(5th 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
31 Jul 2024 10:00h - 13:00h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Progress and Debate at the Ad Hoc Committee’s Concluding Session on Cybercrime Convention
During the resumed concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Wednesday, 31st July 2024, the Chair opened the meeting by noting the progress made on Article 17 and the request from the Group for Linguistic Consistency to send each adopted article or part of an article to them immediately. The Secretariat announced informal consultations on Articles 14, 16, and 17, and the Chair directed the Committee to continue with Article 21, focusing on the pending paragraphs 2 and 4, which were subsequently adopted ad referendum.
The Chair then addressed Article 22, which concerns jurisdiction. A debate ensued over subparagraph D of paragraph 2, which deals with unclear jurisdiction in ICT systems. Despite some concerns, the Committee agreed on subparagraph D and the article as a whole, ad referendum. Iran requested an amendment to Article 21.5, which was accepted without objection.
The Committee proceeded to review various articles, adopting many paragraphs ad referendum. However, some articles required further consultation due to disagreements or requests for clarification. Notably, Articles 45 and 46, which involve real-time data collection and interception of content data, were set aside for further discussion due to the contentious choice between the words “shall” and “may.” Iran opposed the compromise term “shall endeavour,” but Norway and Paraguay accepted it as a middle ground. The Committee also set aside some paragraphs linked to Article 40, paragraph 22, which was still under informal consultation.
The multi-stakeholders, including representatives from the Cyber Society Foundation, Microsoft, Cybersecurity Tech Accord, Alliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, and ICC, expressed concerns about the Convention. They highlighted issues such as the broad scope of criminalization, potential human rights violations, lack of safeguards against government abuse, and the risks to data privacy and fundamental rights. They called for the deletion of certain articles, the inclusion of robust safeguards, and a focus on serious cyber-dependent criminal offenses.
The Chair concluded the morning session by acknowledging the progress made and the work still required on the remaining articles and paragraphs. The Committee adjourned until the afternoon, with plans to address preventive measures, technical assistance, mechanisms of implementation, and final provisions. The Chair also noted the importance of multi-stakeholder input, despite the criticism received in the press, and scheduled further informal consultations to resolve outstanding issues.
Session transcript
Chair:
Good morning, everybody. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. It’s Wednesday, the 31st of July, 2024, and we have seven days left to finish our work. And the fifth meeting in the resumed concluding session for the Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate a convention to counter the use of information and communications technologies for conventional purposes. So, without further ado, I’ll just remind you that yesterday we had stopped at Article 17. Luckily, we were able to adopt a part of the article, which was pending, so we finished off Article 17. Upon the request of the Group for Linguistic Consistency, I would just ask the Secretariat to immediately send each article or part of article which is adopted at referendum so they can make progress with their work, and we can adopt the convention next week, I hope. So I’ll ask you to do that. I’ll give the floor now to the Secretariat for an announcement on the various meetings now.
Secretariat :
Thank you, Madame Chair. The Secretariat would like to inform delegates that the Nigerian Vice-Chair will convene informals on Article 17. Article 14 and 16 from 11 in CRE this morning. Delegates are also reminded that the open-ended informals is currently taking place in conference room one on the provisions announced by Madam Chair yesterday. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you. Thank you. So conference room E is in the corridor perpendicular to the cafe, which is on the same level as our room here, for those who might not know it. For the consultations on articles 14 and 16 with the Vice-Chair, George Malia of Nigeria. Zimbabwe, I see that you are asking for the floor.
Zimbabwe:
Good morning, Madam Chair. May you defer our taking of the floor. The head of delegation is not yet here.
Chair:
Très bien. Good, yes. So you can request the floor at that time. There’s no problem at all. And we will continue with our work with article 21. Prosecution adjudication sanctions. Only paragraphs 2 and 4 are still pending. Is the committee ready to adopt paragraph 2 as it appears in the current updated draft text? So paragraph 2 of article 21. Are you ready to adopt Paragraph 2 of Article 21? I see no requests for the floor. Everything good? Can we say adopted? Good, adopted. Add referendum, of course. So Secretariat, to the Linguistic and Seherence Group, please. So on to Paragraph 4. Secretariat, Paragraph 4 of Article 21 still. Can the Committee adopt that Paragraph, add referendum? Are you ready to agree on that? Any objections? No? Very good, thank you very much. Agreed, add referendum then. Article 22, jurisdiction. As it appeared in the previous version without any amendment at the closing session, I just need to recall what happened during that closing session and why it was not adopted then. So during that meeting, a number of Member States expressed their concerns on Paragraph D of Paragraph 2 of Article 22. And you have that up on the screen. Others asked for it to be maintained. We wish to note that the principle of territoriality in subparagraph A of Paragraph 1 of Article 22 does not require. that the infringement be entirely committed within the territory of a state for this state to be considered to have jurisdiction. Therefore, the principle of territoriality was used to ensure that jurisdiction applied for offences committed by persons who were not within the territory of a state, but which had an impact within that territory. Subparagraph D of paragraph 2, though, could apply to situations where, because of specificities within an ICT system, the rules of international law governing the jurisdiction of a state are not clear. So, for example, when criminals intercept government data of a state which is stocked on servers in a different state or in a cloud, the link with the territory of the state affected or its nationals is not always clear. And it’s worth noting as well that this provision is not aimed to govern issues of international peace and security, which certain delegations referred to within the concept of cyber security. This question concerns acts described in article 7217 of the Convention, which would fall under the responsibility of member states, as was underscored by a number of delegations. As a convention of criminal justice, though, and I repeat, this is a criminal justice convention, and the aim is, therefore, to combat cyber crime by prohibiting certain behaviours by physical persons, rather than to regulate the behaviour of members. the States. Following this update, these explanations, can the Ad Hoc Committee agree on subparagraph D of paragraph 2 of Article 22 and therefore agree on it at referendum as a whole? Iran is asking for the floor.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I take the floor for our observation regarding the 21.5, because I raised it and it was not noticed. We would like to propose before the international obligation the word applicable, consistent with applicable international obligation. Thank you.
Chair:
Is the Committee ready to agree on this proposal by Iran, on this detail? I think this is, this doesn’t have any consequences, this matter of detail by Iran and it could be agreed upon, I think. Is that okay? Could you repeat and then the Secretariat will note it, please, pursuant to your request, Iran.
Iran:
Line before international obligation, the word applicable to be added in the text. Thank you.
Chair:
Okay. Very good. So, we adopt that with that addition of the word. Thank you very much. And please don’t hesitate to request the floor if we’re perhaps going too fast for you and you don’t need to explain that you press the button and we didn’t see you. Quite simply, everyone has the right at any moment, we are here, and I repeat that, I am entirely ready to listen to each and every one of you right to the end, and you have every right to do so. You’re the Member States and you have the right to go back if you’re not entirely happy or entirely convinced. So, thank you very much. Moving ahead, I’ll come back then to my Article 22. Can we adopt Paragraph D of Paragraph 2 and therefore Article 22 as a whole, is that okay? Okay, Secretariat. Approved ad referendum. Thank you. We have taken note of the various opinions expressed on this whole section. Thank you very much. For the multi-stakeholders, I will give you the floor at the end of this morning on the various parts that we are going to consider during this morning’s meeting. So, thank you very much to the Vice-Chair on behalf of Nigeria, and best of luck in your consultations, and anyone who is interested in Articles 14 and 16, you can see him at 11 a.m. in CRE. We’ll move on now to procedural measures and law enforcement and international cooperation. I asked Ms Brioni, I don’t know if the Secretariat has contacted her, I asked Ms Brioni, I don’t know if the Secretariat has contacted her. to join us at the podium because she is the one that led the informal consultations on this section. But I think that perhaps she’s going to join us a little bit later. Thank you very much, Georges. See you later and best of luck. So we’ll continue to follow the same working method as previously. That is to say we’ll go over all of the provisions of these two chapters that are still pending and we will invite the committee to approve the largest possible number, I hope, at referendum. If you have any objections on the current wording of a particular provision, you can signal that by requesting the floor. But once again, I would like to remind you that we are at the decision-making phase now. And so if you have a strong objection, take the floor, request the floor and say quite simply, I cannot accept this word or this part of a sentence. And then above all, just as Yvonne did earlier, propose the addition or proposal or the wording that you would like to see included so that the committee can accept it or not. That’s how we’re going to proceed. We absolutely no longer have time for lengthy explanations. We have heard all of the positions during these sessions and the concluding session. And now we need to make headway. So I’m going to stop speaking now. Article 23. Scope of procedural measures. Paragraph 4 is being reviewed in an informal format. But the rest of the article remains pending with the exception of paragraph 4. 4. No change, no amendment has been made to the updated draft text. Can the Ad Hoc Committee approve Article 23 ad referendum, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, which remains pending? And welcome to Briony.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. For the sake of saving time, I would like to propose deletion of the word specific in the first paragraph of Article 23, before the criminal investigation is specific to be deleted. Thank you.
Chair:
European Union, please.
European Union:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We oppose the deletion and would like to keep the text as it is. Thank you.
Chair:
Canada. Canada.
Canada:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would also like to keep this open and reserve until we see what happens to the negotiations in the other room on key components that are linked to the scope. Thank you.
Chair:
Okay. Thank you. I’ll give the floor to the Russian Federation, Lebanon and Norway, and then we’ll stop because there are requests from Canada to wait for the end of the negotiations in the other room. Russia.
Russian Federation:
Good morning, Madam Chair. We would also prefer to delete. the word specific from Paragraph 1.
Chair:
Thank you. Lebanon, please.
Lebanon:
Good morning. Actually, we oppose the proposition of Iran and Russia because I think that we should specify that it’s a specific criminal investigation because we are talking about a criminal justice treaty. And thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Norway.
Norway:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, everyone. We would also like to keep the wording specific. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. As Canada requested, asking for us to wait for the results of the informal consultations, we will stop the discussion on these paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article 23 and we will therefore move on to Articles 25 to 28, which were approved, agreed at referendum, leaving Article 29, real-time collection of traffic data. Article 29. There was no amendment made to this article in the updated draft text. Does the Ad Hoc Committee approve of Article 29 as it figures in the draft text on the screen? Any requests for the floor? No. Can we approve? Secretariat, please approve this at referendum. Article 30, interception of content data. In the updated draft text, this article was also not amended. Does the Ad Hoc Committee approve Article 30 ad referendum? Nobody has any objections? Perfect. Secretariat agreed ad referendum. Article 31 to 33 have been agreed ad referendum. We will therefore move on to Article 34, Assistance to and Protection of Victims. Paragraphs 4 to 6 are still pending and no changes have been made to the updated draft text. Are we ready to agree those paragraphs ad referendum? Paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 34. Those are the two parts of this Article 34 that have not yet been approved. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. OK, can we approve?
Iran:
Thank you Madam Chair and sorry to take the floor again. In the end of the first line, the phrase take steps. We would like to delete take steps in these six paragraphs. Thank you.
Chair:
Does the Committee accept this small amendment? The European Union please.
European Union:
Thank you Madam Chair. We would prefer to keep the original text. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much.Oman. Okay, we will leave Paragraph 6 to one side and we will agree Paragraphs 4 and 5, is that okay? Moving forward then, Paragraphs 4 and 5 agreed at referendum and we’ll leave Paragraph 6 for broader consultations, particularly between the European Union and Iran. Thank you very much. Article 36, Protection of Personal Data. This article picks up the proposal from the coordinator of the informal consultations that have been going on since the 6th session of the Ad Hoc Committee and our dear Vice President Ms. Briney from Australia. I have made no amendments to that proposal in the updated draft text. We therefore have Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 36. That is on the screen. And it was considered at length during the informal consultations. Are we ready to adopt these Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 36 at referendum, of course? Russia.
Russian Federation:
Thank you very much for giving me the floor. We have a question on Paragraph 3 of this article. We are not prepared to adopt it in its current wording. We support the previous wording of this paragraph, the drafting of the wording of the chair of the 6th session that was presented at the beginning of the 7th session, where it said that this sort of data can be handed over to third countries and international organizations with written consent. During the informal consultations on this article, that obligation was deleted from the text. During the seventh session, our delegation doesn’t have an understanding of the position of other delegations on this matter from the informal consultations, but we think that we need to set a high level of the protection of personal data. Of course, this was adopted in the interest of the coordinator of the discussions of this article, and we note that paragraph one of the article says that a state party is recommended to conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements in order to facilitate the transfer of personal data. In that regard, integration associations have the right to establish easier conditions for themselves for the transfer of personal data, and therefore we propose returning to the previous drafting of this paragraph three, where it referred to written authorization. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. We will then leave paragraph three for broader consultations. Paragraphs one and two are accepted. Does everybody accept paragraphs one and two? So, we accept paragraphs one and two, agreed at referendum in article 36, and paragraph three remains to one side for the time being. And I will ask our dear Vice-Chair, that has already coordinated the informal consultations, to please agree to continue making the necessary efforts to reach consensus on this paragraph three of article 36. Secretariat, you’re following, right? Just so that we’re not in any error when it comes to the final presentation of all of this. Article 37. Extradition. We still have paragraphs 4, 15, 18 and 19 that are pending. And no changes have been made compared to the previous version of the draft text. So we need to consider the pending paragraphs one by one. Paragraph 4 of Article 37. Are you ready to accept it? There are no objections. Very good. Approved at referendum. Paragraph 15. Are there any objections? Approved at referendum. Paragraph 18. Approved at referendum. Paragraph 19. All OK? Approved at referendum. Secretariat, please send each of the paragraphs that are agreed at referendum, please send them to the Language Consistency Group so that we can make progress. Thank you very much. Article 38. Transfer of Sentenced Persons. This provision was already agreed in informal consultations that were held during the closing session. Can we consider that the Ad Hoc Committee approves Article 38 at referendum? OK. Russia. Good morning, Madam Chair. On 38, we don’t have any questions. We fully agree with it, but I would like to go back to Article 27. We agreed that article. I’d like to clarify. We do have a comment on it. Please go ahead, says the Chair. But I would remind you that if you have an objection to a few words or parts or all of the text, you need to present a proposal, a counter-proposal, so that the Committee can decide. Thank you very much. Russia. Microphone for Russia, please. Thank you.
Russian Federation:
On Article 27, the Russian Federation is concerned by the fact that the provision of Paragraph A of Article 27 still contains a certain degree of risk of it possibly being used for unilateral cross-border access by the authorities of one state to data stored on the territory of another state without invoking the procedure of legal assistance or law enforcement cooperation by turning to the person under whose disposition that data is stored, whose nature and legal status of that person are in no way limited. In that regard… the Russian delegation proposes introducing into this paragraph of Article 27 a clarification, namely, to add to paragraph A, after the words electronic data storage medium, the words located on its territory. And I’ll repeat once again, to add to paragraph A, after the words electronic data storage medium, the words located on its territory. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. I didn’t interrupt you, but here, today, we are only considering the articles and part of articles that are still pending. Now, Article 27 was agreed at referendum. We will come back to Article 27 in the plenary when we go back over the entire text. So, please, I would like to make progress so that we can exclusively look at the articles or paragraphs that are still pending. And when I say Article 34, paragraphs 3 and 4, that’s precisely what we need to be considering because there are consultations, informal consultations, taking place in another room. There are two taking place at the same time, in fact. So, the people who are here have instructions pertaining to those parts that are still pending and only to that. So, I hope that you understand, and I would like to ask each and every one of you to not go back over articles that have already been agreed at referendum. We will come back to that when we consider the entire text, and you will then have an opportunity to explain or to propose your amendment. So, we were on Article 37 on extradition. I apologize, Article 38, transfer of sentenced persons. And I was just saying that Article 38 was agreed in informals that took place during the closing session and that I haven’t added or removed or changed anything in the updated draft text. Does the Ad Hoc Committee approve Article 38 ad referendum? Yes? Secretariat, please note that Article 38 is agreed ad referendum. Article 39, transfer of criminal proceedings. Only Paragraph 1 is still pending and no amendment has been made. Can the Ad Hoc Committee approve Paragraph 1 of Article 39 ad referendum? Paragraph 1 was the only part of this Article 39 that had not yet been approved. Are we prepared to approve it ad referendum? Yes? Very good, thank you very much. Secretariat, please note that. Article 40, general principles and procedures relating to mutual legal assistance. The situation is as follows. The majority of the paragraphs in this Article are still pending and only three were subject to agreement in informals. This Article is worded in the same way as in the new updated draft text of the Convention with one addition, namely Paragraph 22. which is the subject of informal consultations. So, we will go through this article paragraph by paragraph, for those paragraphs that have not yet been agreed. So, we will begin with paragraph 1, which was agreed in informals, but which needs to be agreed formally and officially in the committee. Paragraph 1 of article 40. Is it okay? Can we keep it? Agreed at referendum. Thank you very much. Paragraph 2. I remind you that we are currently examining the paragraphs one by one in article 40. So, paragraph 2. Is that okay? Approved at referendum. Paragraph 3. Are there any comments or objections? Iran.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. In the paragraph 3 of this article, we would like to propose after the subparagraph L, removal of the phrase, removal of criminal content. Thank you.
Chair:
Could you repeat that, please? Microphone for Iran, please.
Iran:
Paragraph L. We would like to propose removal of criminal content.
Chair:
Does the committee accept that amendment from Iran? Okay, we can keep that. The European Union, Switzerland, the United States and then Canada. European Union.
European Union:
Thank you, Madam Chair. No, we do oppose that amendment. We would like to retain the text as it is. We believe it’s been subject to very lengthy discussions and establishes a good balance. Thank you.
Chair:
La Suisse. Switzerland.
Switzerland:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Same goes with Switzerland, what was just said by the EU. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. The United States of America.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The same also for the United States. We would oppose Iran’s proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Très bien. Very good. Albania, please.
Albania:
Thank you, Chair. Also, we like to oppose it to retain the text as it is. Thank you.
Chair:
La Côte d’Ivoire. Côte d’Ivoire.
Côte d’Ivoire:
We would like to keep the text. Thank you very much.
Chair:
It seems that there is no agreement to your proposal, Iran. Therefore, we will keep Paragraph 3 as it is currently in the updated draft text unless Iran is firmly opposed. Iran.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a reservation about this issue. Thank you.
Chair:
Très bien. Merci beaucoup. Very good. Thank you very much. Paragraph 4. Can we approve Paragraph 4? Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 5. of Article 40, Paragraph 5. Are there any objections to the current text? Approved at referendum. Paragraph 6. Can we approve it? Is it all OK? Paragraph 6 is approved at referendum. Paragraph 7. OK, agreed at referendum. Paragraph 8. Can we agree to that? Is that OK? Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 9. Can the committee agree to this at referendum? Is that OK? Secretariat, please note, agreed at referendum. Paragraph 10. OK. Thank you very much. Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 11. Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 12. Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 13. Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 14. Paragraph 15. E, F and G were agreed in informals. Are we ready to agree to the entire paragraph now? Paragraph 15. Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 16. Is that all okay? Is the committee ready to agree to that? Yes. Approved at referendum. Paragraph 17. Is the committee ready to agree at referendum? Yes. Good. Thank you. Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 18. Paragraph 18. Approved. Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 19. Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 20. C’est bon? That’s good. Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 21. Okay. Alors. So, dear Bryony, and I’d like to thank her very much for all her work throughout this session. It’s thanks to you that we are being able to agree this at referendum, so thank you for all your efforts. So, like paragraph 21, there is a country who has requested further informal consultations, Costa Rica, so I’d like to give them the floor.
Costa Rica:
Thank you, Madam Chair. On 21, we don’t have any objection to agreeing on it, to its adoption, but we are just working and negotiating for an addition to 21, some political offences, as we said in the plenary. So, we are continuing to work on that in order to propose it with enough support to the Bureau when we get back to plenary. But we just wanted to say we’re not against 21 per se, but we are asking for it to remain pending because we have a proposal on an addition for an extra sub-paragraph within it. Thank you.
Chair:
The Chair, thank you very much, Costa Rica. We will take account of that, as we have for other delegations, so paragraph 21 is just put aside for now until those informal consultations are completed on it. Paragraph 22 is also, there are also informal discussions ongoing on that, so we’ll leave it aside. Paragraph 23. Paragraph 23. Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 24 Agreed at referendum Paragraph 25 Is the committee ready to adopt this? Yes Agreed at referendum Paragraph 26 Can we agree on that? Agreed at referendum Paragraph 27 Are we ready to agree? Yes I see no objections, so agreed at referendum Paragraph 28 Agreed at referendum Paragraph 29 Are we ready? Yes? It seems so. Agreed at referendum Paragraph 30 Agreed at referendum Paragraph 31 Agreed at referendum And finally, paragraph 32 Agreed at referendum we have been able to agree quite a number of paragraphs in Article 40, almost all of them in fact, for Article 40. So, we can move on to Article 41 on the 24-7 network. No amendments have been made to this article in the updated draft text. Can the Ad Hoc Committee agree on this article? So, Article 41, 24-7 network. New Zealand. I was going to present the paragraphs, but New Zealand, you can take the floor.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Madam Chair. If we could please go to Paragraph 3, sub-para C. We would like to suggest a small technical edit here to be more specific and consistent re-language. So, can we please suggest deletion of collection of evidence, comma, the. So, that would leave in that sub-para the provision of legal information and we would add on the collection of evidence, or. So, it would read, the provision of legal information on the collection of evidence, or. Then we would propose a C, bis, the locating of suspects, or. So, to repeat, it would be a C, alt, the provision of legal information on the collection of evidence, or, then a C, bis, the locating of suspects, or. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
The committee has heard the proposal by New Zealand. Are we ready to agree on that? Paraguay, please.
Paraguay:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We need to analyze that proposal on New Zealand. And we just wanted to suggest something for paragraph 2, and ask the Secretariat to notify the contact points, once again. So that would be at the end, and we’ll notify annually the state parties of the updated contact points at the end of that paragraph. So that was all, thank you.
Chair:
Yes, so we have two proposals, one from New Zealand in paragraph 3, and one from Paraguay in paragraph 2. I suggest that we start by the proposal of Paraguay in paragraph 2, who is asking for this to be done on an annual basis. And you heard the proposal. Can we add that extra precision in paragraph 2 from Paraguay? Iran, and then Russia, please. I would just like you first to talk about the proposal from Paraguay, and then we’ll come back to the one from New Zealand after that. Iran, you have the floor.
Iran:
The intervention is regarding the proposal by New Zealand. We prefer the original language. Thank you.
Chair:
So, on the proposal from Paraguay, are there any reactions? They are just asking for annually to be added, I just recall. Russia, is this on Paraguay’s suggestion? No. So I was asking for the reactions to Paraguay’s suggestion first. Can the committee accept that? Yes? So paragraph 2 has that addition made to it on an annual basis. So the secretariat is asking for a few moments to just draft that and do it according to the normal procedure. So that’s okay, but I note that basically we do agree with that addition on an annual basis or annually or not. The U.S., is this on Paraguay? If so, you have the floor.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. From the U.S. perspective, we believe that this paragraph is really an administrative paragraph and that parties can update as needed, so perhaps not necessarily on an annual basis. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you. Paraguay? Do you understand the concern? Oui. Le Paraguay. Yes. Paraguay, then. Could Paraguay have the floor, please?
Paraguay:
Yes. I do understand that. to notify everybody annually about the updated list, not the countries. So the idea is for an annual circulation of the list of contact points by the Secretariat to the States’ Parties and not the States’ Parties to the Secretariat. So there would be an addition at the end of paragraph 2, saying, and will annually notify the States’ Parties of the updated list of points of contact. That’s our proposal.
Chair:
So if I correctly understood the U.S., though, they were saying perhaps this could even be done every six months since this is an administrative procedure. But I don’t know if that really changes very much if we add annually. The idea is that it could be done perhaps several times a year, this update, rather than having to wait for a whole year to go by, if I correctly understood what the U.S. was saying. U.S., are you strongly against the addition of annual basis? We could, administratively, of course, change or update it every six months or three months as well. The United States. Floor to the United States, please.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Having heard Paraguay’s proposal and understanding that it would be the Secretary General sending out the notification to the contact points, we are okay with their proposed addition of the annual basis in their language. Thank you.
Chair:
Good. So, in principle, we agree. The Secretariat will just contact Paraguay to check exactly on the wording, and we will come back to paragraph 2 with the idea that we do almost all agree on paragraph 2 with the small addition from Paraguay. Paragraph 3. So, you’ve heard the proposal from New Zealand. We have already heard from Iran, who is against that. Russia is asking for the floor.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We don’t really understand the point of New Zealand’s proposal, the meaning of this, of changing this paragraph, because the 24-7 network is created in order to carry out one of the functions of this network, which is the collection of evidence. But providing legal information is something that we can already do in the framework of other paragraphs, as well as the way it’s written now. So we would suggest leaving this paragraph as it is currently worded.
Chair:
So we will leave paragraph three aside for further consultation on this proposal from New Zealand. It’s a minor addition, but which will require further examination. So we will move on to paragraph four, which has been agreed at referendum already, then paragraph five. We’re still on article 41, 24-7 network. Paragraph five. Agreed at referendum. Egypt, please.
Egypt:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, dear colleagues. I just wonder, Madam Chair, whether we had agreed at referendum on paragraph one of this article?
Chair:
Not yet, because I presented the whole article. We’ve had comments on paragraphs two and three. So far we’re on paragraph five. now so but we are working on paragraph 1 before we go to 5. Is that okay Egypt? Agreed at referendum then. Thank you. Egypt. Paragraph 5. Agreed? Yes. Agreed at referendum then. Paragraph 6. United Kingdom.
United Kingdom:
Thank you Madam Chair. With apologies on paragraph 1 of this article the United Kingdom would like to reserve pending the outcome of informals. Thank you.
Chair:
Paragraph 1 is not agreed at referendum upon the request of the United Kingdom. Paragraph 2, we have the addition from Paraguay which should be acceptable but we’re just waiting for the Secretariat to submit the final text to us. Paragraph 3, we will require further consultation on that one. Paragraph 4 has been agreed at referendum. Paragraph 5 as well and now we’re on paragraph 6. Is that okay? Can we agree on that? Agreed at referendum then. And we’ve finished with article 41. We can move on to article 42. International cooperation for the purpose of expedited preservation of stored electronic data. A number of provisions here are still pending and I’ve made just three. changes. Firstly, in paragraph 6 of article 42, I’ve added a new reference to the provisions on non-discrimination in paragraph 22 of article 40 of this updated draft convention text as a further reason for refusal of legal assistance. But this paragraph 22 is also already put aside for further informal consultations itself. Secondly, the expression at the beginning of paragraph 6, in addition, has been added for reasons of form because paragraph 5 is also about grounds for refusal of legal assistance. Then in paragraph 9, I’ve replaced, I’ve used the word period. This is a correction because the previous paragraph 8 of article 42 of the original draft text of the convention provided for a maximum period of preservation, which has been modified into a minimum period of preservation in the revised draft text of the convention before the closing session. So, I suggest that we consider the paragraphs one by one except paragraph 6, which is linked to paragraph 22 of article 40, which has not yet been agreed and where informal consultations are happening. So, we’ll go through the paragraphs of article 42 one by one, starting with paragraph 1. Article 42, paragraph 1. Is that agreed? Agreed at referendum then. Paragraph two. Not yet agreed. Algeria.
Algeria:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a small observation regarding paragraph six on, I mean, paragraph six on article 42. Just a remark to the Secretary that the version in English that we have the edits adding the paragraph 22, but the version in other languages, mainly French, we don’t have it. So that’s if the Secretary can reflect these amendments that have been on the English version on the other versions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much for your comment, Algeria. Secretary, the necessary corrections should be made, please. But I just remind you, Algeria, that paragraph six is placed aside and will be looked at alongside paragraph 22 of article 40. They’re linked. Paragraph two. Can we agree on that? Yes. So agreed at referendum. Paragraph three. Here, I remind you that the chapeau and subparagraph B are still pending. The other subparagraphs have already been agreed at referendum. So we have the chapeau and subparagraph B under paragraph three of article 42. That’s what remains to be agreed upon. Is that OK? Are we able to agree on them now? Agreed at referendum, then. Paragraph four has already been agreed at referendum. We can move on to paragraph five. Agreed. Add referendum. Paragraph 6, we’re leaving aside. Paragraph 7. Can we agree on that? Agreed. Add referendum. Paragraph 8. Agreed. Add referendum. Paragraph 9. Paraguay, please.
Paraguay:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Here, we have a proposal. There is no establishment of a time for the extension of the preservation period, and we would suggest adding how much the extension would be, 90 days, 60 days. So we talk about a period of preservation, but the extension is not laid out. So we would say the same time, 90 days, but we are open to other proposals, but we would just like to specify the period. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. You are right. We haven’t yet decided on the period of preservation, so we will leave Paragraph 9 aside until we decide upon the period of preservation. In that case, we’ve finished with Article 42. Article 43 now, international cooperation for the purpose of expedited disclosure of preserved traffic data. So here, only Paragraph 2 remains pending. And the only amendment I’ve made to this is the addition of a reference to paragraph 22 of Article 40 as a further grounds for refusal. As we did for paragraph 6 of Article 42, we will also leave this aside for now, this paragraph 2, because it too is linked to the agreement on paragraph 22 of Article 40. Article 44. Mutual legal assistance in accessing stored electronic data. Only paragraph 1 remains to be agreed at referendum. The other paragraphs are already agreed. This is Article 44. Mutual legal assistance in accessing stored electronic data. Can we agree on paragraph 1? Yes? Agreed at referendum. Article 45. Mutual legal assistance in the real-time collection of traffic data. And Article 46. Mutual legal assistance in the interception of content data. We will look at these two together. As you know, in the closing session, there were persistent differences between Member States about the use in English of the word shall. This is an obligation, or the word may, which is a possibility. And there were lengthy discussions and we did not make a decision. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 45 and paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the current draft text of the Convention take into account a proposal made by a Member State during the informal consultations. held in Vienna in April 2024. I chaired these informal consultations in Vienna myself, and we discussed these paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 45. Rather than using wording with obligation or possibility, it was suggested that instead, and I’ll say this in English with my bad accent, I apologize. So this is a semi-obligation, shall endeavor, by way of compromise. And this confers upon the Member State an obligation and requiring of them that they will do their very best, they will strive to provide mutual legal assistance for real-time collection of traffic data and for the interception of content data, without prejudice to the result of the internal examination of this request or obligation to provide legal assistance in all circumstances. So, having heard those explanations, can the Committee agree to Articles 45 and 46 at referendum? We have, I see, Iran.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving the floor to me. This article is an important article and the addition of new proposals in Paragraph 1 and 2 of the Article 45 has watered down this obligation for provision of mutual legal assistance in real-time collection. So we prefer removing Endeavor 2 in Paragraph 1 and 2. Thank you.
Chair:
Could you please repeat, so that the Secretariat can note that?
Iran:
Article 45, we propose, because the new addition, I mean Endeavor 2 in both Paragraph 1 and 2 has made the obligations, you know, watered down the obligations. in this important article. So we propose deletion of this new proposal in paragraph 1 and 2. Thank you.
Chair:
Iran, I recall that we had to decide between shall on one side and may on the other. So we need a solution and I chose an intermediary solution, intermediate solution. So we do need to think of coming up with an actual solution. Norway, please.
Norway:
Thank you, Chair. Our preference has been may, but we can accept shall and never. We will not accept only shall. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. I fear that we’re going to spend a very long time again on the preferences between shall and may and I honestly think that my proposal, I mean I’m not firmly attached to my own text, I prefer for the committee to decide, but I do think that in this case the shall endeavor proposal could resolve this. But of course, Iran, it’s up to you as well. Paraguay.
Paraguay:
Thank you, Chair. We would support Norway’s proposal, the use of may. That’s all I wanted to say. Thank you.
Chair:
The Chair, thank you. Malaysia.
Malaysia:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We have initially agreed for the word may, but in light of compromise, we would prefer to retain the original text of shall and never as proposed by Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Malaysia. Is the committee more prepared? Iran, are you really firmly opposed? Because this would allow us to make some progress. Later, thank you. Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Okay, we’ll set that to one side and we’ll probably have to have another discussion of it, this issue of between shall and may, and we’ll keep shall and ever, but thank you. So for the time being, we’ll leave 45 and 46 to one side. So Article 47, law enforcement cooperation. Some paragraphs of this article have already been agreed at referendum, while others have been agreed in informals. Once again, we’re going to go through this article paragraph by paragraph, but keeping that in mind. Can I consider that the ad hoc committee approves paragraphs one, the chapeau, and then 1A, which was already agreed in informals, 1F, the other have been, other paragraphs have been agreed at referendum, and also paragraph two. That’s where we stand. The United States, please.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and apologies as I’d like to return to Article 45. Just to ask a question on paragraph 3C, we’ve noticed the addition or other illegal act and believe it would be helpful to have an explanation of this. It seems that offense, because we have offense there, this addition of other illegal act is not needed. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. I said that we were going to leave Articles 45 and 46 to one side for the time being, so when the time comes, you will get an explanation of that. Are we ready when it comes to Article 47, following the explanation that several paragraphs have already been agreed at referendum and that the others were agreed in informals? We still have to decide on paragraph one, the chapeau. Paragraph 1A was agreed in informals. Paragraph 1F, all of the others above that were agreed at referendum. And then paragraph two. Are we prepared to accept Article 47 and to conclude this article? I can’t see any objections. So, Secretariat, agreed at referendum for Article 47, please. Article 48, joint investigations. The updated draft text takes into account an amendment that was requested by several member states, namely the addition of a reference to crimes established in accordance with this convention. Offenses established in accordance with this convention in line with the approach adopted throughout the rest of the convention. Since this provision envisages measures that are by their very nature voluntary, I hope that we will also be able to reach an agreement on this article. Following that explanation. Offenses established in accordance with this convention. Is the Committee ready to agree to Article 48? Is that OK? Approved. Add referendum, of course. And that means that it gives you the time to consult your capitals, and then I hope to come back to us with good news. Article 49. Mechanisms for the recovery of property through international cooperation in confiscation. Only the chapeau, paragraph 1 and 1A, are still pending. No changes have been made to this version. Is the Committee ready to agree, add referendum to paragraph 1 and 1A? Do we agree? Article 49 is therefore agreed, add referendum. Article 50. International cooperation for the purposes of confiscation. No changes have been made to this article in the updated draft text. However, paragraph 1, the chapeau, paragraph 1B, paragraph 2 and paragraph 7 are pending. All of the others have already been agreed, add referendum. Can we agree to them now? I repeat, that is paragraph 1, the chapeau, paragraph 1B, paragraph 2 and paragraph 7. Is that okay? We can therefore agree to article 50. Switzerland.
Switzerland:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to briefly go back to Article 45 and 46. As already stated in our first statement, we were ready to consider the proposed language as this is already considerable compromise. We were among those delegations that wanted these articles to be entirely deleted. Hence, we once again want to reiterate here that these measures are very intrusive measures. Thank you for giving me the time to quickly go back to those two articles.
Chair:
Switzerland, as I said, 45 and 46 have been set aside for the time being. So we will have informal consultations on those two articles and at that time you will be able to participate with your proposals on that regard. Is Article 50 approved? Paragraph 1, the chapeau, 1B, 2 and 7. Is that okay? Secretary, please note, agreed at referendum. Article 51, special cooperation. No changes have been made to this article, with the exception of a minor change in format. Can I consider that the Committee agrees to Article 51 as it figures in the updated draft text? Article 51, special cooperation. Are we ready? Agreed at referendum. Article 52. Return and disposal of confiscated proceeds of crime or property. Only paragraph 3 has not yet been agreed and no changes have been made to the updated draft text. Does the committee agree to paragraph 3 and therefore to the entirety of article 52? Paragraph 3 of article 52, Paraguay.
Paraguay:
Thank you, Madam President. So what we proposed was a similar drafting to article 57, paragraph 4 of UNCAD, which reads as follows. When, unless the member state, the state’s party decide otherwise, the requested state party can reduce the costs, the reasonable costs it has carried out in the course of investigations or judicial procedure making the provision of goods possible, pursuant to the provisions of this article. The reason for this is that developing countries have a disproportionate expenditure on transnational criminal organizations. If we are unable to deduct costs for the administration of justice, as we do in internal domestic cases in our country, then this would have a great impact on our budget, because much of this property has, it sometimes has a quite high cost associated with it for maintenance. So, our text as proposed would be very similar to article 57 paragraph 4 of UNCAT. Thank you.
Chair:
Dear colleagues, I don’t think that we all here have paragraph 4 of article 57 of UNCAT before us, so I would propose that we leave this article to one side until such time as all the delegations are able to have the precise text, and I would invite you to send your text to the Secretariat that can then publish it on the site. The text of paragraph 4 of article 57 of UNCAT. I know what you’re talking about, but I also know that not everyone has the same expertise as you when it comes to UNCAT, so we’ll wait until we get the text and can look at it. So, article 52. Well, not all of article 52, it’s just paragraph 3. We’re in agreement on that. So, our dear Vice-Chair, you still have a fair bit to do with those few paragraphs and articles that we’ve set to one side, but I do think we have made progress. I’m very happy because we can see we’re approaching the end goal when it comes to this part, to these articles. So, thank you very much. Now, what time is it? It’s quarter to twelve. We will… I’m going to leave the last part for this afternoon, the part on preventive measures, technical assistance, mechanisms of implementation and final provisions. We’ll look at those this afternoon. For this morning, we will give the floor to the multi-stakeholders to address the parts that we have just considered yesterday and today, of course. For the time being, we have requests for the floor from Cyber Society Foundation, Microsoft and Cyber Security Tech Accord. Thank you very much to the Vice-Chair, and we will inform you in due course of the room where the informals with the Vice-Chair will take place, the representative of Australia, on the paragraphs and articles that we left to one side this morning. So, our partners, the multi-stakeholders that are always very aggressive when it comes to the Chair. And I would just share with you the fact that it really is interesting to note, you can really be proud of yourselves, the multi-stakeholders, because I read a very bad article in the Algerian press that was attacking the Chair because the representatives of the private sector were not happy with the Convention. So, you really do have a big audience, even far from these halls. So, I’ll give you the floor. Cyber Society Foundation.
Cyber Saathi Foundation:
Thank you for giving me this opportunity again. Cyber Sati Foundation would like to reiterate its statement that this convention is very critical to combat cyber crime across jurisdictions. The Cyber Sati Foundation expected the substantive provisions to be a lot more robust than what we have now, while so the ten provisions that form part of the convention are critical additions and are in line with the current global trends. There has been repeated red flagging of issues with respect to possible harm to fundamental rights. We’d like to emphasize that while these red flags may be valid with the reduction of Article 5 that was proposed earlier, Cyber Sati Foundation believes that merely apprehension being the basis cannot form the reason for doubting the rationale of the convention. We are in support of the international cooperation measures that have been proposed. I can speak from the perspective of India in saying that we have faced a lot of delays and concerns in terms of international cooperation, data gathering, and support for prosecutions. And we believe, and I speak in the context of Cyber Sati Foundation of course, we believe that the provisions under the convention would help expedite international cooperation, particularly in prosecutions and in investigations. The addition specifically with respect to capacity building in the convention is much welcome and it shows a forward-thinking process and not merely a reactive process. In brief, Madam Chair, I would like to close with supporting the Convention and also the heartening process we have noticed of very positive movement towards a fruitful closure of the Convention in this session and we really hope that this Convention will come to bear in early days. There are a lot of checks and balances built into the Convention and it has been left to each of the municipal laws to capture the same and surely I believe that the sense of balance that would have to play to ensure fundamental rights are protected, to ensure that individual rights are not violated through surveillance or search and seizure processes without due process will be met by each of the nations. Thank you once again for giving us an opportunity. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Microsoft.
Microsoft:
Thank you for the floor, Madam Chair. We appreciate the opportunity that you are giving to stakeholders even if we are aggressive as you say. At its heart, this treaty still remains a data access global surveillance treaty in the guise of a cybercrime one without adequate safeguards to prevent government abuse of power. As you heard from my colleague yesterday, the current text is for a Convention with a practically limitless scope of criminalization that allows for clandestine access to secure systems, extra-territorial exfiltration of data, secret real-time data collection and inadequate safeguards. After the moving of this morning’s agreed paras, we do not see this moving in a positive direction. The Convention will still encourage privacy intrusions worldwide by allowing states to compel service providers to provide personal information, including real-time data collection in secret without adequate safeguards or accountability. Throughout this process, nearly three years of negotiations, Microsoft has raised the alarm bells on articles that allow for real-time surveillance and related references. We continue to object to these articles, and we support states who have called for the deletion of articles 28, 29, along with all references to them. Additionally, it’s critical that states explicitly provide data custodians may notify individuals whose data is being accessed whenever that would not prejudice an ongoing investigation. Otherwise, individuals will be unable to assert their fundamental rights. This transparency is even more important when dealing with electronic evidence where search and seizure often leaves no physical trace. We reiterate that except in narrow circumstances, the public has a right to know when and why governments seek to gain access to their data. States need to ensure transparency and accountability in the conduct of law enforcement authorities. Secrecy should be the exception rather than the rule. On Article 41, as discussed this morning, we support the Costa Rica proposal for including political offenses as grounds for refusal. However, we object the premise that states can use the 24-7 network to collect evidence, and at a very minimum, we believe that safeguards should apply to this article. We support New Zealand’s proposal for Article 41. We must continue to ask countries of the world, specifically democratic nations, does this treaty meet even the minimum thresholds for you to ratify? And frankly, even if it does, we could still not recommend states sign or ratify a convention with such profound negative impacts on the digital ecosystem.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Microsoft, Cybersecurity Tech Accord.
Cybersecurity Tech Accord:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We’ll be brief and say that we support the statement you have just heard from Microsoft, as well as that of the ICC and I suspect the rest of the civil society that will speak after me. With respect to Articles 45 and 46, we don’t believe these should even be retained, let alone made mandatory, and we don’t believe that making them optional greatly helps with addressing the problems that obtain from these, just as we have to say that the adoption of 29 and 30 is a pretty dark moment in this process and takes us a considerable distance away from an agreement that the private sector would find supportable. On 41.1, we have the same issues with respect to the use of the 24-7 network for such an expansive list of activities, and the safeguards article in 24 and the other safeguards provision at a minimum should apply to it, otherwise it should be significantly slimmed down. In that vein, we support the Costa Rican proposal as well as that of New Zealand. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Alliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Alliance of NGOS:
Thank you Madam Chair. Merci Madame la Présidente. Thank you Madam Chair for giving civil society the floor. We appreciate. If ratified, the draft convention in its current state has many vulnerabilities that could be exploited to the detriment of citizens and the private sector. These risks will be evident in national legislation drafting and multilateral cooperation matters. While the current draft convention addresses child sexual abuse material online, it leaves children largely vulnerable to prosecution for dissemination of such material. Ethical hacking, a practice that helps identify vulnerabilities in the cyber infrastructure before they are exploited by bad actors, has yet to be fully protected under the draft convention. The provision on data acquisition by law enforcement from data custodians and the transfer of such data from one jurisdiction to another in the framework of international cooperation would leave citizens vulnerable to human rights violations. We are of the view that the convention should lay out clear boundaries on the data transfer process from data custodians to relevant state actors for investigative purposes. The risks are too high, Madam President, for civil society. We cannot afford a complete reliance on the good faith of state parties to effectively blend this convention provision on data transfer or sharing with other human rights instruments. The convention in its current state lacks provision for reparation for victims of cyber crime. The reference to the reparation is too vague and will be watered down further when it comes to the implementation of such provision. for this week is to see member states and multi-stakeholders come together to address these vulnerabilities and reach consensus on the most poignant ones. Thank you, Madam President.
Chair:
Thank you very much.
R3D:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will also be brief and I also like to support the other statements made by my colleagues this morning. We are indeed aggressive as a civil society that defends human rights because we care and we want to have the best text that is actually useful to protect a lot of the vulnerable groups that we are trying, that is supposed to protect this specific treaty. But anyways, we regret to see that a lot of the highly intrusive secret spy powers are being adopted in these specific chapters without any robust safeguards. The actual draft allows extensive secret surveillance with weak safeguards, posing significant risks both domestically and internationally. Domestically, it permits real-time interception of traffic data for any crime, while counter-interception is limited to serious crimes, which are offenses punishable only for four years and more in domestic laws. Service providers are compelled to assist in these surveillance activities, often under perpetual gag orders preventing notification, even when investigations are no longer jeopardized. Internationally, the draft allows one state to assist another in carrying out such surveillance for serious crimes, forcing companies to comply with foreign surveillance requests also in perpetual secrecy. This lack of transparency and accountability disabilities are recycled for unchecked abuses of power and undermines trust in digital services. We wanted to see the deletion of Articles 29, 30, 45, and 46. Also we want to support the proposal made by the Costa Rican delegation on Article 41. Also we regret to see that this lawless law enforcement cooperation risks human rights erosion. The current wording of Article 47 risks supporting open-ended law enforcement cooperation without detailing the necessary limitations and safeguards required under international human rights law. States shall not use this convention to authorize or require personal data sharing beyond the scope of existing mutual legal assistance treaties. The safeguards established under the MLA and the MLA vetting mechanism, removing these safeguards without providing comparable protections and limitations, invites misuse of the mutual legal assistance framework for abuse and or repression. So we want to propose to limit, if possible, Article 47, 1, and to only include the application of Article 7 to 11. Thank you so much.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. The last speaker on the list is ICC. ICC.
ICC:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you again for the opportunity to share a few comments on behalf of the International Chamber of Commerce, the institutional representative of 45 million companies in over 100 countries. Madam Chair, I’m not sure if we are aggressive, but we are certainly persistent, both in sharing our views and also with agreeing with one another here in the back rows. As I noted yesterday, concerns of the global private sector remain that this convention continues to continue. contain serious flaws, allowing its provisions to be potentially misused to compromise cyber security, data privacy, and fundamental rights and freedoms. The Convention must strike a very delicate balance, and I know this is a hard task, but it must strike a balance to support international cooperation with the law enforcement while effectively protecting human rights, fostering economic development, and ensuring national security. Without significant revisions to the text that we have now, including some of the paragraphs that were adopted at draft today, the current draft risks undermining these critical areas, necessitating a cautious approach from the international community. To help reach this balance, we recommend considering the following revisions. First, focus narrowly on cyber-dependent serious criminal offenses and keep the scope of all provisions of the Convention on offenses established by this Convention. Therefore, we would like to propose to remove references that could broaden the scope of the Convention and its procedural provisions, such as Article 23, Paragraph 2b, and Article 35, Paragraph 1c, as well as references to other crimes in Article 23, Paragraph 2c, Article 40, Paragraph 1, and Article 47, Paragraph 1a. Secondly, we recommend avoiding provisions that could lead to jurisdictional disputes or broad exetorial claims. Therefore, we recommend removing Article 22, Paragraph 2, except for subparagraph b, remove Article 27, Paragraph 1b, and remove Article 28, Paragraph 4. And third and last, we recommend including robust safeguards to protect human rights, ensuring transparency, accountability, and judicial oversight in data access. Therefore, we support wholeheartedly the inclusion of Article 6 and Article 24, and we hope for strengthened language that does not limit the granting of safeguards to domestic law alone. We also hope to see new language in Articles 25 to 28 to recognize that except narrowly defined circumstances, the public has a right to know how governments may access their information. and under what circumstances third parties may be obliged to provide it to public authorities. To allow technology providers an opportunity to challenge demands for data on behalf of their customers, including those based on potential conflicts of law, and ensure legally binding remedies are available to data subjects in the event of a breach of the government access use and attention rules. And last but not least, we would hope to see still the removal of Articles 29 and 32.
Chair:
I’m sorry, the three minutes were up, I’m afraid, so automatically the mic is cut off, but we did understand the gist of what you were saying anyway. As there are now no further names on the list of speakers from the multi-stakeholders, we do still have a bit of time left. I will be suspending the session, adjourning the session very much earlier today. We do have bilateral informals as well, but I just wanted to ask you to check with you whether you had anything to add now. If not, then thank you very much. Have a good lunch break, and we will be back here at 3pm. Don’t forget, Bureau members, that we have a meeting, and then those of you with an appointment with me in the other room, I am at your disposal. Thank you very much, and see you this afternoon at 3 o’clock, when we will continue with the still pending articles and paragraphs.
Speakers
N
New Zealand
Speech speed
116 words per minute
Speech length
143 words
Speech time
74 secs
A
Albania
Speech speed
180 words per minute
Speech length
21 words
Speech time
7 secs
A
Algeria
Speech speed
194 words per minute
Speech length
81 words
Speech time
25 secs
AO
Alliance of NGOS
Speech speed
129 words per minute
Speech length
304 words
Speech time
142 secs
C
Canada
Speech speed
103 words per minute
Speech length
40 words
Speech time
23 secs
C
Chair
Speech speed
115 words per minute
Speech length
6801 words
Speech time
3556 secs
CR
Costa Rica
Speech speed
127 words per minute
Speech length
107 words
Speech time
51 secs
CS
Cyber Saathi Foundation
Speech speed
128 words per minute
Speech length
399 words
Speech time
186 secs
CT
Cybersecurity Tech Accord
Speech speed
147 words per minute
Speech length
196 words
Speech time
80 secs
CD
Côte d’Ivoire
Speech speed
87 words per minute
Speech length
13 words
Speech time
9 secs
E
Egypt
Speech speed
130 words per minute
Speech length
29 words
Speech time
13 secs
EU
European Union
Speech speed
210 words per minute
Speech length
78 words
Speech time
22 secs
I
ICC
Speech speed
170 words per minute
Speech length
514 words
Speech time
181 secs
I
Iran
Speech speed
108 words per minute
Speech length
342 words
Speech time
191 secs
L
Lebanon
Speech speed
160 words per minute
Speech length
40 words
Speech time
15 secs
M
Malaysia
Speech speed
127 words per minute
Speech length
40 words
Speech time
19 secs
M
Microsoft
Speech speed
152 words per minute
Speech length
441 words
Speech time
174 secs
N
Norway
Speech speed
136 words per minute
Speech length
46 words
Speech time
20 secs
P
Paraguay
Speech speed
113 words per minute
Speech length
433 words
Speech time
231 secs
R
R3D
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
401 words
Speech time
182 secs
RF
Russian Federation
Speech speed
134 words per minute
Speech length
505 words
Speech time
227 secs
S
Secretariat
Speech speed
119 words per minute
Speech length
67 words
Speech time
34 secs
S
Switzerland
Speech speed
159 words per minute
Speech length
107 words
Speech time
40 secs
UK
United Kingdom
Speech speed
53 words per minute
Speech length
27 words
Speech time
30 secs
US
United States
Speech speed
149 words per minute
Speech length
175 words
Speech time
70 secs
Z
Zimbabwe
Speech speed
184 words per minute
Speech length
23 words
Speech time
7 secs
Related event
