(9th 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
2 Aug 2024 10:00h - 13:00h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
ATOCC committee debates draft resolution on ICT use for criminal purposes
During the ninth session of the ATOC Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards, the committee members engaged in an extensive discussion on the draft resolution accompanying the Convention to Fight Against the Use of ICTs for Criminal Purposes. The debate centered on the title of the Convention, with some delegations advocating for a title that explicitly mentioned “the use of ICT for criminal purposes,” in line with the committee’s mandate, while others preferred the more general “UN Convention Against Cybercrime.”
The Chair underscored the need for consensus on the draft resolution and the Convention’s adoption. The committee reviewed the Revised Draft Resolution (A/AC.295), which had been slightly modified based on previous session discussions, but the structure and wording remained largely unchanged.
A key proposal was the establishment of an International Day to Fight Cybercrime, with the Chair suggesting a date in the first half of the year to avoid overlap with other international days related to organized crime and corruption. The committee was invited to propose and agree on a specific date for this observance.
The session also addressed the continuation of work on an additional protocol to the Convention. Opinions were divided on the necessity and timing of such negotiations, with some delegations expressing concerns about rushing into negotiations for additional protocols without first ensuring the Convention’s ratification and implementation.
The venue for future meetings was another point of debate, with some delegations facing difficulties attending sessions in certain locations due to visa issues or lack of representation. The Chair expressed a preference for selecting one consistent venue to avoid complications and shifts in negotiation positions between different locations.
To advance the contentious Paragraph 5 of the draft resolution, which deals with the additional protocol, the Chair appointed Eric from Brazil to lead consultations. Eric was tasked with bringing together various proposals and submitting a revised draft by Monday morning.
Throughout the session, the Chair facilitated discussions, urging for consensus and managing procedural aspects of the meeting. The committee’s deliberations were characterized by a collaborative yet complex negotiation process, with various countries presenting their positions, concerns, and proposals for amendments to the draft resolution and the Convention’s text.
The Chair’s openness to setting aside their own text if member states had a more suitable proposal indicated a willingness to consider all contributions for the sake of reaching an agreement. Additionally, the Chair’s recommendation for one venue for future negotiations was based on the practicality of ensuring full representation and avoiding inconsistencies in the negotiation process.
The session concluded with the understanding that further discussions and consultations were necessary on several issues, including the title, the draft resolution, the international day, and the continuation of work on additional protocols. The committee agreed to reconvene to continue these discussions and aim to present a revised draft on Monday morning.
Session transcript
Chair:
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Good morning. And I will also say it in Chinese very soon. Welcome to this ninth session of the – resumption of the closing session of the ATOC Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards, the Convention to Fight Against the Use of ICTs for Criminal Purposes. As I said yesterday, we are going to look at item four of the agenda, which is the draft resolution that we are to submit to the General Assembly to accompany the draft convention that we are going to adopt. As you know, according to the working plan and the way the committee operates, it’s scheduled that the committee will examine and approve at its closing session a draft resolution and the text of the convention will be annexed to this in order to present it to the General Assembly at its 78th session. Now you’ll remember that at the closing session, the committee examined without approving it a draft resolution of the General Assembly aimed at transmitting the convention text to the General Assembly. As a result, we are now going to continue that draft resolution, as I said. To do that, I have established, with the support of the Secretariat, a draft document so that the Special Committee can look at it. The committee has therefore has before it the document entitled Revised Draft Resolution for review by the General Assembly published under the symbol A slash AC slash 295. This document is available in the six official languages of the United Nations. As its title indicates, the document established before the closing session was slightly modified in order to take into account the discussions that were held during the session such that the Committee could review it at the resumption of the closing session. The draft resolution, however, remains largely unchanged. Like for the initial version, the revised draft resolution follows the structure and takes up the wording of the Resolution 55-25 of the General Assembly entitled United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and Resolution 58-4 of the General Assembly entitled United Nations Convention Against Corruption. So within the framework of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and the UN Convention Against Corruption, the draft convention, the corresponding draft convention, is an annex to the resolution presented by the respective Special Committee to the General Assembly for review. As it’s indicated in the detailed explanation concerning the draft resolution provided at the closing session as well as in the other explanatory notes distributed before the current session on 15 July 2024, this is available on the Committee’s website, the revised draft resolution follows the structure of the resolutions related to the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. and the UN Convention Against Corruption. Now this draft resolution is therefore of a technical nature, and it deals primarily with modalities and adoption procedures for the Convention and its application, namely questions related to the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention, the setting up of its Secretariat, as well as the available resources. The revised draft resolution of the General Assembly established for the current session was modified, and a reference was added with a report of the activities carried out in favour of the quick entry into force of the Convention, which will be presented to the General Assembly at its 80th session. This reference was added in order to keep the General Assembly informed of the efforts made in order to promote the entry into force of the Convention. Furthermore, two new elements were tackled in the revised draft resolution established for the current session. These two elements should be reviewed together with other aspects of the draft text of the resolution, and in particular with the compromise proposal that delegations have begun to examine last week at informal meetings. This is the title of the Convention, as you know, that we find throughout the document, and the new paragraph 5 concerning the continuation of the work of the Special Committee in charge of negotiating an additional protocol to the Convention. With respect to OP11 on the designation of the International Day to Fight Cybercrime, I would like to invite the Committee to propose and to agree on a date to be put in the draft resolution before it’s approved at the session. So to facilitate the review of the question by the committee, the secretariat has circulated by email the link to all the international dates for – I’d like to recall that the General Assembly has designated the 9th of December as an international day to fight corruption in its resolution 58-4 of the 30th of October 2003, through which the UN Convention Against Corruption was adopted. Now as you will remember, the 9th of December 2003 was the day the high-level conference opened for the signing of the Convention Against Corruption. The international day to fight organized crime was not mentioned in the resolution 55-25 of the General Assembly, through which the UN Convention Against Corruption was adopted. In March 2024, the General Assembly, through its resolution 78-267, declared the 15th of November to be the international day for the prevention and fight against all forms of transnational organized crime. As you’ll remember, perhaps on the 15th of November 2000 was the date of the adoption of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime by the General Assembly. Now take note of the fact that the international days on transnational organized crime and the dates for corruption are both November and December. Now for the international days related to criminal code be taken into account and to facilitate the outreach activities for these conventions, the committee could consider choosing a date in the first half of the year for the International Day to Fight Cybercrime. We are now going to look at the review of the revised draft resolution for the General Assembly. I would invite the delegations to examine the draft resolution and to submit their proposals if they wish to do so, bearing in mind the fact that the committee has a limited time to carry out its mandate by the end of the present session. And that is why I would invite the delegations to take the floor to make specific comments, targeted comments, on the draft resolution in order to strengthen the text if necessary. Given the technical nature of this resolution and given the fact that it enjoys a broad consensus, I hope that we will be able to rapidly agree on its agreement, on its content. For the sake of time, instead of opening the discussion on every paragraph of the draft resolution, I’m going to look at it one by one, and if there is no objection on the part of the member of the committee, I will ask the Secretary to indicate that the provision was adopted at the referendum. So the same procedure that we followed for the draft text in the last couple of days. If you’re not in a position to approve a provision, you can ask for the floor. Note, however, that we will not examine every paragraph in detail. Delegations are asked to briefly give the reasons why a paragraph could not be accepted as it stands, and then we will move on to the following paragraph. As for the text itself, may I take it that the special committee… I can adopt the text as it stands in the draft that was submitted to you. Now, are you ready to accept it? First of all, I’ll ask that for the entire draft, and then we will look at it paragraph by paragraph. Good. I’m going to put on my glasses to be sure. Iran, you have the floor.
Iran:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning. This is the first time I’m taking the floor in the form of plenary, so allow me to express my gratitude to you and the Secretariat for the tireless efforts made in this process. I requested for the floor from the beginning to ask about the procedural matter, and that is about Article 14 and 16. If I may, I would like to mention that during this week, we have not addressed Article 14 and 16 at all. I think these are the most important articles in this process, and we would like to seek your view on this, when we would be discussing that. I think we still have time, and we could do it today. Of course, we will not stand in the way of addressing draft resolution. We are in your hand, of course. You have our full support on this, but it would be appreciated if you kindly let us know when we would be addressing that, probably in the afternoon, because we want to reflect our view on the plenary and these two articles. Thank you.
Chair:
Yes, thank you, Iran. Perhaps you weren’t in the room yesterday when I told you what we’re going to do next, and after that, in the afternoon, I’m going to be calling on the Vice-Chairs to come up to the podium to sit next to me, so that we can go through the articles which are outstanding, on which there are still informal consultations going on, to see whether those consultations have produced results. Perhaps they’ll bring us some… Yesterday, for instance, we did make headway because the Australian Vice Chair informed us that an agreement had been reached on a number of articles, and we managed to adopt those ad rev. So this afternoon, we’ll be doing more of the same. I’ll be calling on the three vice chairs, the facilitators, one by one up to the podium, and we’re going to hear back from them, see whether we’ve made progress in the informals. I also wanted to inform you that on Monday, we’ll be going through the text again, if there hasn’t been any progress in the meantime, although I’m very hopeful that we will move forward during the weekend, make progress during the weekend, and that on Monday we can go through the outstanding articles. Unfortunately, it’s not just 14 and 16. There are other articles outstanding as well, which are currently, and I was actually told that you are partaking in some of the informals, so you should probably know where we stand. These articles have not yet been agreed, if that’s what you’re concerned about. Tonga, please, you have the floor.
Tonga:
Madam Chair, I beg your indulgence to allow me to deliver a statement on behalf of the 14 member states of the Pacific Island Forum countries on the convention. This is the first time for the 14 member states of the Pacific Island Forum countries to intervene in this negotiation, and I have the honor to deliver that statement on behalf of those 14 member states of the Pacific Island Forum with presence here in New York, namely Australia, the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea. Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and my home country, Tonga. The Pacific Island’s foreign countries would like to offer our thanks to the Chair for your efforts to ensure that the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime progresses its work in an inclusive and productive manner. We remain committed to continue working closely with you and other delegations to make concrete progress towards our shared goal of a consensus-based outcome for the prevention and combating of cybercrime. In the Boyd Declaration, Pacific Island foreign countries are committed to addressing the peace and security challenges in the region as one blue Pacific continent. This includes an emphasis on robust legal frameworks to combat cybercrime, sharing information, and building capacity in the digital age. And this was further reiterated in the Langatoi Declaration by the Pacific ICT Ministers as informed by the overarching 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent as a key strategic goal. Our leaders will meet in Tonga in three weeks’ time to review this key goal. Therefore, the completion of our negotiations here in New York is crucial for the deliberation of our leaders in the Pacific in view of the vulnerability of our region. As you have heard in this committee, the Asia-Pacific region is one of the only geographic areas without a regional cybercrime treaty. We do see a lot of value in this draft convention and intend to use this as a strategic tool to enhance our fight against cybercrime. In this regard, thank you. Our group supports a title that provides this clarity and simplicity to read, UN Convention Against Cybercrime. Additionally, the security and protection of our peoples is essential to realizing the vision of our region as set out in the Boy and Langatoy declarations, including our children. As such, the Pacific Island foreign member states consider it important that our global cybercrime convention protects our most vulnerable communities and universally criminalizes online child abuse and exploitation. We therefore support Article 14, as is drafted in your text, Chair. We also believe that security should not be viewed in isolation. Digital prosperity and the promotion of sustainable digital development and exercise of fundamental rights for our communities are essential. In this regard, our group supports the balance achieved in the Chairs in your draft convention between effective measures to combat cybercrime and strong human rights safeguards. Madam Chair, the Pacific Island foreign countries acknowledge that this convention is a crucial tool and therefore there is a need to ensure that all member states are on an equal footing. Due to our varied capacities, time is needed, in particular for small economies to undertake the necessary domestic processes to become a party to the convention, develop the needed capacities in our criminal justice authorities, and be in a position to undertake our global responsibilities under the convention. It is for these reasons that increasing the number of ratifications to 60 member states before the Convention comes into force is imperative. We feel strongly that our priority should not be speed, but rather the inclusivity, sustainability, and purposefulness of the Convention. It is simply not possible for small island developing states, like many of us, to ratify this treaty with the same speed as larger countries. In fact, we are all united in our aim for this Convention to be a consensus instrument that reflects the views of all UN members. Therefore, it is appropriate to assign the Convention into the hands of as many of us as possible rather than into the hands of the few. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Tonga. Thank you for this statement delivered. On behalf of the Asia-Pacific countries, island states, and 14 member states, members of the Pacific Islands Group, thank you very much for your support throughout this process. I invite you to provide inputs to help the adoption of this consensus by Consensus Iran. You’re asking for the floor again, yes?
Iran:
Yes, Madam Chair, just a quick remark. Yes, we were in the room yesterday when you mentioned that, but we finished the meeting a bit early and we were thinking that maybe we would not be able to address Article 14 and 16 in the plenary. Other articles have been addressed in the plenary, but not 14 and 16. And yes, you’re right, we were in the informals and we are actively engaged in that process, too. To my knowledge, that process has been finished and we expect that could address this matter officially in the plenary, but of course, we are in your hand and we would seek an opportunity in the afternoon and also next week to do that, and we concur with the approach you have taken. We are not going to stand in the way of addressing this resolution, just to reflect as a kind reminder that we also expect to address Articles 14 and 16. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Iran. I really think that we’re talking at cross purposes. It’s clear that 14 and 16 are still being discussed in informal consultations, which you’re taking part in, so I did not say at any point that they’ve been accepted. I did not announce that they’ve been accepted. It’s exactly what I just said earlier. All of the outstanding articles, which are still being discussed in informal consultations, have not been agreed. That goes without saying. It’s logical. So what I mean by that is that I hope that we’ll continue working on those in good faith, showing determination, so that we can come up with a solution in informal consultations. And based on what I’ve been told, we’re on the right track. There’s progress, there are attempts being made to put forward amendments, so we’re on track. We’re well on our way. But at no point did I say that we’ve finished our work on those. So let me repeat that once again. This afternoon, I will be calling on the Vice-Chairs tasked with facilitating informal consultations on various outstanding articles, not just 14 and 16. There are others there as well, other outstanding articles. We’re going to hear back from the Vice-Chairs, and perhaps they’ll have some good news for us. Now, I’m optimistic. I’m resolutely optimistic. I’m both reasonable, reasonably optimistic, if you like, but I’m also optimistic. And I will do everything within my power to ensure that we can adopt the Convention. You’ve just heard from Tonga speaking on behalf of 14 states, 14 Pacific states, and these states need this Convention. This morning, I met with 14 CARICOM states. They also want this Convention. They need this Convention. I had a meeting with the EU. They’re in favour of a Convention being adopted. And Africa, all of Africa, they need this Convention. So, there’s a lot of goodwill being exhibited by the vast majority of delegations geared towards the adoption of this Convention. Of course, we do need a Convention that is agreeable to all. We need to be able to adopt it by consensus. And we’re working all together, hand in hand, so as to reach that consensus. I’m counting on you. I’m counting on you to do your bit in informal consultations. There’s no one dragging their feet, and I won’t let anyone drag their feet. You all have a role to play in informal consultations, and we will then be reverting back to discuss outstanding articles in plenary, so we can make headway working all together. Thank you. Iran, Jamaica, please.
Jamaica:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, CARICOM appreciates your tremendous efforts in seeking to bridge the gap created by divergent views on what should be the title of this Convention. We believe that the formulation which you have presented reflects the two terminologies that have been used by delegations throughout these negotiations, and which represent distinct priorities for Member States. However, the combination of the two terms may not be acceptable, particularly with respect to the use of the words, and I quote, through the use of, in the parentheses, which, Madam Chair, CARICOM sees as taking a different approach to what obtains in chapter two of the instrument. While bearing in mind the mandate given to the ad hoc committee, CARICOM believes that the title of the convention should be derived from a study of the text and certainly the aspects which have already been agreed at referendum. The criminal offenses which have been settled in chapter two of this instrument and which have been mostly agreed at referendum as representing the list of offenses created by this instrument are primarily crimes that address the unlawful actions which are aimed at interfering with the integrity, availability, and confidentiality of ICT systems. This is the term that now runs through this chapter and is defined in article two. The natural consequence of this is that the convention addresses ICT systems and that is the object at the core of the criminal offenses. Therefore, it is important to define this concept and it has already been defined. However, Madam Chair, the term cybercrime is used as an umbrella term in the key areas of the convention where these types of crimes, that is, crimes that affect the ICTs, is given a categorization. This is evident in the general provisions treating with the statement of purpose of this convention. The use of the term cybercrime has been agreed at referendum in articles one, paragraph two, and articles one, paragraph one. Cybercrime is also used in the chapters on preventative measures. when describing the type of crime which is being prevented and also in the chapter on technical assistance in the context of enhancing capabilities to fight this category of crime. For this reason, we believe that the term, the UN Convention Against Cybercrime, would be consistent with these critical areas within the body of the text to succinctly describe the category of crime dealt with in this treaty. The use of this term facilitates a succinct and clear expression of the purpose of the treaty. This would be in line with the approach taken both in the UNTAC and the UNCAC. We do not believe that it is necessary to define cybercrime in Article 2, as this was not the approach taken in other UN instruments and also not the approach taken in criminal law text in general. The most important term to be defined in the instrument has already been defined and that is the term, ICT system. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Jamaica. And I’d like to ask you to please thank all CARICOM members on our behalf. Thank you for the constructive input and the willingness you’ve shown, the goodwill you’ve shown geared towards achieving the adoption of the Convention. Russian Federation, please.
Russian Federation:
Good morning, colleagues. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. Unfortunately, we seem to be digressing from the topic set by the Chair, but I’m compelled to respond to what was said by the distinguished representative of Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM. The Russian Federation has said on numerous occasions that the title of the Convention should be in keeping with the mandate. So talking about the fact that cybercrime… is an umbrella concept covering all ICTs. This position simply doesn’t hold water. It doesn’t hold water because nowhere is the word cyber explained, including in the Convention. It’s not explained. So we’ve asked the delegations in favour of the cyber-based approach. We’ve asked them on many occasions, what does cyber mean? But we didn’t get an answer to this day. So I very much respect the position of CARICOM states, of SIDS. But colleagues, what you’re proposing is that we adopt a convention with a title that is not explained, not expounded on, neither in the Convention nor anywhere else. We don’t know what cyber means. We don’t have an exhaustive definition of cyber. How can we adopt such a convention? The very essence of which will not be comprehensible to our law enforcement bodies. In the terminology, in the list of terms, we don’t expound on what cyber means. If we were to do that, then maybe it would be clear and we could continue discussions on this. We could have done that at an earlier stage, but we did not. We did not do that. What’s more is, it’s obvious that in the terminology, we do explain what an ICT system is. ICT system can be found throughout the text. There are many mentions. Now, we can discuss until the cows come home what Article 7, 8 refer to what’s a cyber crime, what’s not a cyber crime. But the articles referring to children, crimes committed against children, it’s clear that these are not cyber crimes. They’re crimes enabled by ICTs. And this contradiction, it’s flagrant. So, it goes without doubt, first and foremost, we must stick to the mandate. Second, at this decisive stage in our work on the Convention, we cannot be so categorical, we cannot, I’m sorry to use the term, we cannot take this so lightly without defining what cybercrime is. Nor can we assert that cyber is an umbrella term referring to all ICTs. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Iran, please.
Iran:
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Just to echo what was mentioned by our distinguished colleague from the Russian Federation, the mandate of this Ad Hoc Committee, as per Resolution 74-247, was to elaborate an international comprehensive Convention on countering the use of ICT for criminal purposes. And I think we should follow that line of mandate that we have been conferred upon by the General Assembly. And as mentioned also by the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation, the term cyber or cybercrime or cyberspace, which has been actually used in a popular manner, maybe in some journals or different contexts, but here we are dealing with a legal text and we should be accurate. And I think we know what ICT means and we are addressing that in the terminology. And that is why we also opt for having the term use of ICT for criminal purposes to be included as the title of the Convention and also title of this resolution for that matter. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you. Iran, Jamaica.
Jamaica:
Yes, Madam Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. And I feel compelled to respond to the distinguished delegates of the Russian Federation briefly. As indicated, it may not be useful to seek to define the term cybercrime in the context of the Convention because then you would limit it to whatever definition is put here. in 2024 as being a cybercrime. And I think maybe that was the logic also with the UNCAC, where it did not define the term corruption. But what it did is that in the list of offenses, you would appreciate how the crime of corruption is being approached in the text itself. And in criminal law, for example, a larceny act, you would not define the term larceny, but the umbrella term is used as larceny. But then you would approach the criminal offenses from the different or the different scenarios in which the offense could be committed. And so respectfully, it is my view that if it is in the context of what we name the category of crime within the instrument, and a lot of these provisions have been agreed at RIF, you categorize the object of the convention as the fight against what you call cybercrime and preventative measures, technical assistance, then there is a consistency and internal logic in categorizing the title as being cybercrime. But the object is what you need to, or I see the system itself is what you need to define in the instrument. And Madam Chair, I will not belabor the point. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Well, we’ve listened to the Russian Federation and Jamaica responded. I believe that we’ve taken a good look at the matter. As I said, we’re going to now move on to the review of the draft resolution without further ado. So I’ll begin with the first paragraph of the preamble. Secretariat, that’s on the screen, yes. So you can see it on the screen, the draft text. The first paragraph of the preamble. Can we adopt it at referendum? The first paragraph of the preamble. I’ll give you a few seconds to look at it. Is that okay? Can we adopt it? Nobody objects to it? Adopt it at ref. The second paragraph of the preamble. We’re at the second paragraph of the preamble in the draft resolution, which should accompany our draft convention text. Are there no objections? Adopt it at ref. The third paragraph of the preamble. The United States has the floor.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to this third paragraph, as we noted in the discussion of the preamble, the definition is still under debate. Therefore, we would like to reserve on this, and specifically I’m referring to the language of combating crimes committed through the use of an information and communications technology system here and after cybercrime.
Chair:
Good. Morocco.
Morocco:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, colleagues. I think in the same line of what the distinguished representative to the U.S. said, I would like to make a comment. I would like to make a comment. I would like to make a comment. I would like to make a comment. I would like to make a comment. This is a paragraph that defers us back to the discussion we’re still having on the cyber whether we’re going with cybercrime or the usage of ICTs. It’s still an open discussion, a heated open debate across the board, whether it’s the preamble or the text itself or this. So it would be more convenient for our delegation to maintain it open until we resolve our discussions. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you. So we’re going to leave the – we’ll set the third paragraph aside until we come up with a definitive title for the convention as well as the terms that we’re going to choose. So paragraph four, fourth paragraph of the preamble, Egypt.
Egypt:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think the listing at the end of this paragraph does not factually reflect what is in the convention. Some of these crimes mentioned here are not even mentioned in the convention. We’ve been striving so hard to have a provision in the convention that calls for future protocols to actually establish these crimes as part of the convention. So I would propose that we take the last part of the paragraph and change it into crimes established under this convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you. You’ve heard the proposal from Egypt. Can we accept that proposal, which could facilitate its adoption at referendum? Now I’d like to settle that matter before I give the floor to Pakistan, Morocco, and Qatar. Now, is there an objection to Egypt’s proposal? I see none, unless the countries that have asked for the floor. Is it on Egypt’s proposal, Morocco? No. Pakistan, is it to respond to Egypt? Yes. No. Well, there are no objections to Egypt’s proposal, then we can accept it. Can we accept it? Is that okay? No. Jamaica. I’m sorry, on the list I have – well, I’ll give the floor to everyone one by one. Pakistan, Morocco, Russian Federation, United States, and Jamaica. Pakistan.
Pakistan:
Thank you, Madam Chair. So we would like to propose an insertion at the end of the paragraph to include the following – incitement to violence and desecration of religion and its values. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. I think that’s why Egypt proposed – Egypt’s proposal of general crimes as defined by the convention so that we don’t have a very long list. The more crimes we put in there, the less possibility we will have to reach a consensus. But Morocco, you have the floor.
Morocco:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think you have summarized it eloquently. It is a difficult discussion. And in that regard, again, Morocco’s position has been clear. We didn’t have a well-established understanding in their disconvention on what is the list that would be covered. So again, in this regard, we don’t see what we have in this paragraph is taking us toward consensus. My delegation position, of course, is to end the para before starting the listing, which is after ICT system. What has been proposed by the distinguished delegation of Egypt is something that could be considered. I would seek the indulgence of secretaries probably to reflect it on the screen. Once we have it there, we will be more, I think, the room to agree on it. But again, the discussion on the listing, the discussions on the types and adding and cherry-picking from what crimes could be covered is not something that, again, is taking us to consensus. Thank you.
Chair:
Yes. Thank you. Morocco. Egypt. Would you please send your proposal to the Secretariat in writing so that we can see it on the screen? The Russian Federation and the United States.
Russian Federation:
Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. That’s exactly what I was going to ask for, to put the proposal of the distinguished representative of Egypt up on the screen so that we can discuss it. Thank you.
Chair:
United States.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. As Morocco has already observed, I think in some cases lists are difficult and we could go along with the Moroccan proposal to end the sentence after technology system. What I also wanted to take the floor to observe, however, is that this paragraph is a useful reminder of the broad scope of our convention because, in fact, the convention is not limited to cooperation with regard to the offenses established by the convention. And we should never lose sight of the fact that it currently includes, as drafted, the sharing of electronic evidence for serious crimes as defined in the convention. And whether or not the list is preserved here, I think this paragraph stands as a good example of the wide range of offenses for which the sharing of electronic evidence could be available between member states who are party to the convention. So we will also study the proposal by Egypt when we are able to review it in writing, but I don’t want us to be misled that the scope of this convention is so narrow as that proposal might suggest. In fact, the convention, as it is currently drafted, includes cooperation on a range of crimes that go beyond the criminalization chapter, and that is part of the innovative and unprecedented scope of this convention. So with that observation, Madam Chair, we could go along with the Moroccan proposal and we’ll study the Egyptian proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, United States. Cote d’Ivoire.
Cote d’Ivoire:
Alors la délégation ivoirienne comprend. Well, our delegation understands the need to cooperate beyond the scope of this convention. However, at previous sessions, we said that this list of offenses was not necessary, and so we support the proposal that was made by Egypt.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Cote d’Ivoire. Est-ce que le secrétariat reçu la proposale? Has the secretariat received Egypt’s proposal? C’est en train de venir. It’s on its way. Well, I believe that, for my part, that that would be a good solution. Bien, vous avez sur l’écran.
Egypt:
That’s part of our convention. And it’s not under the definition of serious crime. So it’s absent from the convention. Number two, if we have this list in the convention, we wouldn’t need to have protocols, future protocols, and we wouldn’t call for having a paragraph or a provision in the convention to have a future protocol. So I am trying to fix a factually incorrect statement under paragraph four. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you. Is the committee ready to adopt this paragraph with this light amendment for Egypt? I see Morocco, the Russian Federation, and Brazil. Morocco.
Morocco:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think just to be clear on what we are discussing, if we are considering the Egyptian proposal, there is a need to strike out the last part of the listing, because now it is contradictory how we see it. So if the secretariat could reflect that so the room is clear on what we are agreeing, in fact. Thank you.
Chair:
Yes. And, secretariat, who’s – who – Secretariat, you can remove the last part. You stop with – you stop at crimes established in accordance with this convention, period. Russian Federation.
Russian Federation:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the representative of Egypt for his explanation. I do understand the logic of that explanation. However, Russia proposes perhaps to modify the previous text, the text from His Excellency, and to take into account the text from Egypt. And we propose after the term in electronic form use a broad range of crimes, instead of saying established, covered by this convention. And so we would delete established in accordance and then we would have a broad range of crimes covered by this convention. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Russian Federation. So the same thing, please send the text to the Secretary. So it’s clear that there is no consensus. That’s unfortunate. So in that case we’ll wait for Morocco’s proposal in writing as well, because Morocco made a proposal that was supported by another delegation, Brazil, then Jamaica.
Brazil:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank Egypt for the proposal. And our proposal is a bit different. It’s to stop the paragraph in after communications technology system. Because that’s actually what the convention does, and borrowing from what we heard from the United States, it’s a broad range of crimes that may be committed to the use of ICT systems that can be subject to cooperation of sharing of evidence in electronic form. So that’s exactly what the convention states. Not only of the crime established by the convention, and that’s the importance of the convention. We will be able to share electronic evidence in a broad range of crimes according with the convention. So we would agree, if necessary, to strike out the list, but we would stop the paragraph after technology system. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you. Jamaica, then Morocco.
Jamaica:
Madam Chair, we supported your text in its original format as presented on the screen, but if in a view to achieve consensus we could go along with removing the list, but we are not able to support the distinguished delegates of Egypt in respect of the formulation presented. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Morocco.
Morocco:
Madam Chair, I’ll be quick. Our initial proposal has been indicated by the Brazilian colleague is to end the PORRA after technology system. That’s our preference because we don’t have in a written proposal to send to the Secretariat. This is as a way out for the discussion in this particular paragraph. And if there is an appetite to consider the Egyptian proposal, then we could go along with it in the understanding also that we will end the PORRA after technology system. So I hope my delegation’s position is clear in that regard. Thank you.
Chair:
Oui, c’est clair. Yes, it’s clear. And once again, the Russian Federation, Nigeria, and India.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the proposal of the distinguished representative of Brazil is very sensible. After the words ICT systems, we could just put a full stop there. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Nigeria. Thank you, Nigeria.
Nigeria:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just to echo what has just been said by the Russian Federation, the proposal of Brazil I think captures the essence of what we are trying to say. The challenge with the Egyptian proposal is when we end it with crimes established in accordance with this convention, it means that We are losing sight of electronic emails that could be collected for other serious crimes which are only defined in the convention, which the Russian proposal earlier, where you mentioned, covered, but to have an elegant draft, we could live with ending it at ICT. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, India.
India:
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Madam, India would strongly advocate the retention of the proposal as had been put by you in the initial draft. In fact, certain listings of crimes which you had made in this draft, they act as a reminder of the important crimes that all of us face, especially those that are committed with the use of ICT, and I don’t think that removal of those listings will serve a purpose here because the way we see this draft is that these crimes act as a reminder to all of us that the convention is actually concerned about these crimes that are being committed. So we would strongly advocate that we retain the draft in original as had been put by you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, India. Cabo Verde.
Cabo Verde:
Thank you, Madam Chair. To get closer to consensus, we support Brazil’s proposal.
Chair:
Thank you, Pakistan.
Pakistan:
Thank you, Chair. I would like to reiterate the support for our Brazilian proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Mauritania.
Mauritania:
Good morning to one and all. We support the proposal by Egypt, and we stress that reference to the crimes included in this convention. It is important because cooperation in any convention needs to be within the scope of the crimes included in the convention, I think.
Chair:
Indonesia.
Indonesia:
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation also supports the Brazilian proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Nicaragua.
Nicaragua:
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. Nicaragua also supports the proposal made by Brazil to delete the list and to end the paragraph after technology system.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Nepal.
Nepal:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Nepal supports the retention of the paragraph as is. Thank you.
Chair:
Good. Well, now we have a clear idea of the situation. I will therefore ask Brazil, Egypt, and India, and Morocco as well, I will ask them to try to find a solution and to present it to the plenary. Thank you very much. The committee will hope that you can find a solution, but I noted that there were several delegations that supported the proposal made by Brazil. Please try to find a solution to that problem, so we’ll leave paragraph 4 pending for the time being, and it will be subject to informal consultations among the four countries that I mentioned. Good. So, we will therefore move on to – we concluded with the first part preamble. Paragraph 1, OP1, of the resolution. Paragraph 1 of the resolution. No objections? It’s fine. Can we adopt it? Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 2. It’s very technical, isn’t it? Agreed at referendum. Paragraph 3. So we have Iran and Morocco. Iran.
Iran:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On this paragraph, I think we have ongoing discussions with the term regional economic integration organizations, and I think it’s better to see what would be the outcome of those discussions and then comment on this paragraph. Thank you.
Chair:
Very good. Good. Morocco.
Morocco:
Thank you, Madam Chair. In this paragraph, first we would like to add member before states. And then the ongoing discussion on the terminology article is still debating on the definition of regional economic integration organizations. So it makes an absolute sense to close that discussion before agreeing to address this paragraph. Thank you.
Chair:
Very good. Good. That’s what we’re going to do. So we’ll leave paragraph 3 open for informal consultation until we find a result to the consultations on the question of regional economic integration. Paragraph 4 now. Paragraph 4. We have the United States and Pakistan. The United States first.
United States:
Madam Chair, this is just in relation to several of the paragraphs of this resolution. The United States wants to be able to close as many paragraphs as possible. I want to observe that, for good reason, the current draft title of the convention has been used in many of these paragraphs. I assume that agreement at referendum to these paragraphs is agreement to the idea that these paragraphs will incorporate the eventual title of the convention and that we can all recognize that that title is still being addressed somewhere else. I would not want any delegation’s positions on these paragraphs to be interpreted as a position with regard to the substantive debate that remains on the title. But we would prefer not to have to take the floor to reserve on all of these paragraphs only for that reason. Thank you.
Chair:
Absolutely, the United States, your interpretation is correct. The phrase in all of the parts of the text, as well as in the resolution, where there is a reference to the title of the convention, until there is agreement on the final title of the convention, all of the parts of the text where there is a reference to that title are not yet agreed. So for the time being, we are adopting at referendum the paragraph with the understanding that the reference to the title, it will be the final title that will be adopted by all of the… Committee. So that is clear. So we have to state that very clearly. When we decide together on the final title of the Convention, we will then rectify it within the text of the Convention as well as within the resolution and all of the documents including the final report, we will put in at the title that will be agreed to by the Committee. So I want that to be very clear. I have a Pakistan.
Pakistan:
So we would like to propose addition in the second last line and after the words of technical assistance. So we would like to propose addition of capacity building. So it’s going to be technical assistance and capacity building. Thank you.
Chair:
You’ve heard Pakistan’s proposal. Can the Committee agree to that? Capacity building. Can the Committee accept that? Perfect. No, the United States.
United States:
To ask if that could be repeated, please, Pakistan’s proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Pakistan, please slowly repeat your proposal.
Pakistan:
So in the second last line, after the technical assistance to add and capacity building.
Chair:
Is that clear now? Can everyone accept it? Good. Thank you very much. And so we will retain Pakistan’s proposal to add capacity building. Thank you very much. Pair of five. I have Jamaica.
Jamaica:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam wishes to make a proposal in respect to an alt to operative five, and it reads as follows, and we will submit it to the secretariat. Also decides that the ad hoc committee shall continue its work, Mutatis Mutandis, in accordance with General Assembly Resolutions 74-247 and 75-282, with a view to considering the elaboration of a draft protocol supplementary to the convention addressing inter alia additional criminal offenses as appropriate, and for that purpose shall convene two sessions of a duration of 10 days each, with the first session taking place not later than two years after the adoption of the convention by the General Assembly, and the second session taking place in the following calendar year for the purpose of submitting its outcomes to the conference of the state parties to the convention at its first session for its consideration and further action in accordance with the relevant articles of the convention. We will submit it, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Jamaica. You’ve just heard a proposal from Jamaica, which clarifies, Jamaica has clarified that they’re going to be sending the text to us. Are there other delegations who would like to put forward text proposals? This is on pair of five. United States, please.
United States:
I’m very sorry, Madam Chair, but I wanted to get in line sooner rather than later because I’m unfortunately taking us back, and I know that we’ve just reached an important topic of discussion. In regards to Pakistan’s proposal in the previous paragraph, I was not quick enough, but I wanted to go back and look at what is in Article 56 of the convention. And I note that both the title of Article 56 and the paragraph that establishes the voluntary contribution account that is referred to here uses the language of your original draft. And so for consistency between the resolution and the text of the treaty, and to avoid an inconsistency, we would, in fact, prefer to stick with your original language, simply because it’s consistent with what is in the treaty. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Very well, Paragraph 4 will remain pending, Pakistan, United States, please discuss this and come up with a solution. Because to be perfectly frank, I think a solution can be found very swiftly on this. So back to Paragraph 5, Iran.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, just to support the proposal of our distinguished colleague from Pakistan, and I think the wording of the draft convention also includes technical assistance and capacity building. So I think that is quite consistent with the draft text we have at hand. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you very much. I already said that Paragraph 4 remains open. I don’t want to reopen the debate on Paragraph 4, because I did request for consultations to be held on the finalised wording. Paragraph 5, Jamaica put forward a proposal. Do you want to hear it again, the proposal from Jamaica? Yes. Jamaica, please, could you read out your proposal once again?
Jamaica:
Yes, Madam Chair. Also decides that the ad hoc committee shall continue its work, Mutatis Mutandis, in accordance with the General Assembly resolutions 74-247 and 75-282, with a view to considering the elaboration of a draft protocol supplementary to the Convention addressing, inter alia, additional criminal offences as appropriate, and, for that purpose, shall convene two sessions of a duration of 10 days each, with the first session taking place not later than two years after the adoption of the Convention by the General Assembly, and the second session taking place in the following calendar year, for the purpose of submitting its outcomes to the Conference of the State Parties to the Convention at its first session for its consideration and further action in accordance with the relevant articles of the Convention. And, Madam Chair, if I may just indicate, CARICOM had a concern in respect of the timelines that were proposed in your draft of OP5. Additionally, as small developing states, we also didn’t want it to be prescriptive in respect of where the meetings would be held as well. As for the CARICOM, we have no representation in Vienna, and it is very, very challenging for us. And so we would have preferred, Madam Chair, that it be left open in respect of that. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. Russian Federation.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I’m also grateful to the Distinguished Representative of Jamaica. Thank you for reading out the proposal once again. Having said that, I would very much like to see the proposal up on the screen to ensure that there’s not a shadow of a doubt about what we’re actually discussing. Thank you.
Chair:
Voilà , c’est à l’écran. There you have it. It’s up on the screen. Jamaica’s proposal on behalf of CARICOM. Which, the way I see it, could be paving the way towards an eventual consensus. La Russie, Russian Federation.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, it’s exactly as I thought the Distinguished Representative of Jamaica said to consider the elaboration. She’s adding to consider the elaboration. I think we should delete consider to avoid that there’s no doubt about the fact that an additional protocol will be elaborated. We see that Jamaica’s proposal is consensus-based in terms of the timeline for elaborating a supplementary protocol. We agree with that, however, using the verb consider here, considering the elaboration, actually creates additional hurdles, conditions for the elaboration of the protocol. supplementary protocols. Also in the proposal we see that as appropriate seems to be missing after the words additional criminal offences. We’d like to delete, sorry, as appropriate after the words additional criminal offences. Thank you.
Chair:
Very well. We’ve heard Russia’s amendments. Egypt.
Egypt:
Madam Chair, this is one of the important proposals that we have on the table to actually tackle the issue of the protocols. This provision we should consult with our capitals on. So I would seek your indulgence giving us some time to look at it because two sessions for 10 days each, is this enough to have a protocol or not? There are some questions that are related to this. It’s a good way to find a solution for our outstanding question on the protocols. Nonetheless, we need to consult with our capitals on this. So I would propose to defer taking a decision on that. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Egypt. I think Egypt’s proposal is very sensible. Nigeria, please.
Nigeria:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think I agree with your last comment in support of the proposal by Egypt. But I just took the floor to express our appreciation to CARICOM on this new proposal which we believe has attempted to address some of the concerns raised when this issue came up on Monday. And hopefully if some of the grey areas especially the point that has been raised by Russian Federation to remove the word consider, because in this case we want to elaborate a protocol not to consider elaborating one, as well as the point raised by Egypt. I like that CARICOM has enabled to remove the reference in the original proposal that rotated the meetings between Vienna and New York. I think, Madam Chair, we could look at this and come back, but I think it’s a good basis to make further progress on this. So, thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Nigeria. Very well. What I suggest is that I’m going to give you some time to think about Jamaica’s proposal, as well as the amendments tabled by the Russian Federation, amendments to the Jamaican proposal. I’m going to give you some time to consult your capitals, and then we’ll revert back to this paragraph once we’ve got all the bits and pieces of information, and once you’re in a position to accept a final proposal. But I will give the floor to Morocco, Canada and China. Morocco, please.
Morocco:
Thank you, Madam Chair. In this paragraph, first of all, I’d like to thank CARICOM for presenting this new formulation. I think this is a paragraph, as has been indicated by a distinguished colleague of Egypt, that has to be sent to respective capitals to, again, discuss it and give us a green light. This is one of those main points that we have going back and forth in the discussion. Having said that, I think for us to have more visibility and clarity on what we will be sending, this is not the only one on the table. So the proposal or the tweak that have been proposed by distinguished colleague from Russia have to be indicated in this ALT. So we have a comprehensive view of what we are sending to capital. Because if we take a screenshot and send them this, it means this is what is in the table, which is not factually correct because we have a counterproposal to this ALT. This is the first point. The second point, I know that there is an omission of precising the venue of the meetings because, again, we know that for a small delegation, it is hard to be in Vienna and have representation. However, from my delegation’s point of view, I think what we have achieved in this process has been very helpful and a healthy conduct of business. Because, again, as we are aware, in New York, we are more of a political hat, whereas our counterparts in Vienna have the substance and the technical expertise to have their input, especially when it comes to crimes. So I think it has value to continue with the same practice of at least having one in New York if we are agreeing, of course, on two sessions, which just on my humble point of view, I think will not be enough. But if there is appetite and the group agrees on two sessions, we need the inputs and the guidance from Vienna to be clear before we come to New York to agree on anything. So, again, this ALT has to be tweaked as proposed in the floor with the alternative language, and I think there is an outmost value of indicating the venue so we have a global view of what we are sending to capitals for final instructions. Thank you.
Chair:
Very well, Morocco. This is what I was saying, perhaps you didn’t hear, I asked the Secretariat to take into consideration not just Jamaica’s proposal, but also the amendments tabled by the Russian Federation. So you’re going to receive, as soon as the session’s over, the Secretariat is going to email you, as they always do, the text which you can then send to your capitals, you can forward to your capitals. So specifically they’ll send Jamaica’s proposed text, that’s what you can see up on the screen right now, and you’ll also receive the amendments that Russia is submitting in writing. So you will be sent all of that by the Secretariat. That’s the first thing. Second, Jamaica explained why they didn’t put down a venue, sometimes there are differences of opinion regarding the venue, and indeed for some states it’s easier for them to meet in New York than it is to meet in Vienna. It doesn’t mean that New York’s better, smarter than Vienna, no, it’s just about facilitating meetings, making it easier, because all of the permanent missions are here in New York. All of the states are represented in New York, whereas in Vienna that’s not quite the case. Therefore the venue issue, we’re going to park that for the time being, unless you have a proposal and you would like us to specify to say New York, that way we’ll have it in the text right away. For the states asking for the floor, please do tell us what your preference is so we can move forward. And I agree, I agree with what Egypt said, with your indulgence, I’d like to say that I rarely take a stance, but Egypt is absolutely right. Two sessions. Two sessions is wishful thinking. Especially given the fact that we haven’t yet adopted the Convention. I want to make sure that we adopt the Convention first, and then after that we can make decisions on protocols. I think two sessions is really insufficient, but if you agree on two sessions, that’s fine by me. Also, I’d like to use this opportunity because I heard a number of delegations say that it’s your text, Madam Chair. Let me repeat myself. I don’t have an outsized ego. I do not. I am perfectly happy to set my own text aside, set this text aside, if you have your own proposal, very well. But perhaps we can all agree on a text just so that it’s clear. Please do not hesitate to challenge the Chair on the proviso that you have a better suggestion. Canada.
Canada:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your explanation, which is well explained and clear to us. I wanted to, first of all, as some others have done, thank CARICOM for the thought that they’ve put into this proposal. It’s a good attempt to address an issue that has obviously become a significant part of our discussions in this committee. And just on that point, I sort of start noting that we’re getting into a substantive discussion on the text of OP5, which was the intention of the meeting today. And so I just want to highlight our position here to be clear. So, it’s sort of a two-branch position for us. First of all, and most importantly, we have a long-standing position on this element of our discussions. We don’t believe at present that a protocol is necessary, a protocol discussion is necessary. We’ve highlighted that many times, and I won’t rehash our reasons for that. So in essence, we don’t actually believe that OP5 is necessary in the resolution. However, we have heard that this is an element that a few states have said is essential for them in the text, and we respect that. And it is with that respect that we will attempt to engage in good faith on this text. But that engagement, and we will engage, but it doesn’t, that engagement does not indicate our willingness to go along with the idea of a protocol discussion, especially in light of all the other issues that remain open across the text, such as entry into force, which is, you know, Mexico has a proposal there. We need to ensure that the procedure is set properly if we were to move forward with something like this. And then, of course, the second branch of this is that, what I just said, I’m not agreeing to the text itself, but we would have substantive issues, and CARICOM’s proposal attempts to address some of those issues in the text, and we’d be happy to engage on those. I think CARICOM’s proposal moves forward in important ways in regards to considering, to make the discussion not as prescriptive. We would also have concerns, we’d have to closely consider the scope of the discussion that we would have, the timing of the discussion is important, and I think CARICOM’s proposal makes a good attempt there. And then, we also need to consider the process of any outcome and how it would be dealt with in the cost, and that relates to the entry into force. The Mexican proposal especially is linked to this. And so, again, it’s open with other elements of the text, but we’re willing to engage in good faith. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Canada. Thank you for your flexibility. Yes, the first thing we need to do is agree on this, so it’s a first step forward. China, please.
China:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We thank the distinguished delegate from Jamaica for their statement on behalf of CARICOM. We believe this will be helpful for the compromise and conclusion of the convention, and it’s going to be a good foundation for that. We are in favor of the amendment made by Russia, and we are also in agreement with the statement made by the Chair. Therefore, we propose that at least we include. So we suggest we insert at least before two sessions, which shall convince at least two sessions of a duration of 10 days each. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, China. United States.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe we all recognize that we are not coming up with a convention that is so inflexible that it cannot take advantage of changes of technology that will take place in the future, and in many other fora we’re struggling with the challenges of, for example, artificial intelligence. But I think, once again, that we think it is premature to focus on a protocol so soon. We are close to coming to an agreement to an instrument that has a number of crimes and includes the broad possibilities of the sharing of electronic evidence for serious crimes. It is going to take a while for a number of our parliaments and other government powers to approve this instrument, and we need to see how it is working in practice before we seek to expand it further. And we do also think that it is important, as we’ve noted, that this issue of possibly looking at this into the future be linked to having as many members, states, in this room participate. So we agree with our Canadian colleague that we also have to consider this in light of the threshold for entry into force. But we’d also like to add another issue is, if we go down this path, is it appropriate for the first COSP to consider something or a COSP after that? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. So from what you said, you’re of the view that we’re on the cusp of reaching an agreement. It’s very encouraging. Thank you very much. Russian Federation.
Russian Federation:
Thank you. Madam Chair, thank you. Yes, indeed. Once again, I’d like to thank the Distinguished Representative of Jamaica for that proposal. I also endorse the proposal of the Distinguished Representative of China, the suggestion being to add in the words, at least. First of all, this proposal is well-founded indeed, elaborating a supplementary protocol, we won’t necessarily limit ourselves to two sessions. And then we’ll have to decide whether we adopt a protocol or not, if we run out of time. I mean, we can use the example of the Ad Hoc Committee itself. We had to convene an additional session to wrap up our work. Thus, the Russian Federation accepts China’s proposal. But I wanted to draw your attention to a different characteristic of the text you have on the screen before you. That’s para 5 alt. We understand the rationale put forward by Jamaica, CARICOM, the fact that small delegations are going to face certain challenges. Going to Vienna, traveling to Vienna, and so on and so forth. But in this text, it doesn’t say where these sessions are going to take. It doesn’t say anything about that. This begs the question, who is going to determine the venue by not giving clear instructions about where to hold these meetings? Are we going to create issues and call into question the elaboration of supplementary protocols as a whole? Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Russian Federation. I think the representative of Jamaica was very clear. She said that CARICOM prefers New York in order to ensure representation here in New York. But Jamaica didn’t want to impose, CARICOM didn’t want to impose their preference on the entire committee. So they were waiting for the committee to take a decision on this and this is something that was flagged by Morocco as well, the venue. So I think it’s up to the member states to decide whether we put the place in there. Of course, we shouldn’t leave this loose end. We shouldn’t leave this up to the General Assembly. We shouldn’t spark another debate about this at the General Assembly level. That’s unnecessary. Personally, off the record please, personally, I’m going to share what I think. As the chair, I’ve had a lot of trouble accepting the fact that we’re working both in Vienna and in New York. There are two pillars to this. I think it’s a bad idea to have two negotiating venues for one document. We need to pick one venue, one. I’m not saying which one, but I think we need to have one to ensure that, well, I think the delegate of Morocco provided clarification as to why here is a good option. The mindset in New York is not the same as in Vienna. And then we had that change and that wasn’t easy. So between Vienna and New York, I often had to, between the two, going between the two, I often heard changes in position on fundamental matters. So it’s better to have just one place. That is my recommendation. Now I’m not prejudging the outcome, which one it will be. That’s up to you, which one you select. Nicaragua, Mexico, Costa Rica and EU. Nicaragua please.
Nicaragua:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Well, Nicaragua would like to thank the delegation of Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM for the proposal that was presented. And we believe that it could help us to achieve a consensus. And we endorse the adjustment made by the Russian Federation and China, and we believe it’s very fitting to see these changes there, to take into account and not limit ourselves with two sessions. We don’t think it would be enough to be able to achieve a protocol, an additional protocol. Thank you very much.
Mexico:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We’d like to thank the U.S. – the member states of the Asia-Pacific Session for their statement. They have spoke out in this plenary, said there were 78 countries in favor of the ratifications of the last 24 hours. So this reveals a clear will to raise this threshold. We believe that we cannot ignore these figures that are so clear, nor the elements of inclusivity and effectiveness that are sustained by the proposal to raise the threshold, as well as the changes that OP5 requires for this resolution in its current wording. Likewise, and as we expressed at the beginning of this reconvened session, my delegation maintains its concern due to the risks represented by discussing a protocol within the timelines in the current draft resolution, including the uncertainty and the difficulties that could come up with respect to the entry into force and the effective application of the instrument. We want to be clear. Mexico is not opposed to the discussion and adoption of additional protocols, and we understand their importance given the nature of cybercrime. Nonetheless, we believe that beginning these discussions in a premature fashion and without an inclusive representation would be counterproductive, as was very clear in this session and in previous sessions. There are differences of opinion with respect to the scope of the Convention, which makes unviable the formulation of an accessory additional text without clarity on the safeguards that would be applied to the protocols. Proceeding without a clear consensus could lead to greater complications and delays in the effective implementation of the Instrumentum. At the same time, we observe that several delegations have expressed concern around the challenge that would be represented by getting involved in negotiations on a protocol in the short timeline of only a year, along with the challenge of implementing the Convention. It’s important to focus our efforts on listening to the commitments that we’ve assumed for the Convention and set timelines to negotiate and to set timelines for additional protocols could be counterproductive. Lastly, given the importance of the protocols for the future of the Convention, for my delegation, it is clear that we cannot resolve the question of OP5 without first considering the entry into force of the Convention. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Mexico, Costa Rica.
Costa Rica:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, since we began this session, looking at Paragraph 5 in the draft resolution, we express our opposition to this Paragraph 5. We believe Costa Rica believes, as a delegation, that the concerted effort of the nations, once we achieve the validity for this convention and its implementation, its entry into force, we don’t see the need for an additional protocol without it having entered into force, without the convention having entered into force. This could lead to serious problems. And so we would join the list of countries that believe that that paragraph 5 should be deleted. In any case, we would be open to the conversation and to negotiations, and we could, to some degree, and for the sake of consensus, we could allow this proposal. According to what Mexico has said, and also according to what Canada has said, we need, first of all, to be able to establish the threshold of ratification to guarantee that access to this negotiation would be broad and inclusive. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, European Union.
European Union:
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Also, to stress that this proposal, 5-ALT, goes into the right direction in addressing one of the issues which we have been raising in relation with the negotiation of an additional protocol, and this was the issue of the timing. We are fully understanding the concerns expressed by number of countries, including ours, that rushing to negotiate an additional protocol when we should rather focus on the ratification and the implementation of the convention was not the best option. And this proposal certainly tries to address this concern, which is positive. Now there is a second concern which we have been expressing and which was more about the inclusiveness of the process. I understand that the inclusiveness for the first part of the process is unsure by the fact that it would be the ad hoc committee which would continue its work according to and following the same rules of procedures than the one we have, but it’s the second step of the process which is problematic in the sense that whatever outcome after the two sessions we will have, and it could be a kind of completely partial outcome, we have seen that after two years and a half it has been extremely difficult and it is still extremely difficult to agree on one article, which is Article 14 on child sexual abuse materials, because we are discussing the definition of crimes and it has to cater for the specificities of our respective countries. So what type of outcomes will we have after two sessions? It could be that we agree relatively quickly on an additional protocol which would then be submitted to the conference of state parties once the convention has entered into force, but it could be also that the outcome is quite partial and then the Conference of State Parties with, once there is 40 ratification as far, I mean, as the text stands, could do whatever it wants and completely disregard the outcome of the discussion in the ad hoc committee. And that’s extremely concerning for the UN, its member states, because due to our very nature of being an union, it will take a bit more time for us to become party to this convention. And we would not like, of course, to be in a situation where the Conference of the State Parties would take decision and where, in fact, a minority of those who have been discussing in the framework of the ad hoc committee would decide on the protocol. And that’s a very important concern that we have and that needs to be taken into consideration. And that’s why it is linked with the number of ratification, and this is one of the main reasons also why we have been supporting the proposal by Mexico. So again, 5-ALT goes into the right direction, but it addresses only partially the concerns that we have with the protocol. Je vous remercie, Madame la Présidente. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. With your permission, I’m going to give the floor to the Secretariat, who has an announcement to make.
Secretariat:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Secretariat would like to inform delegates that informals on Article 14 and 16 have resumed at 12 noon under the leadership of the Nigerian Vice-Chair, and they will conclude at 1.15 p.m. in CRF. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Secretariat, El Salvador, and then Pakistan, Iceland, and Lebanon. El Salvador.
El Salvador:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Once again, it’s a pleasure to be able to speak to all of you. Our delegation is concerned by the fact that we’re restricting the scope of the protocol only to additional criminal offenses. Our delegation believes that instead we should consider the mandate of open consultation on what areas and topics should be included within the convention. And this would be within the sessions convened by the ad hoc committee, similar to what was said by Mexico on the period. Our delegation considers that a year is very little time in order to see what legal voids would exist within the convention within – when it comes to its implementation. And so we believe it’s more appropriate the term of two years so that we can have sufficient time for the implementation of our convention and – as well as its previous procedures, such as revising the translation, signing periods, initiatives – capacity building initiatives, compensation, et cetera. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Pakistan.
Pakistan:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, to start with, we supported the original version of OP-5 as drafted by you. but we have also understood the concerns of the room and the direction in which we are moving, so we are happy to consider 5-Volt as it appears on the screen. In 5-Volt, we can support the amendment proposed by a distinguished delegate of Russian Federation, and we also have to add a small amendment, and if I could later send it to the Secretariat, but I can go at drafting speed and explain. So after offenses in line five, we would support actually as appropriate which is called for deletion. So after that, we would like to add and taking into account the previous proposals of criminalization presented by state parties during the Ad Hoc Committee proceedings and of proposals. And Chair, with regard to some of the concerns mentioned by various colleagues, and talked about inclusivity and the number of ratification we have and the decision to be taken by conference of state parties, I still believe, Chair, that your proposal was the best way to move forward, but this is again a compromise proposal which is reflected on the screen, and we may support this proposal in order to move. forward. And we request flexibility from all sides to agree to at least one of the either proposal or otherwise we would end up still moving in circles. The formulation of additional protocol is absolutely vital and very important concern for some of the member states, those who have very vocally announced why it is important and my delegation is one of them. So we would not like to indulge into that discussion at this point in time. And we would let the room to focus on the proposal which is on the screen. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Pakistan. Iceland.
Iceland:
Thank you very much, Chair. As we said already in our first statement last Monday, we would prefer a focus on the convention over the protocols. However, we understand that we need to make sure that the normative framework can develop in such a fast-paced environment as the cybercrime environment is. We would strongly prefer a less prescriptive approach to these protocols. But for the sake of brevity, I will limit myself to Iceland supporting the statement made by Costa Rica on this issue. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Lebanon.
Lebanon:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We join the list of countries that does not see the value in rushing to negotiate an additional protocol in a time where the adoption of this convention by consensus would be a major achievement for all of us. We are from the point of view of discussing that after its adoption and entry in force, and therefore we support the deletion of this paragraph. But for consensus, we are willing to accept it as long as we extend the period of discussion for at least two years. We also do not believe that two sessions are enough, so it should be at least two sessions. And we, in general, support the proposition by Costa Rica. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Liechtenstein.
Liechtenstein:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The EU and other states have very eloquently highlighted the two major concerns of Liechtenstein regarding this text. It’s the timeline and the inclusivity. So now there has been a small step in the new Para 5 Alt, which we think goes into the right direction. We are still, however, worried if small states such as Liechtenstein, if we could mobilize the resources to cover the AHC and implement the convention at the same time. You have to consider there’s one person doing that, everything together. So the second point regarding inclusivity was explained very well by the EU, and I can only wholeheartedly support this statement. Very quickly, on the new addition that was proposed by Pakistan, I mean, I have been in the discussions since the first AHC, and there has been some proposals that were discussed more intensively where a lot of states were interested, where the discussions went in a good, more or less good direction. There were others which were not discussed at all. So I’m not sure if it’s sensible to bring up the whole bunch of this again, and if we are not limiting ourselves by this kind of approach. But that are just two thoughts that came to my mind now spontaneously. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you. Switzerland and Senegal.
Switzerland:
It does not constitute the end of our deliberations with regard to the prevention, the criminalization, and the cooperation in the field of cybercrime and in the field of countering it. However, we also share the view that we should not be rushing into things and start new negotiations at an early, probably premature stage. It may well be that the period after the adoption of the Convention should rather, and probably better, be used for further analysis and for the collection of our first experiences with it. Therefore, we consider it from a content point of view and also taking into account, it has just been mentioned right before us, taking into account resources premature to establish a very concrete and a mandatory timeframe regarding the elaboration of one or maybe more additional protocols. Thank you. Madam Chairperson.
Chair:
Thank you. Senegal, then Colombia.
Senegal:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I’d like to thank you and congratulate you for the work you’ve been doing since the very beginning and the way in which you are steering the discussion. Madam Chair, Senegal supports the proposal by Egypt to both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. We think that two sessions could be insufficient in order to draw up this additional protocol that we are considering. We support your position with respect to the venue when you said that one venue should make it possible to have these discussions, and often there are difficulties, and so we would align ourselves with your proposal as to the venue without indicating which venue should be chosen. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Senegal, Colombia.
Colombia:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With respect to the discussion of OP5, like other delegations who have spoken before me, we do not believe it is timely to negotiate immediately additional protocols to this Convention when we still do not know the result of the tax that we are negotiating now, limiting substantially the number of ratifications without evaluating the impact and the real need for this instrument, as well as the need to consider the difficulties of implementation in domestic law. We believe, therefore, that it is very important to insist on the necessary number of ratifications for the entry into force of the Convention before looking at the wording of OP5 in the resolution. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Colombia, Brazil.
Brazil:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we are getting into a time when, well, the whole Convention needs to come into consideration when we are talking about one specific issue. From our point of view, we can accept working the timeline, as some proposals have come, but also the issue of the threshold for the Convention coming into force was brought in as enabling for the discussions on protocols. And I just want to make a short statement on this, and I would have also a text proposal to be presented when we get to that part. But I want to say that it is important for many countries that the Convention comes into force fast, because we need to cooperate, we need technical assistance. But I hear when delegations say that they need the process of maybe discussing and adopting protocols to be inclusive. One possibility would be for the Convention to state that for the adoption of protocols, a minimum number of state parties of 60 would be required. So we would keep in the one hand the possibility of the Convention to come into force and the cooperation start and technical assistance and all start. On the other hand, we would keep the inclusivity that is necessary for protocols to be discussed. But also, if the Convention comes into force earlier, by the time we get the opportunity to discuss protocols with 60 state parties, the Convention will already have run for a while and we will have some time to understand what will actually be required for protocols to include, so that we can perfection the Convention. So when the time comes, we can have a text to be presented on the minimum number of 60 state parties for the adoption of protocols. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you. I’d like to thank Brazil. You are helping us make progress. I find your proposal very interesting, at least that’s my opinion. I’ll invite all of the delegations to think about it. And we’ll wait for your specific text. You know that even if we already understood it, it’s to respect the ruling. And so we’ll wait for your text in writing and the Secretariat will incorporate it within the final proposal. Russian Federation and then the DRC.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do acknowledge that I don’t really understand why we must rush to adopt the protocols. As the representative of the European Union said, we’re already running late. And so let’s look at the truth. Our convention is aging before our eyes, even if all of the positions of the countries have not been expressed, even if we don’t – dealing with all of the crimes that are committed through the use of ICTs, even if all of those crimes are not – even if all of those crimes are not put in the convention or in the body of the convention. And besides that, some are trying to question the idea of the additional protocols. The additional protocols are a very delicate balance, Madam Chair. You presented this in the text. I would recall that we have reached the protocols – a very large group of countries has tried to make sure that the mandate of the ad hoc committee be included in the Resolution 74-285 in order for the convention to be as comprehensive as possible. A comprehensive convention – now, it’s the comprehensiveness that would reflect the criminal landscape when the convention will be drawn up, and it would be logical to have the possibility to adopt a convention which would deal with crimes that could appear later. Now, it must be said that – The virtual sphere is quite dynamic and criminals are, of course, keeping abreast of the latest technological developments. Gradually moving through, first through Article 17 of the consolidated document we used for negotiations. I’m referring to those states in favor of comprehensive criminalization and in favor of fulfilling the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee. We made some concessions on 17 and then in the name of consensus we agreed to the elaboration of supplementary protocols. And now at this decisive moment there’s a group of states who are trying to challenge this concession as well. A concession given by states who were in favor of painstakingly implementing the mandate. Where do we go from here? I’m asking those who are challenging us or at least attempting to do so. Also, I wanted to make a comment regarding the supplementary protocols in the context of new technologies which will be used to commit crimes. Now, if I cast my mind back, there was a very interesting conference held last year near New Delhi. It was dedicated to new and emerging technologies which will be harnessed to commit ICT crimes. And we had some excellent presentations. This was actually a conference held under G20 auspices. And what was said at that conference really attests to the fact that we have many, many challenges ahead in terms of how we’re going to implement that convention to instances where cutting edge technologies are used to commit ICT crimes. The distinguished representative of the United States, when she took the floor, mentioned AI, artificial intelligence, and rightly so. But does our convention cover AI? No. And yet in the discourse at one of the sessions, we did. raise the issue of AI. But AI is already being used. It’s used, for instance, for phone calls, phone calls involving social engineering. It’s used to get people to give up their banking data so that all of those bank funds can be stolen. And the further we go, the worse it will get. The Russian Federation is in favour of ICT technologies, not only because it fits the mandate, but because by definition it will cover something like AI as well. However, if we adopt the cyber lexicon, how can we understand without a clear understanding of what cyber means? How will we be able to implement this convention, for instance, to AI? So it goes without saying the supplementary protocols must be sorted out, not just in terms of the timing, the timing must be reasonable, just as the timing we’ve agreed on already. As for the proposal from Jamaica and China, I think those proposals exhibit the requisite flexibility and should be agreeable to the majority, or perhaps to all of the states participating in the work of the ad hoc committee. Reverting back to the venue, where will we be meeting to work on the supplementary protocols? You know, under a different set of circumstances. In instances where we don’t know what the venue will be, and the chair actually alluded to this, she said it would be logical to hold meetings in New York because here we can assure full representation, inclusion, and so on and so forth. Under a different set of circumstances, I would be very much in favour of that. I would have supported this proposal. I might have come up with the proposal myself. But for the Russian delegation, participating here in New York is very challenging. This applies not just to Russia, but to Russia first and foremost. In the opening statement, the head of the Russian delegation spoke in great detail about the challenges faced by the Russian delegation, challenges to participation in the work of this Ad Hoc Committee. Two consecutive heads of the Russian delegation were unable to partake in the work of the session, in any of the sessions here in New York. Now if you just think about that, that should give us some pause. That’s the official representative of the Russian Federation tasked with dealing with these matters. That’s a very high-profile delegate. Aside from these challenges, there are logistical challenges as well. Russian representatives spent 30, 35, sometimes 40 hours to get to New York. Let me give you an example. I flew out from Moscow on the 24th of June, and I arrived in New York in the morning on the 26th of July. And it must be said that it was sheer coincidence, sheer accident that I got to New York, because in my visa it said, port of entry, New York. And when it comes to customs and immigration, owing to various idiosyncrasies, I had to go through all of those checks in Abu Dhabi. And only because I missed my flight, because we flew out from Moscow quite late, I actually caught the next flight, and there was no border control in Abu Dhabi, and I managed to get to the U.S. And there was another Russian representative. He was also flying through Abu Dhabi to another U.N. event here in New York. He was refused entry to the U.S. because his visa said, port of entry, New York. So I cannot agree. with this suggestion that New York is the best possible venue for work on the supplementary protocols. In light of the above, the Russian Federation would like to suggest the following amendments be made to the resolution, one PP and two OPs. I’m going to read them out and then, of course, we’re going to send the text to the Secretariat. I am concerned with the inability of a number of UN member states’ delegations to participate in full in the AHC sessions due to unilateral restrictions at the UN headquarters host countries against official representatives of the UN member states, including diplomats, which put respective delegations in unequal circumstances during the negotiations process and thus impeded global efforts on the elaboration of the Convention and implementation of the UNGA Resolutions 74-247 and 75-282. Then there’s an OP as well. to ensure timely and unhindered entry of UN member states’ delegations to the UN Headquarters and their participation in further activities concerning entry, intercourse and implementation of the Convention. Another OP. I call upon the UN Member States to consider the possibility of conducting meetings of the state parties of the Convention, including those concerning its entry into force and implementation, such as the Conference of the State Parties, in politically neutral countries, thus eliminating the risks of violating the spirit and letter of the Convention. I’d like to request for the Ad Hoc Committee to consider this text proposal. And last but not least, just very briefly, the Russian Federation wanted to support the proposal of Pakistan on paragraph 4 of the resolution. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, please.
Democratic Republic of Congo:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. We’ve followed responses from the various delegations with a keen interest, and we wanted to express our viewpoint on the number of sessions, the venue, and the issue of protocols. The present is made up of the past, so we know everything that’s gone into these deliberations and the lead-up to these deliberations, and we understand why precautions were taken. As for the choice of venue, we’ve studied your proposal, that is to select a venue. Select a venue where sessions will be held. We think it’s a realistic proposal to have two sessions, and we believe it can help accommodate many delegations. We think it’s a very practical proposal. Thank you very much. can help with the issue of U.S. visa obtention. Nonetheless, the Russian delegation has encountered difficulties, but that notwithstanding, we’d like to invite, therefore, the U.S. to swiftly, expeditiously address this case to avoid such obstacles arising in the future. It’s problematic running into such difficulties when you’re trying to attend meetings like this one. Thus, we’re not in favor of Vienna being selected as the venue, because Schengen visas are also very difficult to get, for African delegations, that is. So, if it were up to us, we think that would be a good opportunity, because there’s some issues with the U.S., with Europe. Why don’t we go to Africa, Egypt? Why don’t we go to South Africa? Why don’t we hold all the sessions there, for instance? That could be helpful. That’s my take on that issue. Moving on to the protocols, we need to be realistic. An additional protocol, indeed, there are emerging threats. Indeed, we must take action, and we must go faster. But we can’t move faster than the wind. Thus, the idea would be to come up with a document that meets the needs. It’s not about having a document at no matter what the cost. We need a document that meets needs. So drawing on the experience of the convention, we need to come up with arguments in favor of crafting the protocols. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Nigeria, please.
Nigeria:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We are taking the floor again, having listened to several constructive comments by many delegations, especially the EU. We like the reaction to the alternative proposal made by CARICOM, and we think that that should be perhaps the attitude that we expect member states to take at this point in the negotiations to begin to rehash positions that have been taken in the last two years, which have not enjoyed consensus, may not lead us to make meaningful progress. First, it is important to highlight that having this additional protocol does not preclude us to have another protocol in the future, because like we all agree, cybercrime is an emerging crime that has to do with technology, and we cannot envisage that all issues with regards to cybercrime would be addressed in this document as well as in the additional protocol that may come, let’s say, three, four, five years. So there is a possibility to have another protocol, and that brings me to the point that this protocol is specifically to address Article 17 of the original Zero Draft. Because we couldn’t find consensus on the wording of Article 17, there was understanding in the room that we should defer that to a protocol that will be negotiated immediately after adopting the convention. That was the agreement. It’s not a protocol that we are being premature because we have not tested the convention. The idea about collection of electronic evidence was not enough when we had those conversations because there are crimes that you cannot use electronic evidence to address. Nigeria has a clear example where we try to engage one European country, and even though we are both members of the UNTALK, there was no possibility to cooperate on the issue of online incitement to violent extremism, and this is not mentioned anywhere. So if you rely on what we have in the scope at this moment, we cannot make any progress. And if we return to Abuja capital with a document as it is, I don’t think that would have done our job. I just want to point out that we are negotiating this protocol, and the urgency is that issues on original Article 17 were deferred for the purposes of this protocol, and that is how the language has been couched. So finally, Madam Chair, I want to thank the Delegation of Brazil for its proposal to see whether we could, you know, reward the article to this operative paragraph to ensure that when it comes to the decision stage by the conference of parties, maybe we could have a more higher number to address the concerns expressed by other delegations about inclusivity in terms of taking the final decision for the additional protocol. And I think that these are areas we should, you know, try to address and be able to make progress and assist Madam Chair. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Nigeria. Bolivia, please.
Bolivia:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to congratulate you for the way you’ve been steering our discussion. The negotiation of the convention has taken a lot of time, and most of the countries have made significant efforts here. And as a result, my country believes that we must prioritize the conclusion of the Convention and the definition of its entry into force, and afterwards we could consider the possibility of protocols. But the priority should be the entry into force of the Convention. Furthermore, we all know that when it comes to cybercrime, in three or four years there will be new contexts and new crimes. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Norway.
Norway:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Norway share the concerns expressed by the EU, Liechtenstein and Switzerland about timing and inclusiveness. We would rather focus our resources on the ratification and implementing of the Convention instead of new protocol. We didn’t get Brazil’s proposal. It was a little bit difficult to hear it, so we will consider it when we got it in written. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. China, to be followed by Egypt, Namibia, the Russian Federation, and New Zealand. China, please.
China:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve taken note that the EU and other colleagues talked about inclusivity. That is to say that the Convention of the Conference of the Parties, when they talk about inclusivity, is that the issue. Thank you. We noticed the concerns from EU and other countries about the inclusiveness. That is to say, the inclusiveness in discussing the outcomes of the AHC by the Conference of States Parties. In this regard, we are willing to propose the following options. If we really believe we need inclusiveness in these considerations, why not we could submit the outcome to the General Assembly? Just because the ad hoc committee, the mandate of the ad hoc committee comes from the General Assembly. The outcomes should be submitted to the General Assembly. In this way, we could ensure that everyone could participate in the discussion. This is not a new proposal from China. In the previous discussions about OP5, we have already discussed about this option for several times. If it is helpful to solve the concerns from other parties, we believe it really deserves serious consideration. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Yes, thank you very much, China. Indeed, I think this idea of sending this to the General Assembly could be a good solution. Thus, we’d have all member states would be involved in the decision-making and all be adopting it, or at least they’d be in a position to adopt a decision. It wouldn’t be 40, 60, 80. It would be up to all GA members. Egypt to be followed by Namibia.
Egypt:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Egypt supports the spirit and the content of this paragraph as it stands, and we see that this is the right approach to try to reach consensus on this issue. We would like to voice our support to the proposal by the Russian Federation on taking out, considering the purpose to elaborate a protocol, and also to the Chinese. Proposal at least two sessions because in two sessions it might not be suffice to reach consensus on a Protocol. Thank You Madam Chair
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much Namibia then the Russian Federation again Namibia, please
Namibia:
Thank You Madam Chair the Namibian delegation can support the Jamaican proposal, which is well drafted and Provides a basis for consensus. We can also support the addition from China on at least two sessions Madam Chair, we have consistently advocated for a future focused approach that remains cognizant of the current realities Faced by member states in combating cybercrime the dynamic nature of cybercrime demands proactive and not reactive measures While we acknowledge the concerns expressed by some delegates regarding the premature nature of this initiative We wish to emphasize that there are a number of member states currently grappling with unique cybercrime Not addressed within the main convention Madam Chair, these are not hypothetical future scenarios These are present-day challenges that threaten the security and economic well-being of our citizens Madam Chair, our collective responsibility extends beyond the adoption of the main convention We must establish a framework that serves all nations equitably irrespective of their technological capacities To conclude Madam Chair, Namibia remains flexible on the timeline for negotiating an additional protocol Which we believe is not intended to diminish the significance of the main convention But rather to complement and future-proof it against emerging threats. Thank You Madam Chair
Chair:
Merci beaucoup, thank you very much Russian Federation
Russian Federation:
Thank You Madam Chair, yes indeed apologies for taking the floor again We’re grateful to the Distinguished Representative of Brazil for the proposal he made and it’s very much in the spirit of consensus, the search for consensus. To be honest, to respond, I would like to see it in writing first. I didn’t quite understand state, was it states parties or member states? If it’s states parties, then for the most part, that’s a completely different way of achieving the 60 ratifications threshold. But the situation is evolving very swiftly here in the room and while I was trying to come up with a position in response to what the Distinguished Representative of Brazil said, there was another proposal from the Distinguished Representative of China, which Madam Chair, as you correctly pointed out, manages to resolve the issue of inclusion. If we’re sending this directly to the General Assembly, it’ll be 192. We don’t need 40, 60 or so on. I’m grateful to the Chinese representative for that. We endorse that proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. New Zealand to be followed by Mauritania and the Dominican Republic and then we’ll leave it there because in any event, we’re going to wrap up this morning’s meeting and at that point I’ll let you know what my decision is. Thank you. Mauritania, please.
Mauritania:
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation sees that the initiative is important to adopt a protocol that supplements this convention as suggested in this fifth paragraph. in any language to be adopted because this protocol would complement the criminalized offenses under this convention. We all value the importance of this protocol and of this step taking into consideration how cybercrime is evolving. As for the timeline proposed, we think that two sessions are not enough. Thus, we support the proposed language by the Republic of China to say in no less than two sessions, thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Dominican Republic to be followed by New Zealand.
Dominican Republic:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Dominican Republic supports the proposal made by Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM for this drafting of Five-Alt and the modification proposed by China that it be at least two sessions. We don’t agree with the proposals made by the Russian Federation and Pakistan. We don’t have a preference as to the venue. We don’t have any problem with the visas, thank God, but we could suggest the Dominican Republic if it needs to be there. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Dominican Republic. It’s a shame I’m going to be retired by then, but I’ve already visited your wonderful country on two occasions and I thought the beaches were absolutely stunning. However, I think the beaches will be more enticing than the meeting rooms if we do go there. New Zealand to be followed by Tanzania and then we’ll leave it there. New Zealand.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Chair. For New Zealand, our position has always been that a fast-tracked protocol is not desirable and we should follow it. focus on concluding the convention text and implementation of that convention. We do maintain that for the time being, but we also thank CARICOM for their proposal, which we can see seeking to address some of the concerns that others have raised about this concept, especially timing. However, some of the additions we’ve seen over this last session here simply re-emphasise to us that it’s going to be quite a difficult concept for us to get through. First of all, Russia’s proposals appear to prejudge that there will be a protocol before we have even started negotiating anything, so we would find that a very difficult addition to accept. And Pakistan’s suggestions raise one of our main concerns, is that we’re going to spend some years discussing the same issues that clearly did not have consensus in this process, or even close to consensus, and that would not necessarily be a good use of our collective resources. So at present we do have real trouble seeing how this can work, but we remain open to engaging constructively. We do agree with the comments from the EU that it is vital for us to address the issue of inclusivity. We heard China’s idea about submitting to the General Assembly. We would need to give that some additional thought, but we thank them for another creative idea. We also heard some of the comments about long travel times, and coming from the Pacific we can empathise, because every time we get on a plane it takes 20 plus hours to get over here, so we can also put the Pacific on the table for a location if others are open to that. I am joking, but I do want to underline that serious point that for us this is going to be a resource drain, and an extended process for states coming from the Pacific, and the debate that we’ve been having here just kind of emphasises that to us, and only reinforces that to us, that this will be a challenge that we have to manage. So thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, New Zealand. Tanzania, then Burkina Faso.
Tanzania:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Briefly, my delegation voices its support to the proposal made by Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM. We can also support a few edits made by China, and we understand the proposal made by Pakistan might move us away from the concessions. So we can, at the moment, support the proposal made by China on the proposed paragraph. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Burkina Faso.
Burkina Faso:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. Well, the need for an additional protocol has been proven, given where we’re at on the revised text. We need an additional protocol that’s going to take into consideration serious crimes that haven’t yet been covered. And on the number of sessions, we do think we need two sessions, at least, as China and other delegations suggested. Furthermore, we support Russia’s proposal regarding the deletion of as appropriate on venues. We do need a more inclusive venue. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Mexico.
Mexico:
Gracias. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to apologize for taking the floor once again. While we are grateful for the proposals from Brazil as well as China to address the concerns on the discussions of the protocols, it’s important to remember that Mexico’s proposal existed before the protocols became a central issue. Although the protocols raised the need for raising the threshold, there are still concerns with respect to the first conference of the parties. And that’s why, regardless of the conversations on the protocols, the number of 40 ratifications is still well below what is necessary in order to direct the convention towards a more inclusive and effective future. Furthermore, we’d like to listen to the legal experts of the Secretariat on the legal value of the resolution vis-Ã -vis the convention, given the fact that they are of a different nature, even when both are being subject to the consideration of the General Assembly. We’d like to have clarification from the legal department. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Mexico. I think the representative of China was very clear. He didn’t talk about the number of ratifications. All he said was, well, he just put forward an idea that would guarantee inclusion vis-Ã -vis the protocols. He didn’t address ratifications. Indonesia.
Indonesia:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Having heard the views of previous delegates, my delegation fully understands the spirit of having the additional protocols in this context. So we appreciate the latest proposal put forward by CARICOM, with adjustments made by the Russian Federation and China. We can consider this positively, and we feel that the current Five-Arts should be a good compromise to be considered by all delegates. We already feel that it would be unfortunate if we missed the opportunity for the AHA Committee to continue its work. to elaborate, draft some proprietary protocol to address additional criminal offenses. We are flexible regarding the – if it is – it will be comfortable to all. I think we can have a further discussion on the timeline. a number of sessions or a place. Well, the most important thing is that we should have a place for a meeting, at least, as you suggest, Madam Chair. So we are flexible on that one, but at least it will be important to have the current draft five out in this regard. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Indonesia. The last speaker for this morning will be Ecuador, and I’m closing the debate, at least temporarily, on pair five, Ecuador.
Ecuador:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Simply to endorse our support for the proposal made by China, which says that we include the term at least two sessions. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Very well. All right, we’ve heard various opinions, lots of comments regarding pair five of the draft resolution. It’s clear that we’re not quite in agreement on the content of this paragraph. Nonetheless, I’ve taken good note of the fact, well, in fact, I note with satisfaction that flexibility is being exhibited by everyone who took the floor, a willingness to discuss this paragraph, but also to take into consideration the various proposals, to negotiate on them, to deliberate on them. Thank you, CARICOM. Thank you for that proposal, which will serve as the foundation for various negotiations. I will be appointing, he’s not going to be happy, but that doesn’t matter. Eric, the representative of Brazil, is going to be steering the consultations with the involvement of various delegations who’ve put forward proposals on this. I think we do see some ways forward. And there have been some positive signals, but now it’s time to gather up all of these loose ends and come up with an agreement with the various delegations which tabled proposals and then here at the committee as a whole. We’ll revert to this on Monday morning. So you have this afternoon and possibly this weekend, Eric, I’m looking at you. You’ve already worked so hard throughout this entire process, but we’re going to ask a bit more of you, more of you because you put forward a proposal that garnered a lot of support. So I think you’re up to the task. You can bring together all of the various proposals and then submit a draft to us on Monday morning. That’s all I have to say on paragraph five. We will be resuming our proceedings at 3 p.m. this afternoon, turning our attention to the rest of the resolution, and I will now hand over for the Secretariat for some housekeeping announcements. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Secretariat would like to draw the attention of all delegations to the provisional list of participants of the reconvened concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee, which has been made available on the webpage of the session. We invite delegations to inform the Secretariat of any changes via email at cybercrimeahc.un.org. Thank you, Madam Chair. There you have it. Thank you very much. So if you have any modifications you’d like to make or anything you’d like to correct, please send those in via email. To avoid having to take the floor here in the Committee to make those minor changes. Thank you very much. We’ll see you back here at 3 p.m. Bon appétit.
Speakers
B
Bolivia
Speech speed
162 words per minute
Speech length
122 words
Speech time
45 secs
B
Brazil
Speech speed
142 words per minute
Speech length
474 words
Speech time
201 secs
BF
Burkina Faso
Speech speed
143 words per minute
Speech length
103 words
Speech time
43 secs
CV
Cabo Verde
Speech speed
70 words per minute
Speech length
15 words
Speech time
13 secs
C
Canada
Speech speed
151 words per minute
Speech length
488 words
Speech time
193 secs
C
Chair
Speech speed
130 words per minute
Speech length
5908 words
Speech time
2720 secs
C
China
Speech speed
121 words per minute
Speech length
321 words
Speech time
159 secs
C
Colombia
Speech speed
160 words per minute
Speech length
130 words
Speech time
49 secs
CR
Costa Rica
Speech speed
111 words per minute
Speech length
196 words
Speech time
106 secs
CD
Cote d’Ivoire
Speech speed
135 words per minute
Speech length
50 words
Speech time
22 secs
DR
Democratic Republic of Congo
Speech speed
122 words per minute
Speech length
399 words
Speech time
196 secs
DR
Dominican Republic
Speech speed
145 words per minute
Speech length
90 words
Speech time
37 secs
E
Ecuador
Speech speed
122 words per minute
Speech length
40 words
Speech time
20 secs
E
Egypt
Speech speed
151 words per minute
Speech length
394 words
Speech time
156 secs
ES
El Salvador
Speech speed
124 words per minute
Speech length
184 words
Speech time
89 secs
EU
European Union
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
542 words
Speech time
246 secs
I
Iceland
Speech speed
127 words per minute
Speech length
95 words
Speech time
45 secs
I
India
Speech speed
166 words per minute
Speech length
140 words
Speech time
51 secs
I
Indonesia
Speech speed
157 words per minute
Speech length
220 words
Speech time
84 secs
I
Iran
Speech speed
190 words per minute
Speech length
665 words
Speech time
211 secs
J
Jamaica
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
1298 words
Speech time
519 secs
L
Lebanon
Speech speed
208 words per minute
Speech length
133 words
Speech time
38 secs
L
Liechtenstein
Speech speed
155 words per minute
Speech length
240 words
Speech time
93 secs
M
Mauritania
Speech speed
104 words per minute
Speech length
158 words
Speech time
91 secs
M
Mexico
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
602 words
Speech time
264 secs
M
Morocco
Speech speed
148 words per minute
Speech length
978 words
Speech time
396 secs
N
Namibia
Speech speed
159 words per minute
Speech length
217 words
Speech time
82 secs
N
Nepal
Speech speed
156 words per minute
Speech length
18 words
Speech time
7 secs
NZ
New Zealand
Speech speed
196 words per minute
Speech length
404 words
Speech time
124 secs
N
Nicaragua
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
132 words
Speech time
58 secs
N
Nigeria
Speech speed
161 words per minute
Speech length
814 words
Speech time
303 secs
N
Norway
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
72 words
Speech time
31 secs
P
Pakistan
Speech speed
124 words per minute
Speech length
470 words
Speech time
227 secs
RF
Russian Federation
Speech speed
147 words per minute
Speech length
2761 words
Speech time
1130 secs
S
Secretariat
Speech speed
113 words per minute
Speech length
46 words
Speech time
24 secs
S
Senegal
Speech speed
141 words per minute
Speech length
138 words
Speech time
59 secs
S
Switzerland
Speech speed
124 words per minute
Speech length
152 words
Speech time
74 secs
T
Tanzania
Speech speed
135 words per minute
Speech length
71 words
Speech time
32 secs
T
Tonga
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
752 words
Speech time
343 secs
US
United States
Speech speed
156 words per minute
Speech length
915 words
Speech time
353 secs
Related event
Reconvened concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime Convention
29 Jul 2024 - 9 Aug 2024
New York