(7th 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
1 Aug 2024 10:00h - 13:00h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Intense debates mark the ad hoc committee session on ICT crime convention threshold and amendments
During the resumed concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee, member states engaged in intense deliberations over the draft text of a proposed international convention aimed at combating the criminal use of information and communication technologies. A central point of contention was the ratification threshold required for the convention to come into force.
Mexico made a compelling argument for setting the threshold at 60 ratifications, asserting that this would ensure the convention’s broad and representative international support, thus enhancing its effectiveness and universality. This proposal garnered substantial backing from numerous delegations, including New Zealand and Liechtenstein, who underscored the need for inclusivity, especially for smaller states that may need additional time to ratify the convention.
Conversely, Russia called for a lower threshold of 30 states, underlining the pressing necessity for a universal instrument to address the inherently transnational nature of ICT crimes. This stance found support among several delegations, including Iran and Azerbaijan, who contended that a lower threshold would facilitate more immediate global action against cybercrime.
The committee also examined amendments to specific articles within the convention. Article 63 was amended with minor changes and agreed upon, while Iran requested clarifications regarding its content, which aligned with UNCTAD language. Article 64, which deals with the convention’s entry into force, was subject to extensive debate, with Mexico and Russia presenting opposing views on the appropriate ratification threshold.
The preamble of the convention was scrutinized for its wording, with some amendments proposed and others accepted ad referendum. The United States preferred the original text that referred to “cybercrime” over the more descriptive phrase used in the current draft, indicating that the wording of Paragraph 4 was contingent on the ongoing discussions about the convention’s title.
Paragraph 6, which addressed technology transfer, sparked debate, with countries like Iran and the Democratic Republic of the Congo advocating for the removal of the term “if possible,” emphasizing an unconditional commitment to technology transfer.
Vietnam proposed an amendment to the convention’s standard closing sentence to better align with their domestic process for authorizing the signing of conventions. This amendment underscored the need for the convention’s language to be adaptable to the diverse legal frameworks of member states.
The session concluded with several preamble paragraphs and articles still pending resolution. The chair called for informal consultations to address outstanding issues, reflecting the complexity of reaching consensus on a convention with significant implications for international law, cybersecurity, and combating trans-border crime.
The session highlighted the importance of linguistic consistency for clarity in the text and demonstrated the challenges of balancing the urgency of action against cybercrime with the need for inclusivity and sustainability in the long term. The role of the Linguistic Consistency Group was noted as constructive in proposing amendments, and the need for flexibility and compromise in multilateral negotiations was evident.
Session transcript
Chair:
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, it is Thursday, August 1st. We have six working days left. And we’re at the seventh meeting of the resumed 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. If you’ll recall, yesterday afternoon – actually, before I give those clarifications to you, I would call on the Secretary to make an announcement about the informals.
Secretary:
There are informals that are taking place now on Article 2 by South Africa in CRF, and they started at 10 o’clock. And then now, immediately, the Nigerian vice chair will contact informals on Article 14 and 16, and then later this afternoon, at 3 p.m., the Japanese vice chair will convene an informal on Chapters 6 to 9 in CR1. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much to our dear Secretary. I hope you’ve taken due note of the meeting places for informal consultations. We will resume consideration of our updated text, review of the pending paragraphs. There was a little bit of confusion yesterday, and that’s on me because I was seduced by a delegate, if you will. I won’t mention the country, but I was led to understand that there were still some paragraphs needing adoption. That was not the case, however. Article 63 was agreed ad ref. We just have one slight change to paragraph 1, which we also agreed to yesterday. So Article 63 is agreed ad ref. And it’s my understanding now that the delegation of Iran is seeking some clarifications on this article. So I would ask him to ask for those clarifications, or make those clarifications, rather, when we read through the entire draft text. Can Iran go along with that?
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning, colleagues. Regarding Article 65, we don’t have any problem regarding the content. which is the aggregate language of the UNCTAD and there is no problem, just the issue is that as this phrase economic integration organization is considered informal in the article 2 regarding the definition, so we don’t have problem with this article. It was agreed, at the referendum also we check, but let’s check because it is linked with the article 2, we will come back with that, we don’t have a problem with this article. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. So let’s move on to paragraph 64, article 64, entry into force. Can the ad hoc committee adopt article 64 as it appears in the updated text? I have Mexico on the list of speakers, Mexico you have the floor.
Mexico:
Thank you very much Madam Chairman. We understand that yesterday we were all quite overwhelmed, but that notwithstanding there seems to be some uncertainty about the issues that were going to be addressed, so in order for delegates to be properly prepared and to avoid certain confusions as the confusion arose yesterday, let me just refer to some points that we’ve mentioned on a number of occasions with regard to our proposal to increase the ratification threshold for entry into force of this convention. This is not a new argument and the concept of raising the threshold has been supported by more than 66 delegations so far, and we invite all delegations in the room to express their preference on this issue so that the Secretary And the Secretariat can take due note of that in view of the fact that we did not go into an in-depth consideration of this provision. To have a representative and higher threshold, according to one delegation, is not nor should be seen as an artificial obstacle, bearing in mind the fact that we are dealing with a well-structured draft Convention with very high standards, and the threshold of 60 ratifications can be achieved without any significant delay. If we look at this objectively, the benefits of raising the threshold are considerable. The Convention would enter into force reflecting a broader and truly representative representation, if you will, of the international community, and this could have a domino effect and speed up ratification by other members. Broader representation would make it possible for decisions of the Conference of the Parties, including those related to protocols and procedural measures at the COP, would be more inclusive and they’d reflect the concerns and interests of all of our regions. A limited threshold of 40 members, where decisions would be taken with two-thirds of the COP, runs the risk of having future protocols being adopted by a very limited number of delegations, and we’re speaking about perhaps 26 member states out of the entire UN membership, and this could lead to approaches which do not reflect the needs and the priorities of the majority of member states, and potentially this could lead to the failure of the Convention and of its protocols, because it would make the Convention more regionalized and not universal. I think in this process it’s worthwhile pointing out that this threshold is nothing new, because the same threshold was established for the entry into force of instruments negotiated within the United Nations, such as the BBNJ. Moreover, we’ve underscored the fact that the analogy with other conventions such as UNCAC and UNTAC. talk do not fully meet the singular challenges posed by cybercrime. Unlike conventional crimes, cybercrime is developing at an unprecedented pace and it requires a greater level of coordination and international commitment. We would call for a ratification threshold which recognizes the distinct and dynamic circumstances of cybercrime and we would ensure that this convention has a solid basis and a representative basis by increasing the threshold. We are proposing 60 as the threshold and the purpose is to promote a more inclusive, representative and democratic process. Setting a lower threshold will not guarantee the immediate entry into force of the convention and sadly it will not mean that cooperation measures will be effective if we do not have a broad support base where there is the capacity and the determination to exchange best practices and experiences nor to facilitate the onboarding of a greater number of countries. We think we should have a more realistic approach to ensure the effective implementation of the convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Mexico. Dear colleagues, I think you’ve heard a very excellent request and a plea and I’m now giving the floor to Russia and then to Azerbaijan.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, distinguished colleagues. Russia thanks the Chair for the proposal for text on Article 64, paragraph 1, but we still believe the official ratification for entry into force of the convention ought to be 30 states and I’ll explain why. It’s quite clear that the majority of states present here have rather effective national legislation to combat ICTA crime, but from the very first days of the work of the ad hoc committee, we had been saying that we urgently needed in the international community a universal instrument to combat this kind of crime. One of the main defining traits of ICT crime is its trans-border nature. The vast majority of ICT crimes take place across borders, so we need a universal document and we need this document as soon as possible. Therefore, the official ratification of 30 states… would reflect the dynamism in the situation, as well as the fundamental thesis that had been stated by Mexico. That is to say that it would ensure dynamism and responsiveness in the entry into force of the convention. And if the convention enters into force, then that would provide a domino effect, as was mentioned by the delegate from Mexico when the convention enters into force, that would serve as a catalyst for other countries to accede to it as soon as possible. I can’t agree with the idea from Mexico and other states that there needs to be a threshold of 60 states in order to ensure inclusiveness. It’s clear that a number of states, it’s understandable that they’re concerned by the possibility that if the convention enters into force with just 30 or 40 states ratifying, then additional protocols could be adopted with just 2 thirds of the vote. But you don’t have to delve into a discussion about numbers. So what’s the difference between, say, 26 states, that’s 2 thirds of 40, out of a threshold of 40, and 40 countries if the threshold of ratification is 60 countries? Let’s be serious here. If threshold for ratification and ratification without any connotation for the future work of any protocols in a threshold of 60 countries, well, that could seriously slow down the entry into force of the convention. And it would hamper cooperation from those countries that are willing to bring their internal procedures for ratification more quickly and are prepared to begin practical cooperation between themselves. Therefore, I would like to echo calls from the delegate of Mexico to the entire room to actively. express ourselves on how we view these numbers. Russia calls for, using the number of 30 states for ratification, and asks our distinguished colleagues to actively express their opinions on this point. Thank you.
Chair:
WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE THE FLOOR BACK TO RUSSIA? RUSSIA HAS NOT CONCLUDED.
Russian Federation:
RUSSIA THANK YOU. I JUST HAD A GENERAL COMMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO RECALL THE STATEMENT BY THE HEAD OF OUR DELEGATION. ON THE FIRST DAY, WE SAID THAT RUSSIA RESERVED ITS POSITION ON THE ENTIRE TEXT OF THE CONVENTION. THANK YOU.
Chair:
THANK YOU. IT’S NOT GOOD NEWS FOR THE CHAIR THAT THERE ARE ALREADY RESERVATIONS ON THE ENTIRE TEXT, BUT WE’LL GET THROUGH THIS.Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan:
FROM THE PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW, CYBERCRIME IS FASTER THAN COMBATING CYBERCRIME NOW. AND WAITING FOR 60 OR MORE NUMBER OF RATIFICATIONS CAN TAKE YEARS, MAYBE TWO OR MORE, OR FIVE YEARS. AND WE DON’T HAVE TIME TO WAIT FOR THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THIS CONVENTION TO TAKE SUCH A LONG TIME. PROBABLY MAYBE THE TEXT OF CURRENT CONVENTION CAN BE OUTDATED IN THAT TIME. SO WE NEED 40 NUMBER OF INSTRUMENTS, LIKE THE RATIFICATION NUMBER, TO BE THIS CONVENTION TO ENTER INTO FORCE.
Chair:
30 ratifications, which that country has proposed. So in your statements, please indicate that as well. Iran.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding the threshold for entering into force of this convention, we should have a criteria. Why 30? Why not higher threshold? First of all, because we have the established practice in UNCTAD and other important convention. And the second point is that if we consider the content and the subject matter of this convention, which is regarding to the combating prevention and combating the ICT crime, if we set a higher threshold for entering into force, so maybe if, for example, 16 or 15, maybe it takes one decade. And during this time, how it is with this decision, with setting higher threshold, we put the platforms, country’s infrastructure, the people, defenseless against these serious and real challenges of the digital issues. So it would be the 30 threshold for entering into force is also, as I told before, has been set in the UNCAC. So we propose also, we support Russia and Azerbaijan for setting the 30 member states exchange of instrument of ratification for entering into force. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Canada.
Canada:
Thank you for giving us the floor, Madam. This debate goes back a while. It was originally proposed by, I believe, it was a distinguished delegation of Singapore to have a robust number of countries. that would need to ratify this before it came into force. And many countries agreed with Singapore then. I think they set the number around 75. And we would prefer a higher number, but we’re willing to compromise. The Distinguished Delegation of Mexico has made a detailed and convincing case for 60 ratifications. The most important rationale for that is inclusivity. We explicitly disagree with the suggestion to lower it to 30. And we would also question the validity or the relevance of UNTAC or UNCAC for this discussion. Those two treaties were negotiated in arguably less complex topics as cybercrime. They were negotiated some 20 years ago in a vastly different environment. And they gave their states’ parties far fewer powers, less intrusive powers, and had a tighter scope. So I’m not really sure why some delegations think that we can just copy and paste from that context and those particular treaties into something as specific and important as cybercrime in the 2020s. That’s all I’ll say for now. We strongly support the Mexican proposal. We also note that they’ve bothered to actually consult the room, as you urged all members with new ideas, and have found a really strong, critical mass of countries supporting them. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Canada Mauritania.
Mauritania:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good morning, everyone. Turning to the ratification threshold, during our discussions, we called for a threshold of 20 states in order to take account of what had been agreed on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, that proposal was not retained. Given the current proposals, we would like to endorse the proposal by the Russian Federation to set a ratification threshold of 30. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Republic of Korea.
Republic of Korea:
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation supports Mexico’s proposal to increase the ratification threshold to 60 countries. We believe increased threshold will enhance the representative inclusive nature of the convention. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. I’ll read out the list of speakers. Vietnam, Tonga, China, Yemen, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Nicaragua, Belarus, Liechtenstein, Australia, United Kingdom, Monaco. El Salvador, India, Tanzania, Cuba, Kiribati, Colombia, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, United States, Vanuatu, European Union, Andorra, New Zealand, Armenia, Japan, Costa Rica, Singapore, Honduras, Guatemala, Nigeria, Panama, Norway, Kazakhstan, Switzerland, Eritrea, Vietnam.
Vietnam:
Thank you Madam Chair and good morning to our colleagues. With regard to the figures that we are discussing right now, we want to share our thoughts. Madam Chair, a lot of delegation mentioned that 60 would ensure the universality of the future convention. But we know that UNCTAD and UNCTAD have achieved such universalities with the same threshold of 30 and 40. So there’s no doubt I think that 40 would not harm the universality of this convention in the future. But we want to share a story like this. Globally we know that Asia or Asia-Pacific is among the few regions without any international legal frameworks to deal with cybercrime. We all know that Council of Europe started this trend back in 2001. Then the Arab state with another convention in 2010. Then the African Union has their own convention in 2014. We had a declaration back in 2017, and it was a time we thought about having our own regional convention, but at the time, we knew that our friend in New York was starting to discuss a UN convention, so we decided to wait for the UN convention. And we had to wait for now like seven years, and some say, some say they’re saying like we should increase it to 60, and they say like it would not create any problem to get ratification, but we know a real story that for a country, in order to get ratification to UNCTAD, it took like 12 years, because we all know that this convention is related to heavily law enforcement authorities and human rights things, so I think for most of the country, we have to bring it to our parliaments to get approval before we could ratify the conventions. It would take years in order for us to get even 40, not yet 60s. So when we want to change the figures from 40 to 60s, I think the process would get dragged on maybe another five years. And talking about the numbers, I think, Madam Chair, we have to do the math, like we take the number of 66 countries asking for 60, and we discount that figures, the number of countries that already have a treaty in place for them to cooperate, and see who is left without any instrument to cooperate, and then we will see how it would be unfair for a country like us without any international instrument to cooperate with another country. countries, and we see it’s very unfair for a lot of countries already have something in their hand to deny the tool that would be useful for the others. So we don’t want to keep this discussing going on too much, but if we continue this way, I see that it is the issue between the have and the have not, and that would be unfair for a lot of countries. Thank you, Madam Chair. By the way, we support the tax editings right now on the screen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Tonga.
Tonga:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be short. We support Mexico’s proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you for being so concise. China.
China:
Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the threshold for the convention, I think we have to think about the importance of the topic. As the delegate from Mexico mentioned before, ICT crime is developing very quickly, and if we adopt a 60 as the threshold, then the convention will probably take eight to ten years before it actually takes effect. That means in the next eight to ten years, we cannot follow and use convention to fight against ICT crimes, or after the convention takes effect, probably we will be faced with very severe ICT crimes. And this could be interpreted that we choose to tolerate ICT crimes instead of work with each other with great urgency to fight against ICT crimes. We do not hope to send such a wrong signal to the international community. If we’re going to compare with the threshold for other conventions, we are all very clear. For example, for Budapest, five countries, five ratifications are required as the threshold, and BBNJ, we also are very clear. It took 19 years to finish the negotiation, and that shows the topic for the convention is not urgent at all, while for us, our convention, it took us 2.5 years to finish the negotiation. So I think we shouldn’t compare ourselves with BBNJ in terms of the threshold for ratification. So we support lower threshold, for example, 30 countries. Thank you you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you. China, Yemen.
Yemen:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’ll be brief, given the long list of speakers. Some are calling for a threshold of 60, some for 30. I think that the text in the draft resolution is balanced, and we therefore support it. We support a threshold of 40 ratifications.
Dominican Republic:
Thank you, Dominican Republic. Thank you, Madam Chairman. For reasons we’ve already expressed in three or more occasions, I won’t waste the time of the committee by referring to them yet again. We support Mexico’s proposal of 60 ratifications for a threshold. We cannot support Russia. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Fiji.
Fiji:
Good morning, Madam Chair, dear colleagues, dear friends. Fiji supports the proposal by Mexico, as we had earlier communicated in our intervention on Tuesday in this plenary and would like to lend our voices to the many delegations that have stated their reasons. In addition to that, Chair, and just to give sort of, from a domestic perspective and from Fiji’s perspective, Fiji’s a small island developing state with a population of less than a million people. Ninety-five percent of our people are connected online, and there is also a surge of digital transformation and the adoption of digital technologies, and therefore this increases our threat landscape. This is a priority for us. This is not just a number, and we must be considerate of small economies who will need the time to undertake the necessary protocols or domestic procedures. Yes, the cybercrime’s a trans-border in nature, and this will only work when all member states are in a position to ratify this convention and build the necessary capacities in our criminal justice authorities in order to meaningfully implement it. Having it at 60 ensures that we bridge that divide amongst the countries. Madam Chair, just to close, Fiji, as a global citizen, intends to do our part in this collective objective, and we need to ensure that all member states are in a position to do so. Vinaka. Thank you very much, Fiji. Nicaragua. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good morning, dear colleagues. Turning to the number of ratifications, my delegation believes that the entry into force of this convention is extremely important for our countries, particularly for developing countries, so that we can address the misuse of ICT. That being said, our delegation supports Russia’s proposal to have 30 ratifications as the threshold. However, we do believe that, as a possible solution, we could go along with the Chair’s proposal so that we can reach consensus on this point, and we could support 40 ratifications, but not more than that. As Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, China, and others have said, it is in the interest of everyone for this convention to enter into force as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Belarus.
Belarus:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. At the beginning of the first stage of the session, we had said that international cooperation is very important for us. The small states are often single-handedly combating ICT crimes today. And this is growing exponentially. As Vietnam noted rightly, why are we going to be held hostage by another 30 states that will examine the possibility of exceeding or not exceeding? You have the option of exceeding or not, but not us. You must not slow down the convention, slow down its entry into force for us. So 30 ratifications we believe would be ideal, and we would agree. to 40 as well. But it’s very clear, as Russia has said, that we see urgency and need to be quick. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Liechtenstein.
Liechtenstein:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Liechtenstein wants to support the Mexican proposal on setting the number of ratifications at 60. And I would like to thank the Mexican delegation for the very detailed argumentation, which was very convincing, at least to me. But I also want to especially thank Fiji for bringing in the view of a small state. And I want to add to that a little bit more insight on what kind of problems we could be facing. So a higher number of ratifications is especially important for us as a small state because it might take us a little bit longer to ratify such a convention. We just naturally have certain resource restraints in implementation, in ratification. Our parliament is small, has a lot of work to do, and meets only 10 times a year, for example. So it all might take a little bit longer, at least in Liechtenstein as a small state. And with a higher number of ratifications, we can ensure inclusivity in the future work of the COP and have at least a few small states at the table when decisions are taken in the COP. And the COP will decide on a few very important issues early on. I mean, for example, what comes to my mind is the modalities of a potential future review mechanism. We have a natural interest in ensuring that such a mechanism also takes into account the limited resources of small states and that they are not forgotten. That’s why we think a higher number is beneficial for at least the small states. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Merci. Liechtenstein, Australia. Thank you, Australia.
Australia:
Thank you very much, Chair. I won’t go into too much detail because so many have eloquently spoken before me. I agree wholeheartedly with the Mexican proposal and the points around inclusivity that have been raised. I think despite one state’s reservation, we at least are aiming for consensus, and if agreed by consensus. I think this shows that we are all open and intending to move forward with this convention. Even those of us who do have other avenues to cooperate don’t have avenues to cooperate in the universal way that this treaty would provide. So like Fiji, like Liechtenstein, Australia does take a bit of time to ratify and get things through our parliament. I don’t think we are the only ones. And we really do want to be a part of this conversation going forward. We have seen that we have built a lot of trust in this group over the two years because of how inclusive we are, how many countries are sitting in this room right now. And I think by raising the threshold of ratification, it helps us bring that level of trust and inclusivity into our future conference of parties. So Australia supports the Mexican proposal to increase to 60. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. UK.
United Kingdom:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We’d like to thank Mexico for their proposal and their very helpful explanation. In our view, a threshold for entry into force of 60 would send a powerful signal about the inclusivity of this convention, and it would also encourage a larger number of states to make the necessary arrangements to ratify this convention. A threshold of 60 would make the convention both more inclusive and more universal, which are key to its effectiveness. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Monaco.
Monaco:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Here I’d simply like to express our support for the Mexican proposal for all of the reasons already expanded upon by small and large delegations before me. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. El Salvador.
El Salvador:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I’m very pleased to speak to all the delegations here. El Salvador would echo the comments made by the delegation of Mexico. We wholeheartedly support the increase in the number of ratifications for the entry into force of this convention from 40 to 60 states. Similarly, for my delegation, it is important for this convention – I’m sorry, says the Speaker, it should – it’s important for the convention to have a considerable number of ratifications in order to implement assistance and international cooperation measures. They will be essential to ensure correct operationalization of the provisions. The number of 60 instruments of ratification is a considerable number of the UN membership, and in view of the importance which the majority of states have given to our ad hoc committee we have no doubt that we will quickly achieve that number of 60 ratifications. It will also help promote the process of necessary training under the convention before us. Thank you very much, and have a good day. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, India.
India:
Thank you, Madam Chair. So we have heard some of our colleagues who have been supporting the idea of increasing the ratification number to 60 from the present 40 as you proposed. Our, Madam Chair, we are still not able to understand the logic behind increasing this number. If the real objective is to quickly bring into force this convention, then we need to be in fact bringing down this number rather than increasing the number. Now going by their logic, if it takes about five to six years for this convention to get ratified, there will be several new cyber crimes and this convention will simply become ineffective in handling those cyber crimes. And Madam, as a law enforcement practitioner, I am aware of the problems that these common people face every day because of the increasing cyber crimes and because we simply do not have any instrument by way of which we can have any international cooperation. And therefore, Madam Chair, we would support the proposal as put forward by you to either keep it at 40 or possibly to bring it down to 30. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Tanzania.
Tanzania:
Madam Chair, my delegation supports your text. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Cuba.
Cuba:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We would support the 30 ratification threshold because my country believes it is crucial for this convention to enter into force quickly. But we could also accept your proposal, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much.
Kiribati:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be very brief. I support the proposal by Mexico for reasons that have been elaborated by Mexico and other states before me. And just to echo that, if we are to be driven by Russian ratification and not build on principle of inclusive… cooperation, and shared decision-making. Perhaps we will ask ourselves then how are we going to address and closely work together to address this cross-border issue. Yes, the majority of states represented in this room know the impact of cybercrime, and it will be not in our shared interest to track the entry into force. So I will leave this question for distinguished delegates in the room, but I wish to reiterate Quilibet’s support in increasing the number to 60. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup, Columbia. Thank you, Columbia.
Colombia:
Gracias, Senora President. Thank you, Madam Chair. We support the proposal by Mexico. We have already said this before. We believe that this proposal will allow us to attain universal ratification. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup, Indonesia. Thank you, Indonesia.
Indonesia:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Indonesia believes that the current dynamic landscape of cybercrime requires us to work steadfast in responding to that crime. So we believe that we do need to delay the entry into force of the Convention by setting higher threshold into 60 or even more signatories. We have clear and best reference in the UNCTAD. Our experience with this instrument has shown that the threshold on the number of ratification that was set by these two Conventions, in fact, ensure inclusivity and universality. With that, my delegation can support 40 ratification as proposed in the current text, or if the majority wish to support 30 ratification, it’s even better and we can support it as well.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup, Zimbabwe. Thank you, Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe:
very well when we started this particular process. I could read the agents in the voices of delegations, the interest of ensuring that we come up with a legal instrument that would cap this particular crime. It is actually shocking to my delegation that all of a sudden that particular zeal is dying down. I thought the sense of agent that we expressed from the inception should translate into force of this particular instrument as soon as possible. Why this contradiction from the early agents, sense of agents, zeal to this kind of low level? Accordingly, my delegation supports a low threshold of 30 for the entry to force of the instrument. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Les Etats Unis. Thank you, United States.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. As we sit here representing our countries in this forum, I am reminded that all of our nations are also represented in Paris for the Olympics. That is top of mind because unlike those events, entry into force of this treaty should not be a race or a competition to see who can get there first. What I’ve heard from a number of delegations as we’ve been listening carefully is that no one wants to be left behind, that there are countries for whom it may take longer or shorter to bring this treaty into force, and we do not want this treaty to be another regional instrument or a treaty that is only for those who are the first to cross the finish line. That does not mean there is not urgency to bring this treaty into force, but it does mean that we need to have the confidence that our work here will be a success, that we will reach consensus, and that we are building a treaty that will last and that will be effective to combat cybercrime for more than a few years after we have completed our work. If we do not believe that this treaty will be relevant in five years, when some countries believe that it may enter into force depending on the number of ratifications, then we will not have succeeded next week. This treaty should be a treaty that is relevant for the next 20 years, for the next 40 years, for the future of the United Nations. And I believe that we have built a treaty that is technology neutral, that has broad cooperation provisions, and that will hopefully have the full range of safeguards and other measures that are required to have the confidence of all member states that it is a treaty that they can join. And having a threshold for ratifications of 60 or even more would also highlight the confidence that this committee has that this is a treaty for everyone. And highlighting that confidence, emphasizing the universality of this instrument, may actually accelerate the process of ratification, because more countries will be able to bring this treaty with confidence to their ministries, to their parliaments, to their governments, and tell them that it is a treaty for everyone. So it is not a numbers game. It is not a question of the first to 40 or the first to 60. It is a question of how do we inspire the confidence of all member states that this is a treaty for them. And we believe that the Mexican proposal to raise the number of ratifications is a strong message that this is a treaty for all member states. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Vanuatu. Thank you, Vanuatu.
Vanuatu:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good morning to all distinguished delegations. Vanuatu echoes the statement by the U.S. to say that this treaty is for everyone, and therefore strongly supports the proposal so eloquently delivered by the esteemed delegate from Mexico. Vanuatu found that justification compelling. The number of ratifications should be 60. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, EU.
European Union:
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will simply flag the support of the EU and its 27 member states for the proposal by Mexico. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Thank you, Andorra.
Andorra:
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be very brief. I thank Mexico for their proposal and we support it, as do many other delegations who spoke very eloquently on this topic, that is the 60-state threshold.
Chair:
Thank you very much, New Zealand.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and we thank Mexico for their proposal and the very clear explanation as to why a higher number of ratifications for entry into force is important and necessary for this convention. We certainly do not see a higher ratification threshold as in some way denying access to the instrument. Indeed, Mexico described why the opposite is true. The purpose is to ensure broader adoption, which is the best way to make this convention an effective one. I think the distinguished delegate from Fiji also gave a very good explanation on this from the perspective of a smaller state, and I strongly support her remarks. We would have preferred a higher threshold, but we think Mexico has sought to introduce a reasonable position and we strongly support their proposal of 60 ratifications. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Armenia.
Armenia:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding the proposal made by Mexico during the seventh session of the Ad Hoc Committee, Armenia stated that it sees the merit and the rationale behind the proposal and could extend its support. We would like to underline that we remain consistent with that position and will find it the preferable way forward. Nonetheless, Madam Chair, this is the reconvened concluding session, and we believe that all parties, and I repeat all parties, should make their utmost effort to show flexibility in the remaining outstanding issues in order to reach a consensus. In this regard, Armenia, in the spirit of reaching a consensual document, and again stressing about consensual document rather than an article, we could also consider the current draft proposed by the Chair. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Japan.
Japan:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be brief. Japan also supports Mexican proposal. The increased number could make this United Nations Convention more universal, inclusive, also relevant for a long period. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Costa Rica.
Costa Rica:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Distinguished delegates, 60 is less than one-third of the UN membership, and we therefore believe that it is a reasonable figure required for entry into force of this future convention, and based on that principle, we’ve supported the Mexican proposal. Thank you to Mexico. Thank you, Chairman.
Chair:
Singapore. Thank you, Singapore.
Singapore:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. Singapore had, at previous sessions, called for a ratification number that is higher than the current number of signatories to the Budapest Convention, which is, as we know, the main point of reference regarding binding international agreements governing cybercrime. The rationale for this approach was to show that the UN Cybercrime Convention enjoyed a much broader cross-regional support, and this was the main rationale as well, if members would recall, for why we had the discussion at the UN, and that led to the decision of 74-47. However, we have followed the conversation on this topic closely, and Singapore shares the view that 60 ratifications for the entry into force of this convention is a reasonable compromise for all delegations, and therefore we support Mexico’s proposal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Honduras.
Honduras:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good morning to the entire membership. As the distinguished delegate of Mexico has clearly stated, the issue of the threshold is nothing new. For me, the necessary representative threshold should not be an obstacle, but it should ensure representation and trust, and we believe that the threshold as proposed by Mexico will help ensure a robust convention and help bolster universalization. We support Mexico’s proposal, and we’ve said that on previous occasions. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Guatemala.
Guatemala:
Thank you, Chairman. Guatemala has listened carefully to the proposals about the number of ratifications required for entry and divorce of the document. My delegation believes that Mexico has put forward a well-founded proposal, and we therefore support it along with other countries. We believe that 60 ratifications provides a balance between universality and the entry and divorce of the convention. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Nigeria.
Nigeria:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. At the outset, Nigeria believes that the proposal by Mexico, especially the arguments about the dynamic nature and importance for countries to continue to combat this crime appear to be the strongest argument of all, and to my delegation, that argument is actually in favor of an earlier entry into force of this convention. We do think that if we believe that this challenge is something that requires urgent attention, then there should be urgency in ensuring that member states have a platform to cooperate to address this crime, and I think it was a Zimbabwean colleague who actually questioned where the urgency, or where have we lost the urgency and the enthusiasm to move forward as quickly as possible, having spent the last three years negotiating these documents. And also, Madam Chair, the point about the COP having fewer member states that will take far-reaching decisions, yesterday when Nigeria made intervention about possible protocol, we had proposed that that such a protocol, when negotiated by this other committee, may not go to a COP unless it is adopted either by consensus or overwhelming majority of member states. And that will address the concerns by some member states that fewer members of COP, if this convention gets into force, may be taking that decision. And more so, Madam Chair, there are no situations where countries would sign up or ratify a treaty at the same time, because there are different legal systems in place. But if we think that this convention is as important as we claim in this room, then it behoves us to actually make sure that it’s made a priority in our states to ensure that it is ratified and we can cooperate as much as possible. So, Madam Chair, Nigeria would like to endorse your proposal to keep this at threshold of 40 in line with UNCAC and Joint Talk. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Panama. Thank you, Panama.
Panama:
La Delegation Panama. The Delegation of Panama would support the Mexican proposal because we believe that in point of fact it will guarantee inclusivity and representativity of our states. Thank you, thank you.
Chair:
Norway.
Norway:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Norway support the Mexican proposal to increase to 60 ratifications. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Kazakhstan. Thank you, Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We all understand that the international instrument that we are discussing is needed as soon as possible. That’s why we support the threshold of the 40 countries proposed in the updated draft text. Countries proposed in the updated draft text. Countries proposed in the updated draft text. The specified. This threshold seems acceptable to us. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Switzerland.
Switzerland:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Switzerland supports the Mexican proposal and we would like to thank the Mexican delegation for the convincing arguments and also the delegations of Fiji and Liechtenstein. Thank you.
Chair:
Eritrea.
Eritrea:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Taking into account the urgency of the issue, Eritrea is in favor of the Russian proposal. We could also accompany you with the text that you propose, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Gracias. Malaysia.
Malaysia:
Thank you, Madam Chair. In advocating for the threshold of 40 ratifications for the entry into force of the UN Convention against cybercrime, Malaysia is of the view that it is essential to highlight the urgency and practicality of this approach in addressing the growing global threat of cybercrime. A lower threshold will enable quicker implementation and more immediate global action. With the increasing frequency and sophistication of cybercrime, it is imperative to establish a global framework promptly. A threshold of 40 ratifications will expedite the Convention’s entry into force, enabling the international community to respond more effectively and urgently to cybercrime. In conclusion, Malaysia supports the threshold of 40 ratifications. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Morocco:
Qatar supports the Mexican proposal to increase the threshold to 60 ratifications before the entry into force. Thank you very much.
Qatar:
Qatar supports the original text from the Chair, stating that we need 40 ratifications for the entry into force, just like the case of the UNCRAC and the UNTOC. Thank you.
Montenegro:
Thank you, Madam Chair. As we stated before, we give our support to the proposition of the Delegation of Mexico regarding increasing the number of ratifications needed for the entry into force of the Convention. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Bosnia-Herzegovina:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Bosnia-Herzegovina supports the proposal by Mexico that contains a change to Article 64, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Laos:
Thank you. Laos. Thank you, Laos. Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation supports your proposal, suggested in the draft. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Syria.
Syria:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, in the previous session, we have already supported that the threshold for the entry into force is 30 states, but in order to support the Chair and her proposal in the updated version, we also supported the new figure. in a previous intervention as a compromise between the two different extremes of points of view. However, to re-put the issue to discussion and some asking to increase it to 60, that prompted us to take the floor, and that’s why we would like to support the Russian Federation proposal to go back to 30. And as a compromise, we could accept the chair’s proposal at 40, but nothing more.
Chair:
Thank you very much indeed, Thailand.
Thailand:
Thank you, Madam Chair. My country supports your proposal as drafted, but as I mentioned earlier, that we attach great importance to the adoption of the convention, because we see that to fight cybercrime, which is a matter of urgency, we can be as flexible as possible. So I can go along with the number that has the consensus, but first, I believe we need to exercise our flexibility to reach it. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Namibia.
Namibia:
Thank you, Madam Chair, a very good morning to you and to the fellow delegates. At the onset, Namibia wishes to express its support for 30 ratifications as proposed by Russia. Our delegation submits that this approach strikes a crucial balance between urgent implementation and broad representation. The evolving nature of ICT-related crimes demands swift action. A threshold of 30 ratifications will enable this convention to enter into force expeditiously. Madam Chair, we also wish to draw the committee’s attention to the principle of effective multilateralism. A lower threshold does not diminish the convention’s legitimacy, rather it enhances its efficacy. While a higher number of ratifications might seem to provide greater legitimacy, it is the convention’s ability to address real-world problems that truly matters. It is important to note that a lower ratification threshold does not prevent broader participation. Countries can still accede to the Convention after it enters into force. My delegation also wishes to emphasize that early entry into force would facilitate timely capacity building and technical assistance, particularly crucial for developing nations in combating cybercrimes. In conclusion, Madam Chair, setting the threshold to 30 ratifications allows for timely implementation while maintaining the spirit of inclusive multilateralism. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you. Uganda.
Uganda:
Thank you, Chair. Uganda appreciates the current trend of crime, the evolving nature, and the ever-increasing, the ever-changing face of crime. The longer we wait, the more the victims look up to us for answers, with more questions and less answers. And unfortunately, when it comes to the world of crime, we may never know who the victims will be tomorrow or the other day. Any of us could be a candidate for that. I call upon the room to know that the borderless nature of crime, also cybercrime, makes it more urgent for us to take decisions that will help us to fight crime globally in a manner that promotes rule of law. Uganda supports the text as it is. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Egypt.
Egypt:
Egypt supports your proposal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Georgia:
Thank you. Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Georgia supports Mexican proposal. We believe inclusivity and higher legitimacy greatly outweigh the needs of urgency, and coming from a small state, we can relate to what Fiji and Liechtenstein have stated. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, South Africa.
South Africa:
Thank you, Chair. South Africa supports the ratification threshold of 40, as drafted. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Bolivia.
Bolivia:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. My delegation believes that the entry into force is important and necessary, and we therefore support Russia’s proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Albania.
Albania:
Thank you, Chair. Albania also supports the proposal of Mexico for increasing the number of ratification. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Chile.
Chile:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Our delegation wants an inclusive convention, and we therefore support Mexico’s proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Nepal.
Nepal:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Nepal supports Mexico’s proposal to set the number of ratifications at 60. As a federal democratic republic, Nepal truly values its people and their public opinion as a crucial element of our foreign policy. Therefore, we first try to address this national urgency. We believe that significant conventions as this one will invite diverse views and require broad consensus nationally. To ensure a truly democratic and inclusive process, we recognize the need for adequate time, resources, and capacity. Therefore, we fully support Mexico’s proposal for 60 ratifications for entry into force of this convention. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Lebanon.
Lebanon:
Thank you, Madam President.Thank you, Madam. We’ve listened closely to the divided views here, and although Lebanon supports the arguments of delegates endorsing Mexico’s higher threshold, we support your proposal as a balanced and consensual approach. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Lebanon. DRC.
Democratic Republic of the Congo:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. We have followed the statements made by other states closely, and we have the following comments. legal instrument is not dependent on the number of ratifications but on the content, and the content should be the least controversial and most consensual as possible. There are legal instruments where the number of ratifications was even higher, but today the implementation of those instruments are still facing serious problems. Doctors say that you must never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. The entire world is facing a new emerging threat against the very heart of our countries, our systems. I’m referring to cybercrime, and as we are here in this room, the DRC is dealing with the negative impact of cybercrime because the jamming of our airport systems in the east of the country is posing a threat. It’s a threat not just to our countries but to all countries in the United Nations, and we need to acknowledge this new reality, this new threat. Given the urgent nature of this situation, we need urgent responses, and we therefore support a threshold of 40, which we do not see as weak but rather reasonable. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sri Lanka supports the text as drafted, and we remain flexible on the number of ratifications in the spirit of consensus. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Brazil.
Brazil:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Brazil supports the current text. At this point, we believe that 40 is a balanced number. Thank you.
Chair:
Senegal. Thank you. Senegal. Microphone for Senegal, please. Microphone for Senegal.
Senegal:
We believe that the international community’s efforts to fight cybercrime, in particular attacks against women and children, is so urgent that we think a threshold of 40 is sufficient. 40 could serve as a compromise between the two proposals, primarily Russia’s proposal of 30 and Mexico’s of 60. Thank you. Thank you.
Chair:
Papua New Guinea.
Papua New Guinea:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Papua New Guinea has listened to a number of speakers before us. We have also listened to Mexico and the United States. We’d like to support Mexico’s Mexican proposal at 60 ratifications. However, we are flexible to Madam Chair’s 40 ratifications as well. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Israel.
Israel:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Israel believes that for the Convention to enter into force, a broad number of countries, at least 60, is required and reasonable. Rushing the process will not achieve the intended goal. It is crucial that this Convention be as global as possible. Therefore, it is important that more countries accede to the Convention after careful consideration. Entry into force with a large number of countries will indicate that this is relevant on the global stage and will continue to be so for many years to come. Thank you.
Chair:
Ecuador. Ecuador.
Ecuador:
Madam Chairman, good morning, colleagues. Ecuador supports the proposed 60 ratifications for entry into force. My delegation believes that a number of factors play into ratifications, and we believe that the higher threshold will ensure greater inclusion and will facilitate broader inclusion of States parties before the first COP. This will reflect a significant agreement and it will have a real impact on our joint efforts to combat cybercrime. It will ensure greater legitimacy and stability in decisions that have been adopted, ensuring that our policies implemented will have more robust support and a stronger commitment from the international community.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Chad.
Chad:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. To ensure that this Convention has the broadest support possible is really and will reflect the global commitment. My country supports Mexico’s proposal. It is an inclusive approach that will bolster the effectiveness and the efficiency of this Convention.
Chair:
Germany. Thank you.
Germany:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Germany aligns itself with the statement of the European Union. In our national capacity, we would like to add the following. Our aim is to agree on an inclusive, universal Convention in the fight against cybercrime. We therefore believe that the number of 60 ratification strikes the right balance. We equally would like to support what has been eloquently said by the delegate of Fiji, which even not coming from a small island state holds a lot of truth for us. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Burkina Faso.
Burkina Faso:
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Given the solid arguments put forward by the Russian Federation and many other delegations, the delegation of Burkina Faso would like to see this convention enter into force sooner. We are flexible and we support the threshold of 30 ratifications. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Iceland.
Iceland:
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. Iceland would like to lend its support to the proposal from Mexico. Iceland is a fairly small state. I am here, the delegation of one, trying to cover three rooms at the same time as an example. So this is a very important capacity issue. So we would like to support what has already been stated by Fiji and Liechtenstein, our fellow small in size but big in heart states. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Sudan.
Sudan:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve heard the proposals made and the justifications on the reduction of the number of ratifications. This has been mentioned by many delegations. There is a dire need to combat cybercrime and to reinforce cybersecurity. This is an issue that the entire world faces. We also need to protect critical infrastructure such as energy infrastructure. And indeed, the reduction of the number of ratification contributes to that. This can enhance our trust in cybersecurity and this can reinforce our economy. And in this regard, this can also pave the way to the reduction of transborder crime, increasing our ability to enforce the law and put an end to legal gaps, especially for countries that don’t have current laws on cybercrime. These are the justifications that have been mentioned by many delegations. We think that they are quite legitimate. This, however, does not preclude the fact that we take into account what other countries have mentioned, namely on the need to increase the ratification threshold. And since we’ve heard all delegations, we are flexible and we’re here to cooperate. We’re not here to compete. And our main goal is to achieve our goals. Therefore we consider that your proposal, Madam Chair, is well-balanced and therefore we wish to support it. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Cabo Verde.
Cabo Verde:
Good morning, Madam Chair, everyone. Cabo Verde supports the test as it stands. We understand the issue of universality, but in the spirit of consensus, we are satisfied with the number of 40 ratifications because we emphasize the urgent need to start fighting cybercrime more in a world in which technological advances and the digital world are increasingly gaining space and life. Greater universality would only be achieved above 100 ratifications. I believe 40 is a reasonable number. Therefore, I think that all states must do differently in this different situation. They must assume the special commitments that this matter poses and not remain in what is the current normality of each state. I remember that the convention itself already provides for close cooperation between countries, for training, exchange, and sharing of experience, transfer of technology to achieve the implementation of the convention. We must effectively be united nations and unite in the fight against these types of issues. It’s urgent that this matter receives urgent and special treatment, so we continue on this idea that the quicker we can have this convention, the quicker we can be more effective in this fight. Obrigado.
Chair:
Obrigada. Jamaica.
Jamaica:
Thank you Madam Chair. Jamaica, on behalf of CARICOM, has been consistent in its support for 40 ratifications being required for the entry into force of this convention. We have listened to the submission of distinguished delegates on behalf of their member states and CARICOM notes that 40 would be a reasonable and balanced number in light of all the issues that have been raised by the various member states. We have considered resources and other issues that the small developing member states of CARICOM are facing or have faced, or we may have, and we have also considered that some member states are parties to other regional instruments which they can utilize. Several member states of CARICOM are not parties to any other regional instruments, so this treaty is what we will be relying on for international cooperation in cybercrime. Now we have looked at other criminal justice treaties similar to this one and 40 member states, 40 ratifications seems to be the sum that is consistent with criminal justice treaties. I note that there has been comparisons made by other member states in respect of BBNJ which requires 60 ratifications. However, BBNJ is not a criminal justice treaty. The issues being treated within BBNJ are significantly different from that which is being treated within this convention. In light of all I’ve stated above, CARICOM reiterates its position of its support for the text as is for 40 ratification. Thank you Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much CARICOM Djibouti.
Djibouti:
Thank you Madam. For our delegation, a threshold of 30 ratifications would help speed up implementation of this convention and that would be welcome news because it will ensure greater inclusivity subsequent to that and we therefore support the proposal to have a 30 ratification threshold. We are however flexible and are prepared to go up to 40. We believe that for reasons of flexibility somewhere between 30 and 40 would be a reasonable threshold. Thank you.
Chair:
Cote d’Ivoire.
Cote d’Ivoire:
Thank you Madam Chairman. Côte d’Ivoire supports the threshold of 40 ratifications as currently stands in the draft. We believe that this figure is quite inclusive, balanced, and consensual. Thank you. Côte d’Ivoire, Republic of Moldavia, thank you. We support Mexico’s proposal behind increasing the number of ratifications as exposed by many other delegations. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Angola. Thank you. Angola.
Angola:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Angola supports the current pace. Obrigado.
Chair:
Merci.Bangladesh. Thank you.
Bangladesh:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Bangladesh support your proposal of 40. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you. Bulgaria.
Bulgaria:
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Bulgaria also supports Mexico’s proposal to set the ratification threshold at 60. We believe that this will lend greater legitimacy to the Convention and will make it more inclusive. If we look at prior international legal instruments like UNCTAD, UNCAC, and the ICC statute, we will see that the required number of ratifications was not directly related to how quickly these instruments went into force. Therefore, we’re not convinced by the claim that a higher threshold would go against the cause of urgency, and we believe that it would be important to make the Convention more inclusive and add greater legitimacy to it. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Sierra Leone.
Sierra Leone:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sierra Leone reiterates its support for a threshold of 40 as proposed. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you. Rwanda.
Rwanda:
Thank you, Madam Chair. After considering the various opinions and views from distinguished delegates here present, it leads us to the following statement. If we need to speak out for the victims of cybercrimes through an international instrument, then we need a minimum number of ratifications, which is not a barrier to subsequent states that may need to join the instrument. But if states find other political considerations, then more ratifications will be needed. So the threshold depends on who is at the center of our focus in this meeting. Is it the victims or political interests? So Rwanda supports a lower threshold, not numbers, because it may bring delays and entry into force. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Venezuela:
Madam Chairman. In principle, Venezuela would repeat its request of two days ago, namely that the convention enter into force as soon as possible. And of course, in principle, we supported the proposal of 30 ratifications for entry into force. We believe that a prompt entry into force will help motivate other countries to ratify as soon as possible, given the urgent need to address cybercrime. We believe that if the convention enters into force, it will be helpful to countries which do not have any other similar type of legislation, and that would provide a balance. We’re flexible on the number of 40, and we’re convinced that on this and other points, which may be controversial and which we are discussing, you quite wisely will be able to propose balanced language. And ultimately, that will be the key for us concluding our work as soon as possible. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Mozambique. Thank you.
Mozambique:
Thank you, Madam Chair, we would like to join other member states that, after listening to the elements and the arguments on speed and urgency, but also on the inclusiveness of this process, are supporting the current text, as drafted by Madam Chair, of 40 states for ratification. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you, Portugal.
Portugal:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union, and in our national capacity we would like to reiterate what we’ve stated in our first statement. We support the Mexican proposal on expanding to 60 the number of ratifications for the Convention to enter into force. Thank you.
Chair:
Tunisia.
Tunisia:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Tunisia supports your proposal. We think it is the best one which will meet the imperatives of inclusivity and universality, and also address the urgent need to have an international convention on this issue. Thank you.
Chair:
Oman.
Oman:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We wish to support the text as drafted by you. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Mali.
Mali:
Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Madam. Madam, we’ve listened to different delegations, and I believe that the inclusivity people are all referring to is the people who are here. It’s not the number of countries for entry into the force that’s going to be decisive, as Congo has said, but rather the work we are all doing here. We recognize the urgent need to be able to provide an international legal framework to address this scourge. So, for the purposes of flexibility, we support your proposal of 40. Otherwise, we believe that 30 would be reasonable, given the urgent nature of this issue. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Sao Tome and Principe.
Sao Tome and Principe:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sao Tome and Principe support the article of 64 as it currently stands. Thank you. Kenya. Madam Chair, the delegation of Kenya supports a higher threshold of 60 for entry into force of the convention, given the scope of the convention. However, in the spirit of consensus, we are willing to support the proposal by the Chair. Merci beaucoup.
Chair:
Thank you. We have finished with our list of speakers. I’ve taken very, very careful note of everything that has been said, of everyone’s position. The situation is as follows. The great number of countries would like to see 60 ratifications, but several of them have said that they could go along with 60 ratifications. with the current text. A number of several delegations have said that they wanted the number of 30, but some of them have said that they could go along with the current drafting. And a number of delegations have expressed the wish to keep the current wording. To be frank, I think to continue setting this issue aside will not change positions, because they are quite clear. I think there’s a possible consensus on the current text. However, I will not take any decision right now. I will not close this paragraph. I will not take a decision right now. I will still give you time to reflect. There’s clearly a consensus on the number of 40, which is deemed a reasonable figure. And as Tunisia has said, this takes account of all of the arguments that have been put forward, the issue of inclusivity, the urgency, and even the small island developing states and others, which require more time to go through the ratification process. So frankly, I think the number of 40 is reasonable. And I invite you to give serious thought to that figure and the possibility of showing flexibility in order to resolve this issue. Without any further ado, let me now give the floor to the director of the department, Mr. John Bonandonino, on the issue of the signature. And as we have not resolved that issue, let me give the floor to John to explain that.
Director:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I had started to explain yesterday that there is a process that is usually used relating to the signature and ratification of treaties. That includes setting a date where the treaty will become open for signature. And usually, it stays open for a period of time. In the usually two years, I think, has been a kind of standard practice. So that during that time, people can become signatures. And at any time, further ratify the convention and become a party. After that period of signature closes, there will be people, well, governments can still become parties to the convention by adhering to the convention. They just won’t become signatures first and ratify second. So the end result is that at any time, a government can become a party. But usually, we will put into the convention a date, set date, for when the treaty will be open for signature. So what we suggest for this convention, we are consulting with OLA, but that we will use, I guess it was a formulation that has been used with the UNTOC, was it UNTOC? For the firearms protocol. But it basically says that because we don’t know exactly when the treaty will be adopted by the General Assembly. So we will say something to the effect that within 60 days after the adoption of the convention, the treaty will be open for signature. So we’ll set a time period. And generally, OLA, the Office of Legal Affairs, has told us that they would like somewhere between four to eight weeks, nine weeks. So we think two months, eight weeks, could be a good period. So we would say that it would open for signature two months after the adoption of the convention, whenever that is, by the General Assembly, and will remain open for signature for a two-year period. So that way, we don’t have to specify the exact dates, because we don’t know when the convention will be adopted. And it serves the purpose of keeping it open for signature for two years. And just to say that, unless we have any volunteers to host a signing ceremony, the signing will just be open for signature and will be available here in New York. The Office of Legal Affairs takes care of that. of those duties and they will be the body to approach for when a country wants to sign. So I’ll leave it at that and we would propose that for this text and this convention. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, John, for those explanations regarding the timeframe, not the signature block as I had said, but the timeframe that we have afterward for deposing the signatures and so forth. I think it’s quite clear. In any case, it is business as usual, the same thing as for all conventions. So we still have a matter to be resolved, that is a signature block. I know that in all conventions, at the end, there is a sentence, I’ll read it out loud in English, it will be displayed on the screen rather, there’s no point in me reading that out with my heavy accent. So it will be displayed on the screen, as you can see highlighted in grey. This provision appears in all conventions at the very end. It was not, we had not seen it before, so now the Secretariat has just added it because it is crucial that it be there. So I’ll give the floor to the committee to tell us what they think about this sentence. You can see it on the screen in grey. Are there no objections to including it in the convention? You will have time when we go back to look at the entire text, you can go verify if you wish with other conventions to see that this sentence is there. and you will be able to make any further comments in the future as well. And so this is agreed at referendum. Okay then. There is a request for the floor from our dear Vice Chair from the Dominican Republic. So I’ll give you the floor.
Dominican Republic:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Excellencies, in today’s meeting of the Consistency Group, we discussed two articles that were agreed at referendum yesterday and for which we believe editorial changes might be needed. If you could please put on the screen Article 53. In Article 53, paragraph 3, subparagraph e, we suggest the following wording. And to the extent permitted and subject to the conditions prescribed by domestic law. This change was suggested by the English editors and agreed upon by the Consistency Group. Editors informed us that this change is necessary because the preposition to would not work very well in the word conditions, requiring additional clarification. So that’s e.
Chair:
Distinguished Chair of the Linguistic Coherence Group, could you send the text to the Secretariat so we can be sure that what you want is reproduced exactly? Sorry, Secretariat already has the text. Very well then. The meaning is the same, but since it was agreed yesterday, I want the committee’s approval for that change in that and another paragraph as well. Okay. The Secretariat will take a bit of time so it can display this on the screen so the entire committee can see it and potentially adopt it. So this comes from the Linguistic Consistency Group, Article 53, paragraph 3E, Secretariat. While we’re waiting for the Secretariat to come back to us on this paragraph when it’s ready, I see that it is 12.10, and so I would suggest that we move on to examining the preambular part. The Secretariat is not yet ready, so let’s move on to the preamble. I’ll present the situation briefly as usual, and then I’ll give you the floor. With regard to the preamble, there are five changes to the updated text. In paragraph 4 corresponding to the title, the term cybercrime is clarified by saying offenses committed using information and communication systems. This element will be updated as a function of negotiations on the title. However, I’d like to specify that the This is not a definition of cybercrime, rather simply a way of taking into account all positions. In paragraph 6, the expression, if possible, was added in front of technology transfer in order to harmonize it with paragraph 1 of article 54. In paragraph 8, the scope of application of recovery and restitution of proceeds of infractions was complemented with the addition of part of a sentence saying, infractions established in accordance with the present convention, end quote. In paragraph 10, the adjective relevant or pertinent was added to characterize efforts regarding taking into account the issue of gender in preventing and combating cybercrime. And lastly, paragraph 14, the updated draft text of the convention has been modified to recall the foundational resolution of the ad hoc committee. Are you ready to carry out? Well, all right then. I’ll move on and present the changes. Now that I’ve presented the changes of the preamble, I would like to ask you, Secretariat, to present. Or you have the preamble? Yes. If you have that ready, then we can close the matter of article 53, paragraph 3E. D? Monsieur le Président du groupe. Distinguished Chair of the Linguistic Consistency Group from the Dominican Republic, is what’s on the screen indeed what you sent.
Dominican Republic:
Right. So that’s the text that was agreed yesterday. and the suggestions is to add right there and subject to the conditions. So it’s basically only adding that.
Chair:
Is the ad hoc committee able to accept this addition proposed by the Linguistic Consistency Committee? The Consistency Group, rather? I see no objections. It is so decided, agreed at referendum. Thank you very much. Now, we’ll go back to the preamble. So I just presented to you the explanations of the changes to the text. I now open the floor. So we will proceed as usual, paragraph one. I haven’t forgotten the title, of course, but that’s currently a subject of informal negotiation. So paragraph one, Canada.
Canada:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We had a comment on the change made by the Linguistic Consistency Group yesterday, if I understood correctly. The amendment had not received consensus. We continue to evaluate our position on this. We don’t have any objection to the addition proposed by the Linguistic Consistency Group because, indeed, it does flesh out the language, but we do maintain our reservation on the entire paragraph. Madam Chair, I also had a question. I don’t want to distract us, but for my delegation, we are lucky enough to have various experts covering different parts of this convention. And we had abandoned the final provision to go back to the preamble without having finished with,
Chair:
excuse me, Canada, says the Chair, to interrupt you, but some delegations are indicating that there is no interpretation. Yes, there is. Les interprètes… Are the interpreters of the Arabic booth, it does not seem to be audible. The Arabic booth, could you speak into the microphone? Please continue, Canada.
Canada:
Thank you. I’ll continue in English, just to make this simpler. Madam Chair, I thought we were going to finish with final provisions, and there’s been a change of plan. Was that intentional, or are we going to finish final provisions? I ask this because different people in my delegations are responsible for different sections of the text, and I just would like to live with a game plan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
I will proceed as I had previously announced. We’ll be going over the text. We’ll finish with the preamble, which is part of the text, and then Monday, we’ll move on to the resolution. But since we’ve begun the preamble, I hope that we’ll be able to finish with the preamble this afternoon, and that we will then be able to begin examining the resolution this afternoon, because we still have a great deal of work ahead of us, and we cannot stop our work just to be aligned with the dates, even if we had planned to examine the resolution on Monday. If we can, it’s better to do so earlier, so this afternoon or even tomorrow morning. So that’s what I plan to do. That being said, Canada, there are delegations that are less fortunate than you, that don’t have delegates. You heard from Iceland. She’s alone. A delegate from Iceland is alone, covering several meetings at once. So we can’t stop our work just to ensure that we’re in keeping with the exact dates on the schedule. So can we move on? Oh, yes. For paragraph 53, 53D. Can you put that on the screen, please? I see that it says, agreed at referendum. And yesterday, it didn’t seem to me… None of us had taken note of any reservation from Canada on 53D. What I’m asking you is, as was the case for Iran, when we read out the text that you can come back to your concern, but for now we should leave it as we had decided yesterday, agreed at referendum. And we also have now accepted the proposal coming from the Consistency Group, as presented by the Dominican Republic, the chair of that group. Vietnam, please. We are now talking about the preamble, paragraph one.
Vietnam:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. At the moment, we have no comment on the preamble. If you allow me to return to the very last sentence of the draft convention. Madam Chair. Yes, I understand that little sentence that we had displayed on the screen earlier, right? As we have – Yeah, just put it on the screen, please. Thank you. As we have raised this issue several times earlier, Vietnam proposed a small amendment to this sentence. So we propose to delete the word, the phrase, by their respective governments. So this sentence will be read as, in witness whereof the undersigned plenipotentiary being duly authorized thereto have signed this convention. The reason is that in our domestic jurisdiction, the power to authorize signing the convention belongs to the president instead of the government. Therefore, it will facilitate our efforts to sign this convention at the earliest possible time. And the language of our proposal is not new. This language has been used in the Euthanasian Convention on the Law of the Sea. So thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. When we discussed this issue with the Secretariat, they submitted to me the text of UNCAC and UNTOC, and they simply copy and pasted from those conventions. And I submit the question to the committee. Would you like to introduce changes compared to other conventions or not? I’m in your hands. We won’t spend too much time on this. I think the best way forward would be to think about Vietnam’s proposal, and when we go back to reading the entirety of the text, then we can decide on whether to adopt this amendment or not. But Vietnam, this is exactly the same language we see in UNCAC and UNTOC. Thank you very much. So let’s go back to the preamble, please. Paragraph one. I see no objections. Are there any comments? Paragraph one of the preamble. Can we adopt it? Agreed ad referendum. Okay. Secretariat, please. Paragraph two. We have the DRC requesting the floor.
Democratic Republic of the Congo:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We have an observation about this paragraph. Because the word could comes back, it’s used twice, it’s a bit redundant. Perhaps I could read it out loud to be more understandable, noting that if information and technologies have enormous potential for the development of societies, they also create new opportunities for perpetrators, comma, may contribute to the increase in the rate and diversity of criminal activities and may, so the word may here is used twice, and to prevent any redundancy, we could say may create new opportunities for perpetrators – sorry, say may simultaneously contribute to the increase in the rate and diversity of criminal activities and have an adverse impact. So remove the second may. Adverse impact on states, enterprises, and the well-being of individuals and society as a whole.
Chair:
Thank you to the distinguished delegate of the DRC. I think this is an editorial question for the French version. There’s France, Burkina Faso, and Cote d’Ivoire. So perhaps you can contact those three delegations or any one of them in order to propose your modification to the French text. Thank you very much for your understanding. Paragraph two, besides that editorial issue. Are there any proposals on the substance? No? Then agreed at referendum. Paragraph 3. I have a list. I have a list. Canada and then Pakistan. Canada, please.
Canada:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We continue to have concerns with this paragraph and would suggest it end after transnational organized crime. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Pakistan, please.
Pakistan:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like the paragraph to end after speed and scope of criminal offenses and not have a listing because the listing cannot be exhaustive. And if we want to keep the listing, then we will also suggest a few additional listings. Thank you.
Chair:
If I understood correctly, then Pakistan is supporting Canada or is agreeing with Canada. Can the committee accept this proposal from Canada and from Pakistan to end the sentence after criminal offenses? That is to say not to enumerate the examples. Are there any objections? I have a list of speakers. Are there any objections, first of all? Do we have objections to the proposal from Canada and from Pakistan? Mauritania, this proposal. You have the floor.
Mauritania:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support the proposal by Pakistan on ensuring that this paragraph ends after the scale, speed, and scope of criminal offenses without going into a list of offenses. So we support the proposal by Pakistan. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Russian Federation.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We believe that we ought to retain the existing text as proposed by the Chair of the Special of the Ad Hoc Committee. Thank you.
Chair:
We don’t have consensus, clearly, so we’ll leave Paragraph 3 as is DRC.
Democratic Republic of the Congo:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think that for our delegation, to ensure that certain offences don’t slip through the cracks of this Convention, it will be best to limit this paragraph to talking about transnational organized crime, so that we don’t let others slip through, because it seems that this Convention talks about both the criminal dimension and penal law being interpreted strictly, we risk letting slip certain crimes, certain offences. Thank you very much.
Chair:
So I confirm to you that I am setting aside Paragraph 3 for now, in order to leave room for informal negotiations. I now call on the delegations that spoke on this paragraph to consult amongst themselves and to come back to us with a solution. Thank you very much. Now moving on to Paragraph 4. I have a request from the U.S.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I observe that, as you mentioned, the title of the Convention we skipped over because it’s under discussion in a separate informal process, and I observe that the change that has been made to this paragraph, between your prior draft and this draft, replaces cybercrime with crimes committed through the use of an information and communication technology system, parentheses, here and after cybercrime. which is the same phrasing that was used in the proposed title and which is under discussion in that informal. So to be clear, the U.S. prefers the REV 2 text, the original text, so that it would read a global criminal justice policy aimed at the protection of society against cybercrime. And at the very least we suggest this paragraph is linked to the decisions that are made regarding the title and the relationship between the phrase in parentheses in the title and the the term cybercrime which is under discussion there. So we would propose reverting to REV 2 cybercrime for all the reasons that we have explained on many occasions and are not ready to close this paragraph. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Yes, I confirmed that the title is the subject of informal consultations, but I also think it would be possible to open a debate on it towards the end so we can see what our positions are. But for now, paragraph 4, Russian Federation.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to note that as far as I know, no decision on the title has yet been made. Unfortunately, this looks like an attempt to put us before a fait accompli, which has not yet been seriously discussed. I mean the title of the convention. What was proposed by the chair on the draft preamble, I understand and I appreciate your efforts, Madam Chair, to arrive at a fragile compromise. And we’re trying to destroy the compromise now when there has not been a decision made about the title of the convention. In any case, this is not constructive, especially, I think, tying the need to leave only the second part with this issue, the concept of cybercrime itself, to tie that to the title of the convention. I think that is not relevant. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. It’s clear that this paragraph needs further consultation, so we’ll set it aside. Paragraph 5. Y’a-t-il une objection? Any objections to accepting this? No? Agreed ad referendum. Le 6. 6. Paragraph 6. Y’a-t-il une objection? Any objections to accepting this? No? Iran is on the list.
Iran:
Regarding the Paris Six, we propose deletion of the word possible. Thank you.
Chair:
I have the DRC, Colombia, USA, and Egypt, and Pakistan. DRC.
Democratic Republic of the Congo:
Thank you very much, Madam. We’ve discussed the issue of transfer of technology and capacity building. I think we had a lengthy exchange on this, and I would recall us – remind everyone that we’re in a given system, and therefore we’re interdependent, and our efforts to combat cybercrime today requires united efforts on the part of every state. And in a context where there is imbalance in terms of technical capacity and technology, we may well be putting ourselves in a difficult situation, and therefore we would agree with Iran to delete the reference where possible.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Colombia.
Colombia:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. In line with previous delegations and the lengthy discussions we’ve had on this matter and that we had yesterday, my delegation believes that once we have resolved this matter in 54, it should be duly reflected here in paragraph 6. So we should be deleting where possible to ensure consistency. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Yes, that’s quite right. We decided to leave that issue pending in paragraph 54, but we’ll allow delegations to speak. U.S.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the comments of our distinguished colleague from Colombia. I would take a different view. I certainly agree that we are continuing to look at this issue carefully in Article 54. I also note that the preamble is sometimes in negotiations an area where countries are able to show flexibility in order to accommodate provisions that cannot be agreed in other parts of the treaty. And while the United States continues to consider carefully its position and flexibility in Article 54, I think we would hope that in the preamble this language that is of importance to us may remain given its location in the treaty, and given that the language here is not exactly the same as the language that is being considered in Article 54, and for example does not include the prelude of shall consider, which some countries suggested should give delegations in support of where possible additional comfort in Article 54. So we understand that they are connected, but we would like to consider each on their merits, and I would just like to emphasize that this is language that is of continued importance to the United States in the preamble as well. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Egypt.
Egypt:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to join previous speaker in calling for the deletion of where possible. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Pakistan.
Pakistan:
Thank you, Madam Chair. In line with what some of the colleagues have said before us, we believe that this caveat, it even goes against the spirit of the UN Charter of International Cooperation. And there is already on transfer of technology we have agreed and accepted caveat which is on mutually agreed terms. So why we have to add another caveat? So we would also propose a deletion of where possible. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you. I’ll close the list now, because otherwise we’re going to have the same discussion we had yesterday. We have Nicaragua, Mauritania, South Africa, Venezuela, and Tanzania. Morotania on the list, and I’ll stop it there. Otherwise, we’re going to repeat the same argument we had yesterday, Nicaragua.
Nicaragua:
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I’ll be brief. We support firmly the deletion of the caveat where possible. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you.Mauritania.
Mauritania:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We also support the call for deleting where possible, given the considerations and justifications as presented by those who took the floor before me, in addition to the fact that we have to be here consistent between the text in Article 54 and the text in this paragraph of the preamble. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much.
South Africa:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I speak on behalf of the Africa Group. We continue to maintain our position for the removal of where possible. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Venezuela.
Venezuela:
Thank you, Madam Chairman. We also join the list of countries who would want to delete the words where possible. We believe it’s contradictory in and of itself because there is already, on mutually agreed terms, there is a sufficient safeguard in those words. And I think we can eliminate one. We don’t need two in the paragraph. This is not a political issue. It’s a matter of consistency. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Senegal. Microphone for Senegal, please.
Senegal:
Thank you very much, Madam. Senegal would also call for the deletion of the words where possible because we believe elsewhere in the text there is wording which addresses this issue, where we say on mutually agreed terms we think that’s sufficient, and therefore where possible is redundant. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Russian Federation.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to echo those countries that proposed deleting the words where possible. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. That’s quite clear. Let’s not have this repeat of our discussions yesterday. So paragraph six is pending. Paragraph seven. Is that all right? Can we accept that? The secretariat agreed ad ref. Paragraph 8. Russian Federation.
Russian Federation:
Remarkable. I had a more general comment on paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8, Madam Chair, since we’ve not reached consensus on paragraph 4 with regard to reopening the concept of cybercrime through ICTs. So the Russian Federation reserves its position on the use of the term cybercrime in the other paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8. Thank you.
Chair:
Yes, here’s how things stand. There’s not yet any agreement on the title. And my understanding is that Russia is asking where we see the word cybercrime, that we have that pending, we don’t accept it, that’s your reservation for the entire text, correct? Yes, absolutely correct, Madam Chair. Very well. So we’ll stop there. I think I’m going to bring this discussion to a close. I’m going to have to seek consultations with some delegations because otherwise we won’t be able to move forward. Thank you very much. Enjoy your lunch and we’ll see you back here at 3pm.
Speakers
A
Albania
Speech speed
86 words per minute
Speech length
20 words
Speech time
14 secs
A
Andorra
Speech speed
147 words per minute
Speech length
44 words
Speech time
18 secs
A
Angola
Speech speed
195 words per minute
Speech length
13 words
Speech time
4 secs
A
Armenia
Speech speed
185 words per minute
Speech length
145 words
Speech time
47 secs
A
Australia
Speech speed
176 words per minute
Speech length
228 words
Speech time
78 secs
A
Azerbaijan
Speech speed
95 words per minute
Speech length
93 words
Speech time
58 secs
B
Bangladesh
Speech speed
44 words per minute
Speech length
15 words
Speech time
21 secs
B
Belarus
Speech speed
151 words per minute
Speech length
147 words
Speech time
58 secs
B
Bolivia
Speech speed
117 words per minute
Speech length
27 words
Speech time
14 secs
B
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Speech speed
98 words per minute
Speech length
30 words
Speech time
18 secs
B
Brazil
Speech speed
223 words per minute
Speech length
22 words
Speech time
6 secs
B
Bulgaria
Speech speed
156 words per minute
Speech length
119 words
Speech time
46 secs
BF
Burkina Faso
Speech speed
124 words per minute
Speech length
54 words
Speech time
26 secs
CV
Cabo Verde
Speech speed
136 words per minute
Speech length
213 words
Speech time
94 secs
C
Canada
Speech speed
157 words per minute
Speech length
523 words
Speech time
200 secs
C
Chad
Speech speed
112 words per minute
Speech length
49 words
Speech time
26 secs
C
Chair
Speech speed
105 words per minute
Speech length
3400 words
Speech time
1949 secs
C
Chile
Speech speed
90 words per minute
Speech length
22 words
Speech time
15 secs
C
China
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
259 words
Speech time
118 secs
C
Colombia
Speech speed
120 words per minute
Speech length
100 words
Speech time
50 secs
CR
Costa Rica
Speech speed
99 words per minute
Speech length
55 words
Speech time
33 secs
CD
Cote d’Ivoire
Speech speed
102 words per minute
Speech length
62 words
Speech time
36 secs
C
Cuba
Speech speed
122 words per minute
Speech length
41 words
Speech time
20 secs
DR
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Speech speed
114 words per minute
Speech length
558 words
Speech time
293 secs
D
Director
Speech speed
163 words per minute
Speech length
479 words
Speech time
176 secs
D
Djibouti
Speech speed
119 words per minute
Speech length
83 words
Speech time
42 secs
DR
Dominican Republic
Speech speed
136 words per minute
Speech length
206 words
Speech time
91 secs
E
Ecuador
Speech speed
107 words per minute
Speech length
110 words
Speech time
62 secs
E
Egypt
Speech speed
77 words per minute
Speech length
33 words
Speech time
26 secs
ES
El Salvador
Speech speed
144 words per minute
Speech length
189 words
Speech time
79 secs
E
Eritrea
Speech speed
174 words per minute
Speech length
36 words
Speech time
12 secs
EU
European Union
Speech speed
152 words per minute
Speech length
33 words
Speech time
13 secs
F
Fiji
Speech speed
181 words per minute
Speech length
398 words
Speech time
132 secs
G
Georgia
Speech speed
178 words per minute
Speech length
44 words
Speech time
15 secs
G
Germany
Speech speed
197 words per minute
Speech length
95 words
Speech time
29 secs
G
Guatemala
Speech speed
144 words per minute
Speech length
71 words
Speech time
30 secs
H
Honduras
Speech speed
131 words per minute
Speech length
87 words
Speech time
40 secs
I
Iceland
Speech speed
128 words per minute
Speech length
91 words
Speech time
43 secs
I
India
Speech speed
169 words per minute
Speech length
206 words
Speech time
73 secs
I
Indonesia
Speech speed
162 words per minute
Speech length
127 words
Speech time
47 secs
I
Iran
Speech speed
112 words per minute
Speech length
319 words
Speech time
171 secs
I
Israel
Speech speed
170 words per minute
Speech length
101 words
Speech time
36 secs
J
Jamaica
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
262 words
Speech time
114 secs
J
Japan
Speech speed
133 words per minute
Speech length
40 words
Speech time
18 secs
K
Kazakhstan
Speech speed
163 words per minute
Speech length
71 words
Speech time
26 secs
K
Kiribati
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
145 words
Speech time
63 secs
L
Laos
Speech speed
100 words per minute
Speech length
22 words
Speech time
13 secs
L
Lebanon
Speech speed
105 words per minute
Speech length
43 words
Speech time
25 secs
L
Liechtenstein
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
295 words
Speech time
115 secs
M
Malaysia
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
126 words
Speech time
49 secs
M
Mali
Speech speed
178 words per minute
Speech length
116 words
Speech time
39 secs
M
Mauritania
Speech speed
110 words per minute
Speech length
190 words
Speech time
104 secs
M
Mexico
Speech speed
140 words per minute
Speech length
654 words
Speech time
281 secs
M
Monaco
Speech speed
146 words per minute
Speech length
36 words
Speech time
15 secs
M
Montenegro
Speech speed
213 words per minute
Speech length
40 words
Speech time
11 secs
M
Morocco
Speech speed
61 words per minute
Speech length
23 words
Speech time
23 secs
M
Mozambique
Speech speed
121 words per minute
Speech length
57 words
Speech time
28 secs
N
Namibia
Speech speed
126 words per minute
Speech length
222 words
Speech time
106 secs
N
Nepal
Speech speed
140 words per minute
Speech length
111 words
Speech time
48 secs
NZ
New Zealand
Speech speed
199 words per minute
Speech length
149 words
Speech time
45 secs
N
Nicaragua
Speech speed
124 words per minute
Speech length
25 words
Speech time
12 secs
N
Nigeria
Speech speed
147 words per minute
Speech length
350 words
Speech time
143 secs
N
Norway
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
19 words
Speech time
8 secs
O
Oman
Speech speed
163 words per minute
Speech length
19 words
Speech time
7 secs
P
Pakistan
Speech speed
149 words per minute
Speech length
133 words
Speech time
54 secs
P
Panama
Speech speed
147 words per minute
Speech length
37 words
Speech time
15 secs
PN
Papua New Guinea
Speech speed
139 words per minute
Speech length
51 words
Speech time
22 secs
P
Portugal
Speech speed
145 words per minute
Speech length
60 words
Speech time
25 secs
Q
Qatar
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
33 words
Speech time
13 secs
RO
Republic of Korea
Speech speed
131 words per minute
Speech length
39 words
Speech time
18 secs
RF
Russian Federation
Speech speed
130 words per minute
Speech length
825 words
Speech time
382 secs
R
Rwanda
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
130 words
Speech time
52 secs
ST
Sao Tome and Principe
Speech speed
164 words per minute
Speech length
71 words
Speech time
26 secs
S
Secretary
Speech speed
95 words per minute
Speech length
71 words
Speech time
45 secs
S
Senegal
Speech speed
135 words per minute
Speech length
110 words
Speech time
49 secs
SL
Sierra Leone
Speech speed
151 words per minute
Speech length
21 words
Speech time
8 secs
S
Singapore
Speech speed
191 words per minute
Speech length
149 words
Speech time
47 secs
SA
South Africa
Speech speed
135 words per minute
Speech length
47 words
Speech time
21 secs
SL
Sri Lanka
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
31 words
Speech time
12 secs
S
Sudan
Speech speed
133 words per minute
Speech length
236 words
Speech time
106 secs
S
Switzerland
Speech speed
129 words per minute
Speech length
36 words
Speech time
17 secs
S
Syria
Speech speed
176 words per minute
Speech length
123 words
Speech time
42 secs
T
Tanzania
Speech speed
72 words per minute
Speech length
11 words
Speech time
9 secs
T
Thailand
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
81 words
Speech time
31 secs
T
Tonga
Speech speed
103 words per minute
Speech length
17 words
Speech time
10 secs
T
Tunisia
Speech speed
142 words per minute
Speech length
45 words
Speech time
19 secs
U
Uganda
Speech speed
149 words per minute
Speech length
130 words
Speech time
52 secs
UK
United Kingdom
Speech speed
204 words per minute
Speech length
88 words
Speech time
26 secs
US
United States
Speech speed
168 words per minute
Speech length
921 words
Speech time
328 secs
V
Vanuatu
Speech speed
156 words per minute
Speech length
73 words
Speech time
28 secs
V
Venezuela
Speech speed
109 words per minute
Speech length
240 words
Speech time
132 secs
V
Vietnam
Speech speed
128 words per minute
Speech length
744 words
Speech time
348 secs
Y
Yemen
Speech speed
122 words per minute
Speech length
50 words
Speech time
25 secs
Z
Zimbabwe
Speech speed
157 words per minute
Speech length
122 words
Speech time
46 secs
Related event
Reconvened concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime Convention
29 Jul 2024 - 9 Aug 2024
New York