears to be a reformulation of what was Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 14 under the DTC. Several Member States had agreed that where children run afoul of the law, there should be some accommodation to pursue alternative corrective measures that do not result in hard jail time. And as it is currently drafted, it offers Member States like those part of CARICOM the latitude to pursue or to continue to pursue measures like child diversion, probation or other rehabilitative measures, outside of or in addition to the formal systems. It is submitted that the provisions as they have been formulated seek to reach a compromise for all Member States and offers alternatives to a more rigid system, and so CARICOM can support Paragraphs 4A and B of Article 14 as drafted. On the matter of Article 14, Paragraph 5, we recall that the concern here was that where it had been placed, it did not add value, and in fact it appeared out of sync with what the article was meant to address. And the DTC, by virtue of Article 21, Paragraph 7, had made broad reference to giving considerations to the rights of the child. And the concern for some Member States was that this provision could potentially result in a violation of the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. And so the UDTC, having removed specific reference to consistent with domestic or international obligations, and as formulated, CARICOM believes we can support this provision because it seeks to, in a broad way, make reference to the protection of the rights of the child. We can also support Article 16, Paragraphs 1 to 5 as they have been drafted. We thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ireland:
to the Chair and the wider team for their tireless efforts in drafting the UDTC. Ireland aligns itself with the statement of the European Union and, through our national capacity, will make some additional comments on fundamental rights, the protocol and the title. Ireland, Mr Vice-Chair, had advocated for a narrow scope, but in the spirit of compromise we accepted a broader scope. But in turn, we require strong safeguards and protections for human rights to match such an unprecedented broad scope. Therefore, we support Article 24 Paragraph 2 and Article 6 Paragraph 2 as drafted in the UDTC. Mr Vice-Chair, I’d like to stress that Article 6 Paragraph 2, as it is currently drafted, is crucial for Ireland as it sets a minimum common bedrock of trust for states to be able to cooperate with one another. Article 6 Paragraph 2 strikes the right balance between protections and a broad and intrusive scope. Any attempt to dilute Article 6 Paragraph 2 would undermine the fine balance that you have successfully crafted. On Articles 14 to 16, Ireland is supportive of the draft text and we remain cautious about re-opening the text of these provisions. Like many other delegations, Ireland shares concerns about OP5 on the protocols. The proposed immediate timeline would overburden states and could very well undermine the implementation of the Treaty as states struggle to simultaneously implement the Treaty and start negotiations for a new protocol. Mr Vice-Chair, on the title, we add our voice to those delegations calling for a shorter title by deleting the bracketed text. in the title. As it stands, the title is confusing and not clear. Clarity is key in any legal text, but in particular an international one. Finally, Ireland welcomes Costa Rica’s proposal for Article 40 Para 21, and we also note the proposal by Mexico on the entry into force for Article 64. We thank you very much and wish you the best of luck for the next two weeks.
Chair:
Thank you, Ireland. Burkina Faso, you have the floor. You have the floor, Burkina Faso.
Burkina Faso:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. My delegation would like to congratulate you and the Secretariat upon the revised version of the text, which is an excellent foundation for our negotiations. It does preserve a balance between the different positions, and it should allow us to arrive at consensus. We align ourselves with the statement delivered yesterday by Egypt on behalf of a number of countries, and we would like to make the following comments in our national capacity. On the title of the draft text of the Convention, we support the initial wording, the Convention on the Use of ICT Technologies for Criminal Purposes. The definition of cybercrime that has been proposed seems to us to be quite restrictive. We think that Article 6 is enough to bear in mind the respect for human rights. That is why we think that the second sub-para is superfluous, and we would support its deletion. On criminalisation, notably Articles 14 and 16, we would stress the need to bear in mind national specificities for upholding children’s rights. rights online. We would delete the terms that Rwanda and other delegation have suggested because we think that that would be most appropriate. On the negotiations on a potential protocol, we support the proposal that was made by Nigeria and we hope that the efforts that we’ll be making over the next two weeks in a spirit of compromise will allow us to reach a consensus. Thank you.
Moldova:
Thank you Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me thank the chairmanship for all the efforts undertaken during these years and all meetings which took place until today and ensuring the chairmanship of this committee. Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, this delegation believes that after many rounds of negotiations significant progress has been achieved and the draft convention we are discussing serves as a good basis for achieving a consensus-based treaty. To ensure our aim is to have a truly universal convention so that the international cooperation to fight cyber crimes is enhanced effectively, we need that human rights safeguards are truly guaranteed under the convention. Like many other delegations which spoke before, we consider that those safeguards are of paramount importance. Any backtracking would put the treaty at risk. Therefore, Article 6 should be preserved in the present in our view, should be preserved in the present drafting. Concerning additional protocol, we adhere to many delegations in this room that start negotiations to take place on the additional protocol to start after the convention enters into force. We might support the idea, but not before achieving the necessary number of ratifications. In this regard, we support the current version of Article 64 concerning the minimum number of ratifications necessary for the entry into force of the convention. Last but not least, the title. It should reflect the content and purpose of the treaty. Therefore, we support its shorter version, UN Convention on Cybercrime. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Moldova. Fiji, you have the floor.
Fiji:
Chair, distinguished colleagues, dear friends, good afternoon, and in my indigenous language, mbula vinaka. At the outset, Fiji joins other delegations in commending the chair’s leadership in guiding us and with the support of your hardworking team in producing Draft Rev. 3 of the convention for our deliberation. This draft demonstrates the significant progress made, and we’ve also heard the call to join forces and to build consensus in the opening remarks delivered yesterday, and Fiji reiterates our commitment in doing our part and in reaching consensus. Chair, this convention is crucial in order for us to meet our global obligations to prevent and combat cybercrime. That is our roadmap, and indeed, that’s our North Star. Chair, Fiji affirms that inalienable human rights are not relegated to offline spaces. Indeed, they must be protected online as well. Now, in that vein, Fiji supports the human rights safeguards including in Article 6 in its current form. Fiji also supports the proposal to move the non-discrimination clause by New Zealand to Article 35, and agrees with CARICOM’s statement delivered yesterday that Article 35 is a critical component for small island developing states. Fiji also supports retaining the language in this draft convention on Articles 14-16 and the proposal by Costa Rica for Article 40. Chair, with regard to Article 60, we support the proposal by Mexico to increase the number to 60, and all of these have also been supported by several delegations both yesterday and today. With regard to the title, our preference is, as stated by numerous delegations yesterday and today, for an accurate and succinct title, the Convention Against Cybercrime. Furthermore, we support the statement made by the Dominican Republic yesterday that domestic laws in a number of countries already use the term cybercrime. This is also the same for Fiji. So using this term already ensures common understanding even within states, as this will need to be operationalized by our criminal justice authorities and the relevant agencies, and we note that the title meets the purposes of the convention as drafted. Chair, regarding the provision of additional protocol, we note that Article 61 captures this and is sufficient as has been stated by the UK and has been supported by other delegations. Regarding OP5 of the draft resolution, and as highlighted by a number of states, our challenge is that the timeline that’s been set is practically not feasible, more so for developing countries, including small island developing states, due to our unique challenges and context. And these include our constrained resources, addressing competing priorities, and the time that is needed for us to ratify and implement the convention thereafter. Chair, as an example of what I mean by constrained resources, for Fiji, and I do see other distinguished colleagues in this room, the same delegate who is covering this ad hoc committee is also covering the OEWG and other committees, including implementing national initiatives. So we would find it difficult to negotiate a protocol immediately thereafter. This also reflects the realities when we talk about constrained resources, even in our countries. To ratify and implement the treaty provisions, and indeed a core part of implementation, is to build the necessary capacities across our agencies. Therefore, we request that this be seriously considered to ensure that this process continues to be inclusive. Chair, Fiji remains committed to actively participating in order to reach consensus by the end of this week. And on a final note, with regard to Australia’s recommendation on how we can get to consensus, either through our joint wisdom, as was stated earlier, or even coffee or wine, I would also like to add to that list a traditional drink, kava or yangona, which has been, and I dare say, proven, especially in our region, to build consensus as well. Thank you, and vina kava kalevu.
Chair:
Vina kava kalevu, Fiji. Luxembourg, you have the floor.
Luxembourg:
Mr. Vice Chair, thank you for the floor. On behalf of Luxembourg, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your hard work, that of Madam Chair and her entire team, as well as the Secretariat, in the quest of guiding us towards consensus. First of all, I would like to stress that we fully align ourselves with the European Union’s position. Adding to that, I would like to highlight a few points that are particularly important for Luxembourg. Concerning the title, we do not support the part in brackets. As the convention establishes far-reaching powers to support international law enforcement, it is crucial that we make the convention and its title as clear as possible and avoid uncertain concepts, which risk confusing the scope of the convention by potentially including criminal offenses beyond those that were agreed upon. The title UN Convention Against Cybercrime would ensure the scope is clearly understood by practitioners and the general public and it furthermore reflects the delicate balance struck during negotiations around terminology. Concerning the safeguards and human rights provisions in different chapters, Luxembourg considers that the current draft goes in the right direction in terms of aiming to achieve the delicate balance between the scope of the Convention, international cooperation and the necessary safeguards to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. These safeguards are crucial for us and should be kept in the text as a minimum standard. They are necessary to ensure our collective aim of reaching the conclusion of a universal Convention which effectively allows for international cooperation to fight against cybercrime by building trust and legal certainty between the parties to the Convention. Proposals to scale back on these safeguards or the current delicate balance would reopen questions about the scope and will risk that we cannot engage in judicial cooperation or reach an agreement on this Convention. In the same line of thought, Luxembourg also supports the Costa Rican proposal on Article 40 to further strengthen this minimum baseline of safeguards. I would also like to underline our support for Articles 14 and 16 as currently drafted. Concerning Article 14, we consider that Paragraphs 3 and 4 are the result of long discussions that now allow a necessary balance in the text. We cannot support any substantial modifications on these paragraphs that would not provide for the same level of optional exceptions from criminalization. We cannot accept obligations to criminalized conducts that are considered as perfectly legitimate and acceptable in our society, the reasons for which were eloquently explained by the representatives of Italy and Austria, amongst others. Concerning the protocol, Luxembourg supports the views expressed by many before, in that it is too premature and too stringent to launch another round of negotiations according to a predetermined timeline for an additional protocol focusing on additional crimes even before the entry into force of the Convention. We are convinced that our efforts and resources should rather be devoted to the process of ratification and implementation of the Convention itself before engaging in such discussions which can always be taken up at a later stage if need be. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you, Luxembourg. Iran, you have the floor.
Iran:
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair. I would like to say that I can see light at the tunnel, but I couldn’t see. I can see different views and big gaps between countries. I can say it is philosophical divergence. So we do believe that this context is not balanced. It is one-sided. Our proposals, views, and perspectives, unfortunately, have not been inserted in the current text. So my delegation would like to take note of the statement made by the distinguished delegation of Egypt on behalf of around 35 countries. We agree and support most elements and arguments made by this statement. So we are obliged to respect and observe international human rights. Iran is part of many international human rights law instruments. But from the first day of these negotiations, Iran consistently reiterating that this is a criminal justice treaty, not a human rights instrument. So, because I don’t like to repeat our positions and arguments on that for saving the times. I would like to reiterate that these wordings on human rights also, I think, are in contrary with international human rights instruments, because they are a cherry-picking approach. They are selected for some purposes, and I can say it is against international human rights treaties. So Mr. Vice-Chair, on the lovely proposal made by Costa Rica, first of all, we do believe that based on the methodology, in the methodology, ask the countries to avoid to make new proposals. It is a new proposal. We have a long list of proposals. They are not new. We have made it during seven sessions of these ad hoc committees. If it’s supposed to make new proposals, we are ready. And if they are not new, they are supported by many countries. Of course, this is the sovereign right of Costa Rica to make new proposals. Also, it is our sovereign right to make new proposals. We are ready if this approach be continued. Under Mr. Vice-Chair, it would be difficult to touch upon all articles and paragraphs which are open. like title, preambles, many paragraphs on caveats on transfer of technology, human rights, gender perspectives, and also in articles on the section of international cooperation and technical assistance. So from our perspective, there is no consensus on those articles and preambles. We do believe and we would like to ask that to allocate sufficient time to negotiate, especially preamble. We didn’t negotiate the preamble and also those wordings and new provisions and proposals. In fact, they are chair proposals, which have not been negotiated. We need to negotiate of that. So we would like to reserve our rights on those articles. From our perspective, all are open and also at the end, also, Mr. Chair, we do believe that because of involving of the crimes and criminals are many steps before our law enforcement, we would like to support the approach to facilitate entry into force of this convention. So we would like to support the practice which used in UNCAC to 30s instruments for ratification of this convention. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you, Iran. I have Nicaragua first on my list and you have the floor now.
Nicaragua:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We would like to express our position on some of the points. On the title, we would like to thank the chair for the proposal. We think that defining cybercrime could be something that appropriately reflects the mandate given by the GA and also reflects countries’ positions. On the number of ratifications, we think that the entry into force of the Convention is particularly important so that our countries can immediately address the challenges posed by the malicious use of ICTs. Our delegation, showing flexibility, can support the proposal put forward by the Chair, bearing in mind that this would be in a compromise position to lead us to consensus, but we can’t support increasing the number of ratifications required. Mr. Chairman, on the proposal put forward by Costa Rica to include political crimes as a potential way of refusing cooperation, we would like to ask, under which parameters and criteria would this be determined who or not is fulfilling those requirements? We do not support this caveat and we would urge delegations to put forward proposals that can lead us towards consensus and not hinder it. We reiterate our position that only through solidarity and strengthened multilateralism through international cooperation that is itself strengthened, that is the only way that developing countries can effectively implement what we will agree in this Convention. Mr. Vice-Chair, we would like to express our support to the position of the Russian Federation and we reserve our position on other parts of the document. We will continue to share our position. position as the consultations develop. We remain available to continue negotiating constructively and in good faith so that we can reach a document that bears in mind the concerns of all States.
Chair:
Thank you. The Chair, Ghana, is next.
Ghana:
Mr. Chair, thank you for giving my delegation the floor. Ghana wishes to commend you, Honorable Chair, and the Secretariat for your outstanding efforts in the development of the current draft. Mr. Chair, on the title of the Convention, my delegation wishes to state Ghana’s preference for a short and concise title as it accurately captures the purpose of the Convention, hence we call for the use of the term cybercrime. We also welcome the use of terms in Article 2 as drafted as it aligns with the text in Article 1 of the Budapest Convention. Mr. Chair, Ghana supports the Chair’s draft text in Article 3 as its scope corresponds to that of Article 35. The scope of the Convention as stated in Article 3 is consistent with Ghana’s domestic legislation on cybercrime, particularly the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, Cybersecurity Act, Criminal Offenses Act, and regional treaties and frameworks on cybercrime, particularly Article 25.1 of the Malabo Convention and Section V of the ECOWAS Regional Cybersecurity and Cybercrime Strategy. My delegation, therefore, supports retaining the original text in Article 3 as proposed by the Chair. We, however, welcome the addition of extending the scope to serious crimes. We also support in principle the Chair’s draft text in Article 14 in view of its consistency with the provisions in Ghana’s Cybersecurity Act, which further aligns with Article 9 of the Budapest Convention, Article 34, and Article 10 of the ECOWAS Regional of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 3 of its Optional Protocol. Although this provision is of a broader scope than existing legislations and international conventions, we are not against its adoption because it aligns with our general mandates to ensure the protection of children online. Ghana has always supported human rights mechanisms and welcomes in principle Article 24 on conditions and safeguards as it relates to the application of the principle of proportionality in the justice administration system with due regard to existing international obligations. Mr. Chair, my delegation also welcomes the draft text as captured in Article 36, as this provision is an important safeguard in guaranteeing the privacy rights of individuals and is consistent with Chapter 2 of the African Union Convention on Cybersecurity and Personal Data Protection, which Ghana has ratified, and Ghana’s Data Protection Act, both of which seek to guarantee data protection and privacy rights of individuals. Ghana welcomes the Chair’s draft text as captured in Article 40 of the draft revised text, as these provisions are generally consistent with Ghana’s Mutual Legal Assistance Act and international laws on the principle of proportionality. On the matter of additional protocols to this convention, Ghana joins other delegations with the view that there is the need to focus on the adoption and ratification of the convention before considering additional protocols to address exigencies when required. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Ghana. We have 20 minutes left and seven requests for the floor. We have asked the interpreters to provide us with 10 additional minutes, and they have agreed. So we think that should be enough time to finish the list. We have Costa Rica, Portugal, Yemen, Cabo Verde, Oman, the Russian Federation, Senegal and Morocco. Costa Rica, you’re first.
Costa Rica:
Distinguished Ambassador Peguero, it is a pleasure to see you occupying the chairmanship and we’d like to thank you for your work, including in the language consistency group. We would like to react to some of the proposals and comments that we have heard and I’d like to focus on three points. First of all, on the possibility of negotiating additional protocols, we think that this is not necessary. We are finalising a long process of negotiation that has required a great deal of resources from everyone. We don’t think at this point we need to be discussing negotiating any additional protocols. We think that this is something that should be considered subsequently, after the Convention has entered into force. Secondly, we would like to reiterate our support for the proposal by Mexico to establish as 60 the number of ratifications necessary for the Convention to enter into force. We think that a third of the membership of the United Nations is a reasonable amount for the Convention to have robust support for implementation. Thirdly, and responding to some of the comments that have been made, I would like to reiterate that our proposal is not contrary to any of the proposals on safeguards or political opinions. A political opinion is not a political crime. Political crimes are appropriately set out in national criminal codes and we know that in many cases they have been used to prosecute people for their political positions. This is part of… the criminal offences such as propaganda against the constitutional order. This is a proposal that we have made during the previous three sessions of the Special Committee, so it’s not something that should strike anyone as new. In addition to this, the same wording is found in other international instruments, contrary to what was said. We think that this international instrument should not serve any interests other than countering cybercrime. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chairman.
Chair:
Thank you. Portugal is next. You have the floor.
Portugal:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Allow me to start by warmly congratulating the Chair, Ambassador Mebrarchi, on her whole team, on the tireless efforts during these two and a half years, and especially on everyone’s enthusiasm and positive spirit. You can count on Portugal’s constructive engagement and full cooperation during this final concluding session. Moreover, I would like to stress that Portugal fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union, and in our national capacity would like to add the following remarks. Portugal recognizes the threat posed by cybercrime to all Member States, which by nature is often transnational. As such, Portugal has been fully committed to the work of this Committee and has always been available to constructively engage and work with the Chair and all the distinguished delegations. It has been our goal to approach these negotiations with a view to bridge differences and achieve meaningful consensus. Without this consensus, this Convention may not be of service to any of its parties. In this regard, Portugal recognizes the compromises made by all parties during these difficult negotiations. at the most cherished, relentless work the Chair has done. Such consensus, however, cannot be achieved if human rights and fundamental freedoms are not properly safeguarded for. Also, as stated by many other delegations, we would like to mention the following points. Regarding the title of the Convention, we are in favor of a simple title which captures the essence of the Convention on one term, UN Convention Against Cybercrime. Regarding OP5 of the draft resolution, dealing with the immediate negotiations of an additional protocol, we share the concerns expressed in this regard by other delegations. We believe that after the adoption of the Convention, we should first concentrate on implementing it and leave it to the Conference of the State Parties the negotiation of a supplementary protocol to the Convention. We can also support the Mexican proposal on Article 64 of expanding to 60 Member States for the Convention to enter into force. Mr. Chairman, we shall be mindful of the need for a sensible, flexible and balanced approach to the negotiations on this final reconvened concluding session. We believe this approach will dictate the result of years of work for everyone involved here and create a legal instrument of the utmost importance for all States. I thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Portugal. Yemen, you have the floor.
Yemen:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, I’d like to congratulate you on all of your efforts, as well as the efforts undertaken by your team, turning our attention to the Convention. Mr. Chairman, we need to agree on a number of issues. First and foremost, we need an exhaustive list of crimes covering the entire world. We shouldn’t be talking about certain crimes in certain states. What we need is to draw up an exhaustive list of such crimes. We’re talking about a very important issue. Here in this room, we’re discussing the Convention on Cybercrime. In fact, there was an IT software update last week and it was disastrous. There were flights cancelled, there were lots of technical glitches all over the world. For that reason, this Convention is of paramount importance, as is cooperation in the sphere of cybercrime. It’s a critical issue, as is the endeavour to counter such crimes and to prevent their commission. We will be making further comments on the Convention in upcoming meetings, but having said that, we already would like to align ourselves with the statement delivered by Egypt regarding the title of the Convention. We prefer the short version, the UN Convention against Cybercrime. We’ve mentioned the term cybercrime, and that’s one title, but we also have another name which also refers to cybercrime. That’s why we can agree with the title. We have provided an explanation as to why we prefer the first title. Having said that, we also stand ready to endorse the second title, the other title. Nevertheless, we’d prefer to use the singular to say cybercrime in this singular. But perhaps we could also talk about cybercrimes in the plural with an S on the end. Article 1, we support the inclusion of technology transfer in that article, and we hope that developed countries will accept this proposal. On Article 2, use of terms, this is technical and legal terminology, both technical and legal. Here there’s just one… term that’s of concern for us and that is serious crime, the definition of serious crime some states use a slightly different term in French instead of saying crime sérieux, they say crime grave perhaps here when it comes to this concept we could define it better and also define the various sanctions in national legislation that pertain to these crimes, serious crimes in French crime sérieux or crime grave for instance three or four years we could add that in there moving on to the scope article 3 scope of application we need to define the crimes covered within the framework of the convention in the second paragraph there’s talk about international cooperation, criminal investigations but we also need to define the scope of proceedings all the while emphasizing international cooperation article 4 paragraph 1 there are some elements in this paragraph which shouldn’t have been included when Various conventions and protocols implemented. I’m referring to conventions and protocols we adopted in the past. Offences under domestic law when committed through the use of an ICT system. The end of paragraph one, article four. Well, what we’re talking about here are digital crimes. In this paragraph we should really be placing the stress on these digital crimes. We should be clearly defining such crimes committed in various national systems or jurisdictions. Also, it must be added that there are certain texts which we adopted already in the past. We need to take them into consideration and to interpret them and see how they align with this convention. The state’s parties to these prior UN conventions, existing UN conventions must take into consideration international cooperation, especially when it comes to crimes committed using ICTs. Article six now. Article six, respect for human rights. Many delegations referred to human rights, especially within the context of Articles 1 and 2. There are laws, domestic laws, international laws, and we must ensure that this Convention is fully in keeping with the international law, more specifically, international human rights law. You see, this Convention complements, it adds to international law that’s already on the books. In paragraph 2 of that very same Article, Article 6, I’d like to flag that existing international texts are already very clear. We shouldn’t be giving them an additional interpretation through this paragraph. After all, we’re working within the framework of an international criminal convention, criminal justice convention. Therefore, it’s not appropriate listing all of these rights in this paragraph. For that reason, we suggest deleting Article 6, paragraph 2. Moving on to Articles 7 and 8. We support both of them. However, there are certain crimes which are not covered by these two Articles, and we must take that into account. Article 9, as well as Article 10. Article 10. Here, we talk about certain offences. In other words, actions committed intentionally. So when we list various crimes, we must specify whether they are committed intentionally or rather unintentionally. Articles 14, 15 and 16. We’d like to express our support for the proposal tabled by Egypt. And sexual abuse is a term that’s perfectly fine, it’s sufficient. We must also mention offences committed using ICTs within the context of sexual abuse. As for the words without right. The words without right are unnecessary in this instance. without any need for, without right, those two words. The issues which we do not agree on. We’re going to continue exploring these issues so as to come up with consensus-based solutions. And to be able to pinpoint the various crimes, to draw up a list of crimes, stressing respect for international law, with a view to negotiating in good faith. We’re very hopeful that we will be able to finalize our work on a conclusion which will be adopted and ratified by everyone. Thank you.
Chair:
Shukran, Yemen. I would like to ask, please, if you can send those comments in writing because we had some gaps in interpretation in some of the language. So, if you would please do that. And I would also ask the six remaining delegations to please be succinct as we only have ten minutes left. Cabo Verde, you have the floor. Thank you, Ms. Vice Chair.
Cabo Verde:
Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to express my most sincere congratulations to Madam Chair and all of our dedicated staff for the excellent work carried out throughout these negotiations. The commitment, diligence and competence demonstrated by Your Excellency and your team are worth of praise and recognition. Cabo Verde reaffirms its commitment and engagement in reaching a solid and effective agreement on this Convention. We are willing to collaborate actively and with a spirit of openness to find points of consensus that are beneficial to all parties involved. We believe that mutual cooperation and the search of joint solutions are fundamental to the success of this venture. Overall, we support unity as presented, considering the need to reach a final consensus, although there is still need for some clarifications that we hope can be made during these two weeks of negotiations. We support the choice of the term cybercrime as the title of the Treaty. It clearly and precisely reflects the object of this Convention. It is essential that the title of the Treaty faithfully represents its current contents, thus ensuring an ambiguous understanding of its objectives and purposes. Specifically, we express our support for the tests proposed in Articles 1C, 3, 4, 6, 23 paragraph 4, 40 paragraph 22 as drafted. We believe that these articles are fundamental to the structure and effectiveness of the Convention, providing a solid basis for international cooperation in combating cybercrime. Additionally, we would like to express our support for Nigeria regarding the issue of serious crimes and the associated protocol. We recognize the importance of comprehensively and effectively addressing serious crimes in the context of cybercrime. We therefore reiterate our willingness to continue working constructively and proactively with the aim of reaching an agreement that is fair, effective and representative of the interests of all States and parties involved. Best regards.
Oman:
Honorable Chair, at the outset, we would like to thank you for your efforts and your team’s efforts to culminate our work in a success. We believe that our negotiations will lead to a positive consensus that everyone appreciates. Honorable Chair, cybercrimes are threatening all countries of the world, including companies and persons as well. There is no one in the world who has not suffered some form of cyberattack, and this leads to massive losses. We have to work together to reach a consensus in order to adopt this Convention. We would like to join all the delegations that have suggested for the Convention to be in line with international agreements and domestic laws, and for it not to overreach beyond its scope. Human rights need to be respected in line with international instruments, and we would like to join the delegation given on behalf of the Arab Group by the Honorable Delegate of Egypt. We are open to all suggestions and opinions with regard to the title as well. We would like to join all the delegations that have spoken on Articles 4, 6, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, and 40. As these tenses have been clarified in the statements of Egypt, Syria, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, we believe that human rights are covered by all international conventions. Children’s rights need to be protected, including protection from sexual exploitation and abuse and including any form of filming these children and disseminating pictures of these children that have a sexual nature. Therefore, we must protect children from this violation. With regards to international cooperation, we encourage all states to engage in bilateral and multilateral agreements in order to facilitate collaboration between law enforcement agencies. As for the additional protocol, we believe that the priority is to reach consensus in order to adopt this convention, and we can look at a protocol at a later time. And this has been the practice with many other conventions. We would like to join all delegations that have called for ratification of the convention on the 90th day. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair. I have a question. How much time do we have? I have quite a lengthy statement, in fact. We have four minutes left. Four minutes. In that instance, I’d like to speak following the lunch break, just to ensure that I don’t have to cut short my presentation. Okay. In that case, I have – if Senegal can do it in less than four minutes, if not, then I’ll give the Secretary the floor so we can move to the lunch break. Senegal, can you do it? Okay. Go ahead. You have the floor. Merci beaucoup.
Senegal:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my delegation, I’d like to congratulate you upon the – your work to steer this committee during this whole process. We hope that we’ll be able to finalize this draft convention in this meeting. This will certainly help us to better combat the malicious use of ICTs, notably for criminal purposes. My delegation would like to make some comments on the text. On the revised text, my delegation is in favour of keeping the term cybercrime, even though it hasn’t been agreed by consensus. We think that is the appropriate way of reflecting the objectives that the Convention intends to pursue. However, the wording without other provisions appears to us to be too broad a wording. On Article 6 on human rights, my delegation suggests keeping the second paragraph in this article, which we think is critical to upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, my delegation suggests deleting the following, the lists after that, which we do not think add a great deal to the text. On Article 20, on sub-paragraph 21, notably part B, we don’t think that the references there help us to achieve greater cooperation and we don’t help us, I don’t think this is going to help us to combat this scourge. We suggest deleting that reference, or at least perhaps clarifying it further, so that we don’t create further pretexts for cooperation being denied. On Article 64, on the entry into force of the Convention, we think that we could be in line with the Palermo Convention, which stipulates the number at 40. Thank you. So, now I’ll give the floor to the Secretariat. I have four interventions left in my list, well, three, Russian Federation, Morocco, and Montenegro. So, Secretariat, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Secretariat:
The Secretariat would like to remind delegations that the Chair will hold informal consultations with multistakeholders this afternoon at 2 p.m. in Conference Room 1. The Chair will hold informal consultations with multistakeholders this afternoon at 2 p.m. in Conference Room 1. As usual, Member States are welcome to join. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Lloyde. Please, we adjourn for lunch and see you after lunch.
Speakers
S
Syria
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
822 words
Speech time
359 secs
A
Austria
Speech speed
125 words per minute
Speech length
774 words
Speech time
372 secs
B
Belarus
Speech speed
153 words per minute
Speech length
419 words
Speech time
165 secs
B
Bulgaria
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
352 words
Speech time
141 secs
BF
Burkina Faso
Speech speed
118 words per minute
Speech length
263 words
Speech time
133 secs
CV
Cabo Verde
Speech speed
125 words per minute
Speech length
335 words
Speech time
160 secs
C
Chair
Speech speed
101 words per minute
Speech length
809 words
Speech time
479 secs
CR
Costa Rica
Speech speed
143 words per minute
Speech length
350 words
Speech time
147 secs
C
Cuba
Speech speed
146 words per minute
Speech length
919 words
Speech time
378 secs
F
Fiji
Speech speed
173 words per minute
Speech length
713 words
Speech time
248 secs
F
France
Speech speed
156 words per minute
Speech length
458 words
Speech time
176 secs
G
Germany
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
653 words
Speech time
261 secs
G
Ghana
Speech speed
155 words per minute
Speech length
530 words
Speech time
205 secs
I
Iran
Speech speed
116 words per minute
Speech length
562 words
Speech time
291 secs
I
Iraq
Speech speed
138 words per minute
Speech length
743 words
Speech time
322 secs
I
Ireland
Speech speed
148 words per minute
Speech length
354 words
Speech time
143 secs
I
Italy
Speech speed
136 words per minute
Speech length
745 words
Speech time
329 secs
J
Jamaica
Speech speed
156 words per minute
Speech length
492 words
Speech time
189 secs
L
Luxembourg
Speech speed
167 words per minute
Speech length
578 words
Speech time
207 secs
M
Moldova
Speech speed
126 words per minute
Speech length
275 words
Speech time
131 secs
N
Namibia
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
367 words
Speech time
143 secs
N
Nicaragua
Speech speed
119 words per minute
Speech length
307 words
Speech time
154 secs
N
Nigeria
Speech speed
152 words per minute
Speech length
908 words
Speech time
359 secs
O
Oman
Speech speed
148 words per minute
Speech length
383 words
Speech time
155 secs
P
Peru
Speech speed
130 words per minute
Speech length
509 words
Speech time
236 secs
P
Poland
Speech speed
149 words per minute
Speech length
314 words
Speech time
127 secs
P
Portugal
Speech speed
159 words per minute
Speech length
416 words
Speech time
157 secs
RO
Republic of Korea
Speech speed
146 words per minute
Speech length
337 words
Speech time
138 secs
SA
Saudi Arabia
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
779 words
Speech time
342 secs
S
Secretariat
Speech speed
90 words per minute
Speech length
60 words
Speech time
40 secs
S
Senegal
Speech speed
115 words per minute
Speech length
333 words
Speech time
174 secs
SL
Sierra Leone
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
428 words
Speech time
195 secs
S
Slovakia
Speech speed
155 words per minute
Speech length
710 words
Speech time
274 secs
SL
Sri Lanka
Speech speed
183 words per minute
Speech length
346 words
Speech time
113 secs
S
Sudan
Speech speed
119 words per minute
Speech length
846 words
Speech time
427 secs
S
Sweden
Speech speed
133 words per minute
Speech length
457 words
Speech time
205 secs
S
Switzerland
Speech speed
160 words per minute
Speech length
812 words
Speech time
305 secs
T
Thailand
Speech speed
146 words per minute
Speech length
506 words
Speech time
208 secs
T
Turkey
Speech speed
186 words per minute
Speech length
172 words
Speech time
55 secs
U
Uganda
Speech speed
129 words per minute
Speech length
944 words
Speech time
438 secs
UR
United Republic of Tanzania
Speech speed
142 words per minute
Speech length
950 words
Speech time
402 secs
US
United States
Speech speed
119 words per minute
Speech length
301 words
Speech time
152 secs
V
Venezuela
Speech speed
167 words per minute
Speech length
507 words
Speech time
182 secs
Y
Yemen
Speech speed
94 words per minute
Speech length
1088 words
Speech time
695 secs
Related event
