Ad Hoc Consultation: Thursday 8th February, Afternoon session
8 Feb 2024 21:00h - 23:59h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Delegates scrutinise revised draft of cybercrime convention with focus on child protection
In a comprehensive session of the Ad Hoc Committee, delegates engaged in a meticulous review of the revised draft text of the convention, with a particular focus on cybercrime and the protection of children online. The session was marked by delegates presenting their national positions and engaging in debates over the language and implications of specific terms within the draft text.
A significant portion of the discussion centred on the terms “without right” and “criminal intent,” which are crucial for the criminalisation of actions related to cybercrime. Delegates from various countries deliberated over the implications of these terms, with some advocating for their inclusion to ensure clarity and consistency with existing legislation, while others expressed concerns about their potential to create loopholes or legal ambiguities.
Article 13, which addresses the protection of children from harmful online material, particularly concerning sexual exploitation, was a significant focus of the discussions. The definition of a child and the age of consent were debated, with some delegations advocating for a clear age limit to ensure consistent protection across jurisdictions. A new paragraph (6) was proposed for Article 15, which some delegations opposed, arguing that it could undermine the purpose of the offence and lead to over-criminalisation.
The session also touched upon Article 16, where some delegations found the language to be vague and potentially limiting. The article’s scope was discussed, with suggestions to align it with international standards on money laundering and ensure clarity for practitioners.
Chapters 4 and 5, covering procedural measures and law enforcement cooperation, also witnessed debate. Delegates discussed the balance between mandatory and discretionary cooperation, with some advocating for mandatory cooperation to ensure effective international collaboration. The United States proposed amendments to Article 48 to limit its scope to offences established in accordance with the convention, a suggestion supported by several other delegations.
Throughout the session, the committee worked towards balancing the need for robust measures to combat cybercrime and protect children with the need to respect the diversity of domestic legal systems and uphold human rights. The invocation of existing international conventions as reference points was a recurring theme, with delegates seeking to ensure that the new convention would complement and enhance the existing international legal framework.
In conclusion, the session was characterised by a collaborative effort to refine the draft text, with delegates demonstrating a commitment to reaching a consensus that would enable the convention to serve as an effective tool in the fight against cybercrime and the protection of children, while also respecting the sovereignty and legal traditions of all states.
Session transcript
Chair:
Ladies and gentlemen, you’re welcome back to this afternoon session, which is the 18th meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee. We will resume our consideration of the revised draft text. We will continue from where we left off. So with the permission of the room, we’ll resume our consideration of the revised draft text of the convention. As Madam Chair had indicated, we will not be – we won’t be touching articles that have been agreed at the referendum. We will proceed essentially to those aspects of the text where we have not yet reached a conclusion. agreement, and will urge where delegations have something to say, it will be much appreciated if we get concrete recommendations or draft proposals in terms of what correction they want to see or addition. And if they’re certain that that addition will either bring further clarity or further make such an article or a paragraph more acceptable in the room. That having been said, I now open the floor. We’ll start with the first article that is up. OK, so articles. We’ll start with article six, paragraph two. It’s one of those that has not been agreed at referendum. OK, maybe I think to better make use of our time, I would invite the room to so that we take this chapter by chapter. So chapter two, the floor is open to take views on. Chapter 2 specifically. I see the request for the floor from Iran. You have the floor, please.
Islamic Republic of Iran:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the Paragraph 2 of Article 6, my delegation would like to declare that although in our domestic legislation and our domestic legal system, regarding for without right, or dishonest, regarding for the dishonest, I’m sorry, because we are using the dishonest for the moral context, but in here we are in the criminal context. But according to your, with your consultations in the informal meetings, and we appreciate your endeavors, Excellency, regarding for the adding or criminal intent would be a good compromise to add after the dishonest. And I do believe that it would be suitable for our side regarding for how to criminalize matters and to take the criminalized issues. Thank you so much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, the distinguished Delegate of Iran. With that said, may I immediately ride on that flexibility to then ask the room if the Ad Hoc Committee is in a position to consider and agree Article 6, Paragraph 2 ad referendum. I see no objection to that, and it is so agreed. Thank you very much. May I also, because we had this issue, it was applicable to Article Paragraph 2 of Article 7 also, and in the same light, may I therefore ask the ad hoc committee, if we’re in a position to consider and agree, New Zealand, you have the floor.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize, you were probably quick on the gavel there, but we don’t agree to criminal intent being included. We consider it too broad. There is clear legal certainty in relation to dishonest intent. For clarity, we would also not accept that broad concept of criminal intent in Article 7, 11, and 12. Thank you.
Chair:
Okay, thank you. Albania, you have the floor. …statement, also we do not accept this dishonest, and so, and crime, so, yeah.
Albania:
Okay, if I understand the room, what you’re saying is…
Chair:
Microphone to the speaker. Sorry, if I understand these interventions, what you’re saying is that you do not agree with the text as put forward? All right, okay. We will move ahead. We will take your views. In regard to this chapter, any other views regarding Chapter 2? Pakistan, you have the floor.
Pakistan:
Thank you very much, Chair. Chair, I recall our discussion in this room and even in informals in which my delegation showed a lot of flexibility. Even in one of the informals, I recall that Distinguished Delegate of CARICOM explained use of different terms and how it is covered. To us, it still seems difficult to accept, but we can see there are paragraphs in which the term without right is used and agreed at referendum. We do not want to comment on that, but we were also flexible by inclusion of, along with dishonest, the criminal intent. But since some delegations have expressed their concern with it, so we would not like that in any form the term criminal intent to be deleted from the paragraph of the text as drafted. We are flexible with the use of the term. We can go along with the text as proposed by Madam Chair and currently available on our screen. Our preference is to delete dishonest, but for the sake of flexibility, we can go along. Otherwise, if there is no consensus in the room, we would prefer to only keep criminal intent. Thank you very much, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Jamaica, you have the floor.
Jamaica:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. and the foot of Article 12, CARICOM had proposed the inclusion of the words criminal intent as a way of reaching compromise as it was CARICOM’s view that this term has a wide application in more jurisdictions than perhaps dishonest intent would have and it provides member states with the flexibility to legislate accordingly. CARICOM would therefore support Madame Chair’s text as it has been proposed and we would maintain that position in respect of all the other articles where the reference arises. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Jamaica, Yemen you have the floor.
Yemen:
Thank you Mr. Chairman. As we have stated previously paragraph two of Article six is one of the may clauses and not a shall clause. When a security measure is breached and then this would have to do with the state’s will to protect the system. Yes there is a criminal intent when someone tries to attain certain data or information and in other cases it could be only dishonest so it’s dishonest and criminal at the same time. It is a may clause and not a shall clause but we believe that both terms should be included and the same applies to paragraph two of article seven. where the intent is mentioned, but it’s mentioned as only an intent and not a dishonest intent. Would the speaker speak at a normal speed and clearly so that the interpreter can relay? Thank you very much.
Chair:
The Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Russian Federation:
Thank you very much. We wanted to agree with the statements made by the representatives of CARICOM and Pakistan. We were under the understanding that we had reached a compromise on this issue when it comes to dishonest and criminal intent, but clearly we were mistaken. The Russian Federation also called for the use of criminal instead of dishonest. However, as a compromise, we agreed on the use of both terms. However, now it would seem that we’re trying to go all the way back to the beginning of this discussion for some reason. We were ready to agree to this particular text and are still ready to accept this text, but if there is no flexibility in the room, then we would be forced to only accept this criminal intent and not dishonest. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Indonesia, you have the floor.
Indonesia:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Indonesia noted that this issue has been long discussed. We have discussed this in informals quite long, and Indonesia has got explanations on both terms, which we think there will be no solution if we just want to have criminal intent or otherwise dishonest. So I think the existing proposal to have dishonest or criminal intent is somewhat is the middle ground. So for Indonesia, we prefer to have criminal intent, but for the spirit of consensus, we can accept the proposal language, dishonest or criminal intent. Thank you very much, Dan.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Uganda, you have the floor.
Uganda:
Thank you very much, Chair. Uganda would like to state that the paragraphs 2 of articles 6, 7, I think 11 and 12 are discretionary in nature, and it’s the first paragraph that are mandatory. And since they’re discretionary, it does not majorly affect the text as it is, and therefore it would be prudent in the spirit of reaching a consensus and not wasting a lot of time to leave it as it is such that the individual states and in their domestic laws, they’re able to determine with accuracy what applies to them between dishonesty, criminal intent, as it is clearly shown that the two apply differently in different jurisdictions. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Malawi, you have the floor.
Malawi:
Thank you, Chair, for giving Malawi the floor. Malawi is in a position to subscribe to criminal intent as opposed to dishonest intent, as dishonest intent is not a term consistent with criminal law generally. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Okay, thank you very much. I will, your views are noted, I will, in the absence of any other views, I will, oh, okay, Australia to be followed by Tanzania, Australia, you have the floor.
Australia:
Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon to colleagues. From our perspective, we would prefer the original text in terms of referring to dishonest intent. We think that perhaps Articles 6, 7, 11 and 12 would be a little bit more unclear if we do adopt those changes, however, for the purposes of consensus, we could accept 6, 7 and 11 referring to those, however, we have major concerns with Article 12, including criminal intent. When we think about fraud, those kinds of actions genuinely involve dishonesty or some level of fraud, and including additional criminal intent elements is unclear to us, and so it is a significant concern that we would include criminal intent in Article 12. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Tanzania, you have the floor.
United Republic of Tanzania:
Thank you, Chair. Tanzania joins the submissions made by Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM, Pakistan, Uganda and others in supporting the retention of criminal intent in the respective articles. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, sorry.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Mauritania, you have the floor.
Mauritania:
Thank you everyone. Good afternoon, everyone. We believe that these three paragraphs, two of Article 6, two of Article 7, Article 7 and 2 of Article 11, as mentioned by previous speakers. These are all May clauses, and therefore, we should not be restricted in dealing with them. However, we believe that the phrases used in these different paragraphs do not tally. In certain places, we mention dishonest intent. In other places, we mention a criminal intent. Therefore, I believe we should harmonize our use of these different terms so that the paragraphs tally together. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Venezuela, you have the floor.
Venezuela:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, it is important to maintain the term criminal intent, or we could accept having both, as we have it now in the document. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. The United Kingdom.
United Kingdom:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to echo the position which was set out by Australia with regards to Article 12. The new version, the further revised draft text of the Convention refers now to criminal intent in addition to dishonest or fraudulent intent. This article is not discretionary. We believe that here, Mr. Chair, the problem is that the very essence of the crime of fraud is that it is done with dishonest or fraudulent intent. We do not even know what would be meant by criminal intent in this context. So what may seem like an innocent change in this context, here in Article 12, actually has the effect of vastly increasing the scope of this offense. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. The United States, you have the floor.
United States:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon to colleagues. As was stated by the Delegate of Australia, as well as of the UK, on Article 12, the United States opposes the addition of criminal or other criminal intent alongside the existing mens rea of fraudulent and dishonest. For this fraud crime, the correct mens rea is particularly important, and that mens rea is an intent to deceive or, as is said in many domestic legislation, an intent to defraud. Adding or criminal intent in Article 12 adds a certain incoherence to the entire article, which almost certainly will mislead legislatures attempting to transpose this article and will result in an inability to cooperate on this article. So we believe that adding or criminal intent in Article 12 is misleading, it’s unclear, and will transform the nature of the offense. While I have the floor, Mr. Chair, I’ll also point out that that we still have an issue with the title of Article 12, that theft does not belong there because we’re addressing fraud in this particular article. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much. The Netherlands, you have the floor.
Netherlands:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. From a legal perspective, the component criminal intent in Article 6.2 and elsewhere is a bit strange. I would like to explain why. The first paragraph criminalizes conduct. One of the components of the first paragraph is intentionally. This makes that the described conduct must have been committed intentionally. Otherwise, the described conduct is not criminal. That brings me to the second paragraph. The component criminal intent consists of two components, criminal and intent. There’s no need for the component intent. This component is already mentioned in the first paragraph. The component criminal does not add anything either. That intent is criminal also follows from the first paragraph because the conduction is already criminalized in the first paragraph. Conclusion, there’s no need for the component criminal intent. Adding it does not improve the understandability and the workability of the article. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Okay. With this, we’ve taken on your views in respect of Chapter 2. If there is no other, okay. Egypt, you have the floor.
Egypt:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. I would like to make a statement on behalf of the following states. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a statement on behalf of the following states Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Iran. With regard to Article 13, while our group of countries strongly support the inclusion of this article, with a view to protecting children from harmful material on the Internet, particularly with regard to sexual exploitation or sexual violations, we stand against any drafting that runs counter to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly the definition of a child, or as in Paragraph 3, the exceptions with regard to the application of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, in a manner that would undermine the rights of the child. We also object to the inclusion of paragraph 5 in this article because of its irrelevance. This paragraph tackles the non-criminalization of consensual sexual relations. And with regard to Article 15, it is necessary – a microphone for the speaker, please? The speaker is not heard. It’s important not to draft this article in a manner that undermines the right of the state to publish private photos generally, the criminalization of publishing private and personal photos publicly, either consensually or not, out of concern for the general morals and moral values. We would also like to note that it is important to delete the phrase that states, without a right to do so, also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress the flexibility that we have shown during the informal consultations with regard to certain drafting – drafting that we believe would – in a manner that would lead to a consensus on these two articles. My delegation has made two proposals in Articles 13 and 15, and we believe that our proposals would see the light if we are keen on reaching consensus on these two articles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Brazil, you have the floor. Thank you.
Brazil:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d first like to make a comment – brief comment on Article 16, Paragraph 2C. We’d like to request the deletion of that phrase, a certain degree of seriousness. It’s an unclear inclusion into what used to be agreed text. We would also like to talk about Article 13. From the beginning of negotiations, we’ve seen Article 13 as one of the most important of our future Convention. It would be an unprecedented step towards protecting children. As you very well know, Chair, it’s been discussed to exhaustion and with many technical details. We would like to once more appeal to the flexibility of colleagues so that we could adopt this article. We have been trying to work on compromise. throughout the past week or so, in order to bring together views that are very far apart in some issues, but that are absolutely common in their will to protect children, which is the one of all of us. I would like to outline that suggestion that we’ve made, so that colleagues can consider once again. The idea was to bring to Article 13 the definition of children being only 18 years old, and under 18 years old, to be clear, bringing that down from the definitions of the Convention, which we believe would allow us to have more protection to a larger group of people without disrespecting or without disregard to the CRC definition, since it would be contained in the Article. And then we would need to work out on the most complicated issues, which are the exceptions that are included in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 now. We recognize that that’s been very hard, and we’d like to point out that we do believe that the inclusion of the concept of child as under 18 in the Article, plus being flexible to delete what is now 3B, and a possible rewriting of 4 and 5, would allow us to have more protection to a larger group of people without disrespecting or without disregarding the CRC definition.
Chair:
I request Flo for Brazil to complete his proposal.
Brazil:
Thank you. And a rewriting of 4 and 5, which doesn’t need to be the one on screen now, since… We could strike a better balance between the protection, the exceptions needed, and the best protection that we can get to children without opening the door to too many exceptions. We do think that that’s possible, and we appeal once again to the flexibility of colleagues that can consider this as a possible compromise. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. The European Union, you have the floor.
European Union:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states. I would like to first agree with our distinguished colleague from Brazil by pointing out the importance of Articles 13 to 15, which we also believe is a major added value of this Convention. That said, there are some details that still need to be discussed, it seems. The EU and its member states fully support Articles 13 and 15 as proposed in the original revised draft text of the Chair. In Article 13, we can be open to some of the changes that we see in the most recent revised text, but the EU cannot accept Paragraph 1D and the proposed alternative language that would replace Paragraphs 4 and 5. Regarding this article, a lot of difficulties have been highlighted also by our distinguished delegate from Brazil, including also in the last two weeks where we are in the very final stages of these negotiations. The draft text proposed by the Chair is a result of dozens of hours of discussions and negotiations in the last two years. We are very mindful and heard. the difficulties of certain delegations, we are mindful of the differences among the delegations, and the text is far from being perfect, also for the UN and its Member States. But we believe the text strikes a balance which enjoys broad support and which can be a good basis for reaching consensus. There is nothing in Article 13 that would impose or force something on certain states when it would come to the implementation of the future Convention. It simply recognizes the possibility for measures that aim to avoid over-criminalization of children, which is also an obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol. Proposing significant changes to this carefully balanced article at the very end of negotiations puts all of us in a very difficult position. We would like to highlight again the fact that there are different approaches among states on how they provide exemptions from criminalization or prosecution with regard to self-generated material involving children and material that has been consensually produced or possessed in relationships between persons who have reached the legal age of sexual consent for their private use only. Some states set out possibility for an explicit exemption in their criminal laws, others can choose not to prosecute under certain conditions. As also emphasized in the explanatory notes of the Chair, these provisions offer an important exception to recognize adolescents’ progressively developing right to self-determination. The draft text proposal of the Chair aims to take this complex issue into due consideration. The deletion of paragraphs 4 and 5 would force the EU and its member states to criminalize conduct they consider absolutely normal. I want to be very clear that there is no misunderstanding in the room. Deleting those two paragraphs will make it impossible for the EU and its member states to agree to the Convention and become a party to it. We are also very worried about the arguments of some delegations regarding the interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and its optional protocols. We would like to point out that paragraph 73 of the guidelines regarding the implementation of the optional protocol to the CRC on child pornography clearly stresses that states parties should not criminalize adolescents of similar ages for consensual sexual activity. These guidelines of the Committee on the Rights of the Child provide an alternative interpretation of the implementation of the CRC and its additional protocol to which an overwhelming majority of states have signed up for, including those requesting the deletion of paragraphs 4 and 5. Mr. Chair, we sincerely hope that the request for deleting those paragraphs or their very significant reformulation does not reflect the requesting delegation’s views also on the implementation of the UN CRC and its optional protocol. In its letter to all of us, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted the following, and I quote, the article related to online child sexual abuse or material is not currently formulated with sufficient precision to prevent the criminalization of children for self-generated content. Article 13.4 of the current paragraph 4 of the current draft provides that states may take steps to exclude the criminalization of children for self-generated material. The OICHR believes that this discretionary commitment does not sufficiently protect rights of the child as guaranteed under international law. The OICHR therefore recommends amending this language to explicitly preclude criminalization of self-generated material by children when it is incompatible with international human rights law. In terms such as state parties shall exclude the criminalization of children for self-generated material as described in paragraph two of this article. Mr. Chair, therefore I would reiterate that the U.S. member states can support the text of article 13 with the caveats I mentioned.
Chair:
Sorry, the EU, you, are you done, or you were… Almost. Okay.
European Union:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to finish just quickly on Article 15, if I may, and I will finish, I will be brief. We also support the original draft text, and we are quite concerned to see the new Paragraph 6 in the new version of the text, as adding this paragraph would enable an overly broad scope of criminalization. Adding this paragraph would result in over-criminalization and would send a very dangerous message. Also, we cannot accept this additional Paragraph 6, unfortunately. Therefore we confirm the support for the original text. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Okay. Thank you very much, Your Excellencies. Distinguished Delegates, ladies and gentlemen, at this point I have on the speaking list you have Japan, United States, Philippines, Holy See, Australia, Cameroon. At this point, with the kind indulgence of the room, I will hand over the chair to my brother and friend, the Vice-Chair of the Dominican Republic. He will take us from this point forward. I thank you for your cooperation and for your time. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. To keep on the The list that we have here, Japan, you have the floor.
Japan:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the delegation of Japan, and in fact on behalf of my government, I regret that I am forced to express our deepest concern over the proposal to delete paragraphs 3 to 5, Article 13, that was raised by a delegate of our member state. These paragraphs need to stay in its entirety in the convention that’s drafted originally by the Chair. First of all, these paragraphs, particularly paragraph 3, from the perspective of Japan, are based on extensive discussions that a committee has had, and have the basis on a delicate and careful balance, which is the outcome of the discussions. I would like to recall the resources that the committee has dedicated, including time and energy, of all member states that are involved. In this regard, Japan echoes the EU’s intervention. We respect the importance of Article 13 in the Chair’s original text, and not the further revised text of the convention. Again, this is the result of tremendous discussions, and Japan expects that their careful wording, including the flexibility to cater for different domestic contexts, jurisdictions, will be retained as drafted, and especially we strongly support for the retention of paragraph 3. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Japan. United States, you have the floor.
United States:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On Articles 13 through 15, the United States believes that the recent changes to the draft text are inconsistent with the majority viewpoint that had been expressed in the informals, which was to maintain the chair’s text as drafted. What is clear from the many hours of informals, even in this session alone, is that the new proposals for alternative paragraphs do not solve the concerns that were addressed in the original paragraphs, which allowed for flexibility to member states in the least restrictive fashion, while also protecting children from being criminalized for their victimization or for behavior to which they cannot consent. We support the retention of Paragraphs 3 through 5 in Article 13 as drafted, and we strongly oppose the addition of Paragraph 6 or the other alternatives proposed for Article 15. We also support the definition of child as originally drafted, but we could be flexible moving it to Article 13 instead of Article 2. The definition of child set at age 18 is most critical for Article 13, but importantly, age of majority is not synonymous with the age needed for protection from exploitation and abuse with respect to child sexual abuse material. A rolling definition allows a state party to set the age at any level without a minimum, which not only endangers children throughout the world, but turns a victim into an offender across borders. And as the Chair stated in the explanatory note for 6 AHC, it would lead to a fragmentation at the international level and pose obstacles to international cooperation in the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. The CRC definition is inconsistent with the obligations under the optional protocol and other international and regional instruments that specifically deal with the protection of children against criminal and cyber abuse and exploitation, which the CRC does not do. states the committee emphasizes that a child under the age of 18 can never consent to any form of their their sexual exploitation or sexual abuse and state parties must criminalize all offenses covered by the optional protocol committed against any child up to the age 18. In the informal the vice chair asked if there was any genius to do for the mat for magic to bring us together. After having spent many many hours discussing these articles we believe the chair’s text going into this session was that magic and we support that text for these articles and the definition of child. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you United States. Philippines you have the floor.
Philippines:
Thank you Mr. Chair. For article 13 while we understand where Egypt is coming from it was our initial position in Vienna to delete without right because we also do not want it to sound as if there were circumstances that there are any rights to commit offenses related to child sexual abuse or exploitation materials. But our national experience with a fake child used to snare pedophiles and child abusers show that police officers or other law enforcement authorities may sometimes have to use fake children to bring perpetrators to justice. That’s why we are okay with using without right. But if others are not comfortable with it let’s consider other proposals except the deletion of the article because we believe that we are on the same side. And for criminal intent the Philippines would like to support including criminal intent to cover both dishonest intent but also criminal intent depending on the state’s domestic law covering the offense. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Philippines.
Chair:
Next on my list I have Holy See, Australia, Cameroon, Argentina, Norway and Egypt. Holy See, you have the floor.
Holy See:
Thank you very much Mr. Chair and good afternoon colleagues. On chapter 2 article 13 the Holy See is obliged to reaffirm unequivocally the importance of this provision, and the importance of its retention, noting that child sexual exploitation and abuse and related material are one of the greatest scourges of our society. We have previously said and have heard reiterated in this room that protecting children is the key purpose of this article. In this regard we appreciate and support the inclusion of paragraph 1d as well as paragraph 6. In previous rounds of negotiations we strongly requested the deletion of the expression without right in the chapeau of paragraph 1. Let us be clear there is absolutely no right to engage with such materials and we can all agree on this and this was made clear by all of us in the room. Now even if we requested the deletion of without right, hearing the room and recognizing the needs of for example law enforcement agencies to deal with such materials in the exercise of their function, we can show a certain degree of flexibility with regard to your proposal. As for article 13 paragraphs 4 and 5, the Holy See would like to support the alternative proposal currently included in the further revised text. While we can support paragraph 4 as drafted originally, the retention of paragraph 5 which in our view is misplaced as well as the retention of paragraph 3 at this stage would lead us to support the alternative proposal here included. With regard to paragraph 3 in particular, subparagraph a, we agree with the explanation of our predicament outlined by the distinguished delegate of Brazil during the informal. This is a key point of divergence. We remain convinced that this represents a serious loophole in this text. This point has been eloquently and repeatedly voiced by a large number of delegation. For the reasons previously provided, the Holy See continues to insist on the deletion of this paragraph because in our view this is a concerning step backwards from existing international instruments and the obligations contained therein. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Holy See. Australia, you have the floor.
Australia:
Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. So turning to Article 13, and then we’ll turn to Article 15 very quickly. So Article 13 for us represents a strong opportunity for all of us to combat this heinous crime. We strongly prefer the Chair’s original text for the seventh session. This language sets a strong balance between flexibility for the differences in domestic legal systems, whilst acknowledging the impact on young persons and protecting children from harm. Importantly, such flexibility maintains the strong criminalisation that we all expect to combat this crime. As many before me, our strong preference is to maintain Paragraphs 3 through to 5, as they are. In our view, Paragraph 3 goes to the flexibility just mentioned to ensure that we can achieve a truly global response to this crime. In terms of Paragraphs 4 and 5, these are critical to avoid the over-criminalisation of children and young persons. We thank Brazil for their 4-5 ALT proposal. However, in our view, identifying clear, very narrow exceptions, such as those that are provided currently, provide a better framework to protect children. A broad provision will result in significant and unclear application of this provision. Protection of children has two sides, protecting them from exploitation and abuse, while ensuring that we do not inappropriately expose children to the criminal justice process, or undermine legitimate sexual exploration of young persons. Clear parameters around criminalisation are absolutely necessary to achieve the objective that we are discussing right now. We agree with the comments made by the US on the definition of a child and support retaining without right in Paragraph 1. Turning to Article 15, we would like to retain the original text. Australia recognises the importance of combating this crime. As others have said, this text sets a minimum on criminalisation. Should their domestic laws go further and are not based on consent, then that state may choose to criminalise further. Inserting paragraph 6 also raises questions as to whether the other offences in 6 to 14 and 16 could go further without actually having such a provision. We are also unclear as to exactly what this would cover, including whether this may cover consensual, intimate images being sent between people in their private home. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Australia. Cameroon, you have the floor.
Cameroon:
Thank you, Chair. My delegation is extremely concerned by the exceptions added in paragraph 1 of Article 3. And therefore, we have strong reservations when it comes to the term without right. Moreover, in Article 2E, the end of the phrase that comes after 18, or the 18 years old, is of concern. We could think, this could make us think that such a young age could be, that a young age could be that of the attempt of a majority. The idea here is to protect children, no matter where they come from and who they are. So we cannot allow for the freedom of each state to define this term. I wish to reintegrate I wish to reintegrate that corporal integrity is a jus corsides norm that no convention can affect. In the same spirit, my delegation believes that Article 15 should be rid of any provisions that could lead to confusion. Thank you.
Argentina:
Argentina would like to reiterate the importance of preserving Article 13, as well as Article 14, with protection for children. And this goes hand in hand with the traditions of our country in terms of the protection and promotion of the human rights of the child. I’d like to reiterate that for our delegation, it is extremely relevant to maintain the wording of the text submitted by the chair and the original revised version without changes. Specifically, we emphasize the relevance for Argentina of the wording proposed in paragraph 3 of Article 13 of this draft. Our delegation would like to emphasize that the definition of the child in Article 2 should be the one originally drafted in the text of the chair. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Argentina. Norway?
Norway:
Thank you. Like many others, we see these articles as extremely important, and we think it would be a good thing to have them. Thank you. Thank you. I’m very sad if they do disappear. We support the proposal by the chair as drafted without any changes. I would anyway like to give some comment on some of the interventions that have been made. Article 13, Part 1 and 2, they set out a clear obligation for states to criminalize all forms of CISA. We support this, but as has been said by many, in order to fight this horrible crime, it is necessary in some instances to access or share such images. Many examples have already been given. I can note the investigation, given evidence in court, victims telling their stories and research. We therefore see it necessary to keep the words without right. Since Paragraph 1 and 2 pose an absolute obligation to criminalize, we would also need some other exceptions. We do not want to criminalize children for sharing self-generated material. They might have been lured into producing sexual pictures of themselves and sending them to a perpetrator. It is the perpetrator and not the child which should be criminal liable. Furthermore, we know that children might send each other pictures, and we do not want to criminalize this either. This would not be in the best interest of the child, so we would therefore need Paragraph 4. Furthermore, we do not want to criminalize a couple where one is 17 and the other 19, consensually sending each other pictures, as we see this as perfectly legitimate actions. Without Paragraph 5, we would have to criminalize such actions. I would also like to underline that Paragraph 4 and 5 are not mandatory. This is just a possibility for states to make such exceptions. And if some states do not want to, they are free not to do so. There has been a proposal for deleting the definition of child in Article 2 as a part of, if this would help people to accept Article 13, we can go along with that, as long as it’s made clear in Article 13 that it applies to children under the age of 18. On Article 15, we also support the Chair’s text, but cannot support any of the additional paragraphs that have been proposed. Contrary to Article 13, Article 15 does not exclude national legislation going further than what is stated in Article 15. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Norway. Liechtenstein, you have the floor.
Liechtenstein:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Liechtenstein agrees on the importance of Article 13 and 15 of this draft, as did all previous speakers before me. Liechtenstein cannot agree on any changes on this delicate balance that was reached over seemingly endless hours of negotiations. We strongly call for the retention of the original text as was drafted by the Chair. We especially cannot support the deletion of paragraphs 3 to 5 of Article 13 under any circumstances. Liechtenstein fully supports the statement by the European Union in this regard. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Liechtenstein. So, I have next on my list Uganda, Iceland, Albania, Burkina Faso, El Salvador, Egypt, Switzerland and Jamaica. Uganda, you have the floor.
Uganda:
Thank you, Chair. I would like to thank all the speakers. I would like to state that article thirteen and fifteen are important and key to the implementation of the rule of law globally and the need to combat cybercrime in general. Deletion of the two articles will not definitely solve the problem, but we’ll see it grow deeper than it already is. Therefore, it is important to work around the language and ensure that we are able to come up with a solution. To begin with, Mr. Chair, article thirteen, the first paragraph, Uganda is concerned with the use… We’ve previously shown our discomfort with the words without right, but that’s notwithstanding, and with the aim of reaching a consensus, I just want to point out that the use of the word and after intentionally combines the obligation to prove intention and without right jointly to prove a crime. And Mr. Chair, I suggest the use of the word or such that it’s optional. It gives options between intention without right and lawful authority, depending on which jurisdiction it is. That’s notwithstanding, even if that is to be maintained with the word without right, Uganda still finds trouble with believing the production without right. Much as other words seem to fall in line, taking time to read about the offering, the sale, the distribution, the transmission in line with protection of victims, but production does not rhyme within the paragraph and the intentions of the paragraph. We humbly submit that that could be reviewed and maybe, if possible, the word producing deleted to ensure that we reach a compromise. And then lastly, it is also important for delegations to reach a compromise or to understand the need to differentiate between the edge of criminal responsibility and the edge of criminal liability – or edge of criminal responsibility and the edge of majority. The two are different and yet run hand-in-hand in reference to criminal justice system in different jurisdictions. So that’s why it is important in the paragraphs where there is contention in respect to material that comes out for children to ensure that the domestic laws take precedence in respect to the edge of criminal liability and the edge of majority. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Yolanda. I would like to remind all delegates that, stating the obvious, we have one hour and 32 minutes to cover 52 remaining articles. So it might be a good idea if we can advance. Iceland, you have the floor.
Iceland:
I’ll speak really, really fast and confine myself to 13 and 15. We have been discussing this in the informals, so I would like to say this. The drafting of Article 13 is not as Iceland would have preferred, but in the interest of reaching consensus, we support the retention of it with paragraphs 3 to 5, and we want to echo specifically what Argentina has stated regarding the importance of retaining the delicate balance drafted in the Chair’s proposal. And further, I would like to highlight that the standards that have already been developed in this field, in particular the work of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, are well reflected in these proposals. Further, as regards Article 15, it is very difficult for Iceland to accept this provision as it is only reaching the absolute bare minimum standard of protection of people in the increasingly digital age. However, in the spirit of compromise, we will accept the Chair’s proposal here on this, as drafted on 1 to 5, but we cannot accept any further concessions to that. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Iceland. Albania, you have the floor.
Albania:
It’s very short, always. I’m not going to details, because all other distinguished delegations, they really explain very well, each of them, their position. So, Albania is strongly supporting the retention of the original for two paragraphs, 13 and 15, as Chair proposed. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Albania. Burkina Faso, you have the floor.
Burkina Faso:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Articles 6, paragraph 2, article 7, paragraph 2, article 11, paragraph 2, and article 12. The delegation of Burkina Faso would have prepared leading criminal sanctions, but with a view to compromise, we are willing to accept the Chair’s text. With regard to article 13, paragraph 1, we request the deletion of the mention of the… because otherwise… otherwise, A, C and D of that paragraph. We support Cameroon’s comments on this issue. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Burkina Faso. El Salvador. Thank you. El Salvador has the floor.
El Salvador:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I’d like to congratulate you on the coordination of this meeting on Article 13. Briefly, I will say that El Salvador, as part of its national legislation, must guarantee the interpretation, application, and incorporation of any norm, must incorporate the interests of all children and adolescents with regard to their integral rights and guarantees following this approach. And in order to clarify our position, we believe it relevant to have the text of Article 13 as it is in the reviewed version, reviewed by the Chair. In case Brazil’s proposal is a possible compromise solution, our delegation will reserve the right to issue an interpretation in which we will express what we believe in terms of this principle. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, El Salvador. Egypt?
Egypt:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving Egypt the floor, and we wish you all the best in chairing this August committee during the coming one and a half hour. And very briefly, Mr. Chair, regarding Article 13, once again, Mr. Chair, allowing exceptions in paragraph three of this article will not ensure dual criminality and consequently will hinder international cooperation aiming to prevent and combating this very serious and disturbing crime. The optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. explicitly prohibits any form of production, possession or distribution of child sexual abuse or exploitation material. That’s why these delegations and many other delegations asked for the removal of paragraph 3. On paragraph 5, Mr. Chair, once again this delegation wants to highlight, as mentioned in the statement made by many countries, that paragraph 5 is irrelevant to the crime stipulated in Article 13 of this Convention, since the paragraph addresses the non-criminalization of consensual sexual relationships. Again here, Mr. Chair, this delegation appreciates the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Brazil and we can work constructively on it, taking into consideration that in the informals it was supposed to be an alternative for paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. We can work on, Mr. Chair, having the definition of the child here in Article 13 instead of Article 2. We can show flexibility in this regard, Mr. Chair, and we can work on the alternative as presented by the distinguished delegate of Brazil, taking into consideration that we are still insisting on the deletion of paragraph 3 and paragraph 5. Regarding paragraph 4, Mr. Chair, this delegation proposes the retention of paragraph 4 with an amendment to be added at the end of paragraph 4, provided other preventive or corrective measures may be instituted. Again, Mr. Chair, we can accept the retention of paragraph 4. for, with an addition, provided other preventive or corrective measures may be.
Chair:
Sorry Egypt, your three minutes are up. So I have next in my list Switzerland, Jamaica, Italy, Colombia, and Vanuatu. And right, Egypt, you requested for the floor again. So okay, so please give the floor back to Egypt before Switzerland, so he finishes.
Egypt:
Thank you Mr. Chair for your indulgence. This is pertaining to Article 13. Regarding Article 15, Mr. Chair, we are asking for a new 6-Bis-Alt, a new 6-Alt. Nothing in this article shall prejudice criminalization of the dissemination of images under domestic law of state parties. This proposal, Mr. Chair, addresses the three elements of the criminalization as stipulated in Paragraph 1, so that we can keep without right, we can keep intentionally, we don’t go in this debate regarding using the term without right or not, but let’s have a clear statement regarding the possibility for a state party to criminalize the dissemination of images under domestic law. And here, Mr. Chair, we are not talking about the criminalization of consensual sexual relationships. Again, the proposal, Mr. Chair, nothing in this article shall prejudice criminalization of the dissemination of images under domestic law of state parties. Thank you Mr. Chair once again for your indulgence.
Chair:
Thank you, Egypt. Switzerland, you have the floor.
Switzerland:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Switzerland has a strong preference for the original text in Articles 13 to 15, as they were, and we understand, and this is at least the impression we have, that this was the case for other delegations as well. We think that the drafting of the original text already took a lot of efforts and coordination in the first place, and therefore believe that the original text could be more acceptable for most delegations without the new amendments. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Switzerland. Jamaica, you have the floor.
Jamaica:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. Jamaica is pleased to deliver this statement on behalf of the 14 member states of the Caribbean community. CARICOM can support Article 13, Paragraph 1, Subparagraphs A to C, as they have been drafted. CARICOM had called for the deletion of the reference to financing, facilitating, or profiting in the earlier draft. However, for the sake of compromise, CARICOM can consider being flexible on the reintroduction of the D if there is an appetite for it. As it is currently placed and drafted, however, adjustments would have to be made if it were to be kept as it is incoherent when read with the chapeau of Article 13, Paragraph 1. In respect of Article 13, Paragraph 2, CARICOM supports Subparagraphs A, B, and C. In respect of D, we can also support it as it has now been formulated. CARICOM supports Article 13, Paragraph 3 in its entirety. In respect of Paragraph 3, we believe it was the best compromise to the divergent views. The provision allows member states to exercise the option to limit what material is criminalized or the threshold that is to be met. CARICOM also supports Article 13, Paragraphs 4 and 5. Paragraph 4, as drafted, allows states to consider the best interests of the child and take steps to avoid criminalization. of children. Many Member States agree that where children run afoul of the law in relation to this provision, there should be some allowance made for rehabilitation or some other corrective measure that does not necessarily result in jail time. This paragraph, therefore, gives Member States the latitude to pursue or to continue to pursue measures like child diversion, probation, corrective measures outside of or in addition to the formal justice system in the context of this Convention. In respect of Article 13.5, this provision makes allowances for jurisdictions to maintain or adopt measures towards leniency, thus avoiding over-criminalization. CARICOM is generally supportive of paragraphs 1 to 5 of Article 15 and in respect of paragraph 6, CARICOM is concerned that the inclusion of this provision would in principle change the nature and intent of this offence as a violation of privacy is a consent-based offence. CARICOM had pushed for this as a priority from the beginning of this process. Therefore, Mr. Chair, we call for the deletion of paragraph 6. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Jamaica, on behalf of CARICOM. So I have left in my list Italy, Colombia, Vanuatu, Canada, the Netherlands, Georgia, and Austria. Italy, you have the floor.
Italy:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Italy fully aligns itself with the U.S. statement, but Mr. Chair, allow me some words in our national capacity. We believe that no one, and I repeat, no one in this room has any intention to lower the guard in the slightest in the fight against this terrible scourge of child abuse. In our view, the reference to without rights and paragraphs 4 and 5 in Article 13 aim precisely to provide maximum protection for children to ensure that the fight against this crime is more effective. and to ensure that children’s rights are secured. Many have explained it before me, and much better than me, but I want to be clear. We cannot absolutely allow either the deletion of without right or the deletion of para 4 and 5. Without right is a technical expression which is already used in many other articles in this same Convention, which is used to allow the police to operate under cover or even simply to access these sites. But it’s not only about law enforcement functions. It’s also about other actors. For example, in Italy, private associations, also religious associations, do an extraordinary job. They scan the internet to find these websites where they exchange CAMs and report them. As for para 4 and 5, we think that there is a great misunderstanding. In para 4 and 5, we are not talking about abuse whatsoever. They have nothing to do with abuse, nor with any of the abusive or exploitative hideous acts described in para 1. We only want to prevent minors who can legally engage in sexual relations under the conditions laid down in their respective domestic laws, which can be very different. We want to prevent them and those having a legitimate, non-abusive relationships with them from being punished because, let’s say, they take pictures of themselves and keep it only for themselves. And finally, as for the Egyptian proposal in article 15, let me repeat what I already said in our informal today. The criminal convention is aimed at harmonizing at the lower limit, at the lowest common denominator. There is no need to expressly say what state members can do in their domestic illegal framework. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Vitaly. Colombia, tiene la palabra. Colombia has the floor.
Colombia:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been the position of the Colombian delegation throughout these negotiations to defend and include the gender perspective as a focus of the interpretation of measures of cooperation, investigation and, of course, criminalization in the instrument. The scope of protection in Article 15 includes a reaffirmation of intimacy and freedom in developing your sexual identity. The Republic of Colombia must insist in maintaining the drafting currently proposed and delete others such as alternatives in Paragraph 6. These new wordings open up the possibility of criminalizing the spread of images in the framework of consensual relations, which dilutes the very purpose of the text and takes us back to a different position on the autonomy of one’s body and sexuality. We also support the original interpretation of Article 13 and wording as proposed. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Colombia. Vanuatu.
Vanuatu:
Thank you, Chair. Vanuatu supports the retention of Articles 13 to 15 of the Chair’s original text or revised text without any additions. Mr. Chair. Echoing what the delegation from Australia had said, these articles provide a suitable and perhaps ideal platform in this Convention for the protection of children from the scourges of the heinous crime often perpetrated with the use of information and communications technology. Vanuatu is also opposed to the deletion of paragraphs three and five, but is open to the issue or the question of whether or not paragraph six should remain for the reason given by a number of delegations. In relation to the expression or the term, without right, in Article 13, Vanuatu is mindful of the fear how this word may be abused by certain agencies. But in the light of situations that have been related to us by a number of delegations and by a number of stakeholders as well, we believe that those words with clear parameters when it comes to domestication of legislations. will provide very, will provide suitable protection for the children. We don’t believe that if it’s clearly articulated in domestic legislations that it can be used as a legitimate defense by any person claiming to have rights in a wrong situation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Vanuatu. Next in my list I have Canada, the Netherlands, Georgia, Austria, United States, Japan, and Benin. Canada, you have the floor.
Canada:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To start off, Canada supports the Chair’s original text. This is an important article that reflects, we’re talking about 13, that reflects our discussions over the past six sessions, hours of informals, and that integrates the advice of experts and practitioners in this field of what would work best to crack down on the proliferation of sexual exploitation and abuse of children on the Internet. Paragraphs 3 to 5 that provide for flexibility do not undermine the purpose of this article that is focused on child protection. It is important to remind everyone that it is always possible for a state to take stricter or more severe measures in their domestic law, and this is explicit in Article 59.2 of this draft convention. Member states have also considerable discretion in choosing the approach best suited to their domestic legal system when implementing this article. With that in mind, Canada does not support the alternative that was discussed in Informal Informals to replace paragraphs 3 to 5. On the proposal, ALT 45 is presented by Brazil. While we thank Brazil for their attempt, it does not work in addressing the issues covered by those paragraphs. The references to Article 21 are insufficient to address the over-criminalization of children. The relevant paragraphs of the article relate to how youth are treated once they have entered into the criminal justice system. The focus of the provisions that this seeks to replace are designed to avoid putting youth into the system in the first place, especially in relation to activity that is completely legal under domestic law. In the last Informal Informal on this issue, a fair amount of air time was spent on the discussion of whether or not the Chair’s original text was near consensus. While I appreciate that not all delegations are large enough to participate in all activities, there was approximately 60 delegations represented in those 20 hours of meetings, and the vast majority of those in attendance could live with the text as presented. While that doesn’t represent consensus, we would state that this represents a fair assessment of the support for these provisions. While Member States are free to take reservations on any substantive provision in the Convention, we must remember that the provisions which we are talking about and which are under attack in Article 13 are optional. Optional paragraphs are commonplace in international treaty drafting to provide scope and flexibility for implementation, so that as many States as possible can see themselves as included. In relation to Article 15, new paragraph 6 is a curious addition.
Chair:
Canada, your time is up. Are you almost finished?
Canada:
Thank you. Just about 30 seconds. As already mentioned, I’ll go further. As France aptly noted in Informals, there is nothing in this article which would preclude a Member State from enacting a morality offence as has been described by Egypt. This new paragraph 15-6 is therefore completely unnecessary, and it would be unwise for a Member State to and is also unacceptable for Canada, which has been advocating for greater human rights protection in this treaty. This addition would be an unlawful restriction on freedom of expression. I would like to conclude by stating that in the history of the United Nations, and maybe the world, this addition would set a new precedent. Because the AHC would be supporting in the same provision the protection of personal privacy that a person has in their intimate relations, while at the same time allow for the prosecution of the victim it sought to protect. That said, I have listened to the latest proposal by Egypt, and we will consider it. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Canada. Netherlands, you have the floor.
Netherlands:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As one of the 27 member states of the European Union, the Kingdom of the Netherlands aligned itself with the EU statement, and I would like to add the following observations in our national capacity. Keeping these articles in the convention is of great importance. Children must be protected from abuse. With Brazil, we agree that flexibility from all member states is needed for that purpose. For this, Mr. Chair, you can count on the Netherlands. Against the background of the need of flexibility, we reiterate the statement of the EU and many others in favor of maintaining the Chair’s proposal. As mentioned by our delegation earlier this session, the compromise had struck the precarious balance between the interests of many countries. Under the patient leadership of the Nigerian co-chair, a lot of energy was put into this compromise by many countries. The proposals incorporated in the latest text undermine the compromise, and thus stand in the way of protecting children from abuse. Following the proposed Article 15, Paragraph 6, our delegation will never accept that a UN Convention legitimizes states who restrict… their adult citizens in their self-determination over their own intimate images. As eloquently explained by the representative of Italy, this Convention provides for a minimum of criminal offences. States are free to provide for more far-reaching criminal offences in their national law. This is also explicitly emphasised by Article 59-2. No state needs this Article, so I mean the proposal for Article 15-6, for legal reasons. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Netherlands. Georgia, you have the floor.
Georgia:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Georgia shares concerns. The previous speakers over-criminalised, risks of over-criminalisation, and for that reason, we strongly support Chair’s original draft, Paragraphs 3 to 5, and we cannot support an alternative proposal by Brazil, and we also support keeping without writing Paragraph 1. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Georgia. Austria, you have the floor.
Austria:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We are committed to fight child sexual abuse and exploitation, and I can say that wholeheartedly, considering the convictions that are passed every year in Austria. What we cannot commit to is an obligation to criminalise children that have reached the age of sexual consent and lawfully engage in sexual activity. We can also not commit to criminalise adults, that means any person over the age of 18, that lawfully engages, for example, with a person that is 17 years old. We also appreciate the proposal of Brazil on 4 Paras 4-5-0, but we would like to note that it refers to Article 21 Para 7. This provision addresses prosecution policies, and this interpretation was just confirmed by the Distinguished Delegate of Egypt that pointed out that there is a necessity to have dual criminality for international cooperation. We would like to note that for constitutional reasons we cannot criminalize lawful sexual relationships, as mentioned in the beginning. We agree with the many voices in the room that the proposal put forward by the Chair strikes the best balance. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Austria. Japan, you have the floor.
Japan:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We strongly support the retention of Paragraph 3 as proposed by the Distinguished Delegate of Argentina in the previous intervention. Especially regarding a real child requirement under Paragraph 3A, there is a significant difference between a real child and an unreal child in the context of CSAME. The offenses concerning CSAME of a real child significantly violate the rights of that child. On the other hand, concerning an unreal child, we should note that it does not do any harm to the real child. We should also take into full consideration the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental human right. For Japan, Paragraph 3A is essential in this regard, and we cannot accept its deletion. We should also like to emphasize that this is a discretionary provision and does not impose any obligation on states’ parties. We believe that paragraph 3 does not undermine our fight against child abuse, as the distinguished delegate of Canada stated. Paragraph 3 exempts criminalization of, for instance, an act of an artist who draws pictures of an imaginary child. It is obvious that it does not undermine the fight against child abuse. Mr. Chair, in light of the facilitation of international cooperation in order to protect children, it is important to maximize the impact of this Convention, including through international cooperation. If detailed criminalization provisions excessively limit the number of countries that can conclude the Convention, we all will fail to achieve the objectives of diminishing safe havens for cyber crime. Japan hopes that throughout this discussion, all Member States will consider the meaning and ultimate goal of stipulating criminalization provisions from a broader perspective in this Convention. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Japan. You have the floor.
Benin:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a real pleasure for us and in a personal capacity because of our friendship to see you chairing our meeting. You have our full encouragement. These initial words allow me to come back to two points which, so far, have seemed to defy agreement or consensus, I would say. On the question of the child, the very object of this convention or the very heart of this convention is not the child. In this regard, there are quite a number of instruments, be it at the African level or at the international level, at the UN level in particular, where practically all states have adhered to those, plus internal legislation which has sufficiently clear definitions of the child. So wouldn’t it be consensus on our part simply to maintain that the child, as included in international conventions and instruments of the various states’ parties, simply that not to go back and forth? When I follow the Germanic Roman traditions which I follow, one looks at the age of the child, but is there a majority? At that point, the person is no longer a child, but is treated as an adult, and that one has to treat child by child. That is why in this proposal we should have a general formulation simply on the matters related to whether or not to keep without right or intentionally. It is our position that it is a matter of consistency. We cannot… As a state party of the Budapest Convention, which has lasted all of this time, the Malabo Convention, that expression exists. And when we speak of domesticating – thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will finish now. I’m speaking about – if we think of transposing, where would we find the consistency between the internal legislation that we have and the various instruments to which we are parties? At the African level, does it mean that we haven’t respected our own signatures or in terms of Budapest or even in terms of this convention? So let us decide in favor of consistency, and let us maintain those things that we have already achieved, and this is our position. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Thank you. United Kingdom, Iran, Germany and New Zealand, UK, you have the floor.
United Kingdom:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The UK would like to join the many other delegations here this afternoon in recognizing the importance of Articles 13 and 15 to our convention, and as a result of this, the fact that they have been the subject of extensive and technical informal discussions. Essentially, as we’ve previously said, the UK supports these articles as they were drafted in the text that was presented to us before the start of this session. the revised draft text of the Convention, and therefore we do not support proposals to amend or delete them. So in article 13, paragraph 1, we do not support the addition of or lawful authority alongside without right. This calls into question the very meaning of the term without rights, as it has already been agreed in article 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 of our Convention. In our view, if someone has lawful authority to do something, then they are not doing it without right. So what is the difference that requires the use of both terms, and what justifies the legal uncertainty? In the same paragraph, in paragraph 1, we would oppose the deletion of without right, as has been proposed by some states. As a number of other delegations have explained very clearly before me, retention of this phrase is vital to taking into account legal defences for the conduct in this article, including those which apply to doctors, police officers, and judges who may encounter this material in the course of their jobs. People whose work is integral to investigating these crimes and would be criminalised without such a provision. Turning to paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of article 13, we support the retention of these paragraphs for the reasons which were so clearly set out by the Distinguished Delegate from the European Union. earlier this afternoon. These three paragraphs account for the diversity of states parties domestic arrangements whilst limiting the exceptions to those that are necessary. They represent a delicately balanced compromise…
Chair:
Wait, okay. Can you please give me the floor again?
United Kingdom:
Sorry, I didn’t realize I was speaking so slowly. So we believe that these these three articles, retention of these three articles represents a delicately balanced compromise which should allow all member states to reach consensus. The inclusion of these paragraphs is essential for the UK. Finally we would support article 15 as was previously drafted. Like CARICOM we cannot support the proposed new paragraph 6 of this article. As Canada explained before me article 59 paragraph 2 of our convention already allows states to adopt stricter or more severe measures than those contained in the convention. That is the solution to allow us to reach consensus on this article not paragraph 6. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you United Kingdom. Could I please ask our colleagues to try and fit their interventions in the three minutes limit. Iran, you have the floor. Thank you
Islamic Republic of Iran:
Mr. Chairman for giving the floor to me. We strongly support the inclusion of the provisions in the convention that criminalize any form of child sexual exploitation. However, the current formulation reflected in the draft text text in Article 13 is still fraud with loopholes that might be exploited by the criminal to commit the atrocities crime against the children. The underlying basis of the R proposal for modifying the current formulation reflected on Article 13 and 14 is based on the R firm conviction to fighting child sexual exploitation online to protect our children and families from this horrendous crime and to deter and fight criminals who victimize our children through the ICT means and ensure that future generations that we have tried very hard to provide them a safe environment in cyberspace. There should be zero tolerance policy for any form of child sexual exploitation online otherwise we might fail the very noble cause we have all been entrusted with which is to protect our children. With all due respect to the views of other distinguished delegations it is very disappointing to see there were supports from the thumb delegations for including the paragraph 3 of the Article 13 which is in fact a clear loophole that would allow criminalized to victimize our children via ICT. We absolutely cannot accept paragraph 3 of the Article 13 for the reasons mentioned there is no justification to limit the scope of the fighting of heinous crimes of child sexual exploitation. Mr. Chairman on the similar note we cannot accept the term without right in paragraph 1 of Article 13. as we firmly believe that there exist no rights to produce, sell, offer, disseminate, etc. material that depicts child sexual exploitation. We heard from some delegations that the inclusion of the without right is necessary so that domestic laws do not criminalize law enforcement when they aim to encounter such crimes. but in any way come into contact with such material. Iran, hold on a second. The lawful exercise of functions by law enforcement is already covered and presumed in domestic laws, not to mention in fact that the terms when committed intentionally in paragraph 1 of article 13 suffices to set the criteria for the wrongfulness of the conduct since it is understood that this term addresses the intent to sell, offer, produce, etc. of the child sexual exploitation material not to intend to conter the crime. Therefore, law enforcement officers, when exercising their official capacity in fighting such heinous crime, will not be prosecuted simply due to the exercise of functions. The ANCAC and ANTAC do not include such caveats, for example, without right, and we have serious doubt that any jurisdiction has criminalized the conduct of the law enforcement on the sole ground that there is no term as without right in said conventions. However, given some delegation preferences to address this aspect, No matter if essential or not, we could go along with the proposed of the delegations of distinguished delegations of Iraq and Russian Federation, which forms of good basis to address the concerns raised by the some delegations. I would like to reiterate our position on Article 13 and 15 as we expressed in the previous meetings of this session, including for the inclusion of the term live streaming in Article 13A, term of unreal in Article 13, paragraph 2A, and deletion of the paragraph 3 and 5 in paragraph 13. On the terms of unreal, I need to emphasize that failing to include these aspects of the crime would lead to normalization of the criminal behavior, which cannot be acceptable. Mr. Chairman, we could also lend our support to the proposal of distinguished delegation Egypt for the Article 13, subparagraph 4, paragraph 4, regarding for the corrective measures to protect children from the degenerating materials referred to the said article. On Article 15, we reiterate our position we expressed before in the sessions and express our flexibility on the proposal of the Egyptian delegation, which forms a good basis that could help all of us more forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair:
Thank you, Iran. So next in my list, I have Germany, New Zealand, Tonga, France, and Iran, is it? Germany, I remind you, we have 47 minutes left in our clock. Sorry, Germany, you have the floor.
Germany:
Thank you for giving us the floor. We allow ourselves the statement made by the European Union as one of its 27 Member States and would like to add the following in our national capacity. Fighting against these crimes committed against children is of utmost importance to us. We note that there are different approaches on how to best reach the shared goal and are willing to be flexible. However, as mentioned by many others, Germany has to retain the exemptions in Paragraph 4 and 5 of Article 13. They consider the differences between the legal systems of all UN Member States. We cannot support the insertion of Paragraph 6 in Article 15 as consensual sexual relationships between adults cannot be criminalized under this Convention. This is of utmost importance to us in order to be able to accede to a future Convention we are all working for. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Germany. New Zealand, you have the floor.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following your lead, we’ll be as brief as possible. Children must be protected online and we urge all Member States to agree Article 13, Paragraphs 1 to 5. However, we support the United Kingdom and their explanation for deletion of lawful authority in Paragraph 1. We cannot agree Paragraphs 4 and 5 alt or Paragraph 6. On Article 15, we cannot agree Paragraph 6, which undermines the whole purpose of this offence and must be deleted. On Article 16, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph C, the use of the vague language of a certain degree of seriousness and we support the deletion of this subparagraph. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, New Zealand. Tonga, you have the floor.
Tonga:
of Article 13, the alt 45, we cannot accept that. And as for Article 15, Paragraph 6, we can also not support that. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Tonga. France, and then I have Yemen and Japan. France, you have the floor. Merci beaucoup.
France:
Thank you very much, Chair. France wished to take the floor, particularly on Article 15, and even more specifically on Paragraph 6, which was added to Article 15. As the other 27 states of the European Union, France is of the view that this paragraph is neither necessary nor acceptable. It is not necessary, as was stated in our informal meetings. And I thank Canada for having reminded us of the reasons we raised here, so I will not repeat them. This paragraph, Paragraph 6, is not acceptable because it creates confusion over the nature and what needs to be protected from these infractions, as the title of the article says, is to protect intimate images. And Paragraph 6 is focused on a different goal, and it is not acceptable, despite the word may, because if we combine it with the provisions under international articles, under Article 22 of this convention, this allows states to be competent over the dissemination of a. an image with consent, even if this is created beyond their own territory or goes beyond their own territory?
Chair:
Yemen, you have the floor.
Yemen:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We support the statement by Egypt, and we don’t support it because we like to support but our support stems from our national position. And as we mentioned yesterday, we have in mind the sovereignty of states. We understand that legal systems differ from one country to another, and this is a fact that will stay with us in the future. However, international cooperation can help us overcome any problems that originate from that fact. Sending a domestic clause is not an easy proposition, however, when we agree internationally, we go back to our parliaments and we make our proposals and hope to introduce changes to our domestic legislation. Like all other states that amend their own national domestics, however, the phrase without right is an ambiguous phrase. Domestic laws prohibit lewd actions. It prohibits immoral actions. And if we want to deal with this as such, then we should mention it clearly in the drafting. This is a convention that has to do with criminal laws and with cybercrime, and it requires accurate draftings and clear definitions and explanations so as to avoid any confusion. We have domestic laws that criminalize the publishing of intimate photos or personal photos. However, it may not be the same in other countries. Also, the same applies to consensual sexual relationships. Domestic laws differ, as I said, and this article and other articles should take domestic laws into account and should – no microphone. Could you please give the microphone to Yemen to finish? I’ve completed my statement. I ended it with a phrase. We should take into consideration the differences between domestic laws and that we should take into account all these differences between domestic legislations with a view to reaching a consensus. Flexibility can help us achieve our common objective. Thank you.
Japan:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor again. With your indulgence, Japan this time would like to articulate our position on Articles 15 and 16. Japan strongly supports Article 15 as it was in the Chair’s original text, without any amendment. Mr. Chair, on Article 16, paragraph 2C, it appears that some delegates shared concerns on or are even opposed to this paragraph, mainly for two reasons. Regarding the first reason, which is lack of clarity, we are open to formulate the text as follows. States parties may require predicate offenses in this paragraph to be serious crimes. Regarding the second reason, the limitation of the scope of predicate offenses, we reiterate that the scope of predicate offenses under UNTOC is also limited to transnational organized serious crimes. Therefore, our proposal does not necessarily overly limit the scope of predicate offenses as compared with UNTOC. Finally, we would like to emphasize that other delegates also shared their concerns regarding the scope of the predicate offense. Our proposal addresses multiple Member States’ concerns. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Japan. So I have next on my list Saudi Arabia, Cameroon, United States, and Chile. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.
Saudi Arabia:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to all of you. Mr. Chairman, we share the concerns regarding paragraphs 3, 4, and 5. And we believe that this point has taken so much time in our negotiations due to these differences of opinion. However, at this time in our negotiations, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we need to seriously consider solutions that help our negotiations move forward. And proceeding from this, I call upon you to consider the proposal made by Egypt in paragraph 3, as well as the proposal made by Brazil in paragraphs 4 and 5. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we seriously need to consider these proposals and not to keep repeating our interventions and positions as we have heard over the past days of our negotiations. This is our proposal, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Cameroon:
Thank you, Chair. My delegation would like to thank those colleagues who are calling for consistency, in particular with previous texts such as the Malabo Convention and Budapest Conventions. My delegation notes that the idea here is that perhaps the language that we’re seeing here is coming from out of thin air, but there are conventions on the protection of data which use exceptions, one, to respect legal obligations, two, to carry out a mission of public interest, and three, the execution of a contract, and so on. There are no measures in Article 13 of our convention that run counter to those of the Malabo Convention. Therefore, my delegation would like to note that law evolves with society. The domain we are building here is something that we must truly seize and adapt to current contingencies. This is why my delegation continues to state that the presence of the words, without right, is quite simply unacceptable.
United States:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, we’d like to make a couple of comments on the money laundering article, Article 16. In this article, like Brazil and New Zealand, the United States objects to the inclusion of paragraph 2C, which was not agreed in the plenary or informals. This language imposes an additional seriousness requirement for a money laundering predicate offense. This language is not in the UNTAC or UNCAC money laundering articles, is vague, may be contrary to existing international standards. and could cause difficulties for international cooperation. We note that similar language was not accepted by the plenary in Article 31 because of similar objections by member states. So we believe Paragraph 2C should be removed here as well. For the same reasons, we would object and be opposed to a proposed reformulation of Paragraph 2C that would provide for a possibility to restrict predicate offenses to serious crimes as to those offenses under the Convention that would also be serious crimes as defined in the Convention. This would be inconsistent, again, with international standards on money laundering and would add restrictions on money laundering predicate offenses not found in other instruments. In addition, the United States is concerned that the proposal for a new Paragraph 3 to clarify the scope of this article was not included in this draft. This new language for a new Paragraph 3, to make clear that an offense is only considered an offense under the article where that predicate offense is an offense established in accordance with Articles 6 to 15, is important to ensure that the article does not become a money laundering article for any predicate offense regardless of the connection to the offenses established in accordance with the Convention. The language for the new Paragraph 3 would read, as we proposed before, for the purposes of this Convention, an offense shall only be deemed to be an offense under this article when the predicate offense is an offense established in accordance with Articles 6 to 15 of this Convention. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you. United States. Chile.
Chile:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to express its views after having listened to the arguments by several countries for and against parts of the articles we are covering at this meeting. The current drafting proposed by the chair has already undergone negotiations, lengthy negotiations, many concessions. And my delegation, Chile, with regard to Article 13, we prefer the drafting as it is. We thank the delegation of Brazil for its alternative proposal for 4 or 5. But we prefer the present drafting of 3 to 5 as the minimum acceptable position. On Article 15, we cannot accept the inclusion of paragraph 6. Delegations have expressed the reasons for this, and we join them. And with regard to Article 16, we join in the views of the delegation of the United States and others that we cannot accept paragraph 2C because it is very ambiguous and it was not discussed. We don’t really know the scope of what we wish to achieve there. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Chile. Tania, you have the floor.
United Republic of Tanzania:
Thank you, Chair. I’ll be very brief. Chair, my delegation believes that one thing which we are sure there is consensus is we all want to retain these offenses. The problem is some delegations have restrictive components within the domestic laws which have compelled them to provide positions which may not work for other delegations. So as far as my delegation is concerned, we also have such concerns. And we are therefore constrained to call for the deletion of the words without right under Article 13. Further, we support the 455 Act as proposed by Brazil and we also call for the retention of Paragraph 6 of Article 15 as currently drafted. We can also support deletion of Paragraph 2C of Article 16. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Tanzania. Egypt, you have the floor.
Egypt:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very briefly, Egypt aligned itself with the delegations who objected the inclusion of Paragraph 2C in Article 16 and, frankly speaking, Mr. Chair, we don’t know how this paragraph find its way in the text, taking into account that there was no consensus or real support for having it in this article. Also, it is in line with what we have in UNCTAD and UNCTOC, so we want to retain Article 16 as is and, consequently, we are not in favor of the suggestion made by the distinguished delegation of the United States regarding having a Paragraph 3, again, in consistency with the UNCTAD and UNCTOC in this regard, taking into consideration also that we have already, as proposed by the distinguished delegation of the United States, a stipulation for the articles in Paragraph 2A and 2B. I thank you. Thank you, Egypt.
Chair:
Liechtenstein, you have the floor.
Liechtenstein:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for giving Liechtenstein the floor again. Liechtenstein wishes to add its voice to the proposals by New Zealand and the U.S. on Article 16. Concretely, the deletion of Article 16, Paragraph 2c, and the important clarification entailed in the newly proposed Paragraph 3 of Article 16, we highly fear overburdening our practitioners if we don’t add this clause. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you, Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein, sorry. Kiribati, you have the floor.
Kiribati:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll be very brief. In relation to Article 13, Kiribati also, like other distinguished delegates before me, called for the deletion of all lawful authority in Paragraph 1 of Article 13. This creates more ambiguity, provided that there’s already without rights being there in Paragraph 1. In Article 15, Paragraph 6, like other distinguished delegates before me, we cannot accept this inclusion in this Convention. Thank you very much, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Kiribati. Norway, you have the floor.
Norway:
Thank you. I will be very quick. I would just like to add my voice to those who call for the deletion of Article 16, Paragraph 2c, and we support the inclusion of the new Paragraph 3 as proposed by the U.S. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Norway. United Kingdom, you have the floor.
United Kingdom:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very quickly on Article 16, the UK would like to join those calling for the deletion of Paragraph 2c, and we also think the proposal for a new Paragraph 3, as made by the United States, would bring some welcome clarity to this. article. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, UK. Australia, you have the floor.
Australia:
Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. We would like to express our support for the changes proposed by the U.S. to Article 16. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Australia. Georgia, you have the floor.
Georgia:
Thank you, Chair. We also join our previous speakers supporting U.S. proposal on deleting Article 2C and adding Paragraph 3, which would clarify this code. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Georgia. Canada, you have the floor.
Canada:
Thank you, Chair. We support the proposals of the U.S. for Article 16. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Canada. Albania, you have the floor.
Albania:
Thank you, Chair. Also, Albania supports the proposal for U.S. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Albania. Israel, you have the floor.
Israel:
Thank you, Chair. Israel, you have the floor. Thank you. Israel support the United States in Article 16 and also the United Kingdom to delete the article, subarticle 2C. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Israel. Well, that finishes my list, so I take it that, no, never mind. Tanzania, you have the floor.
United Republic of Tanzania:
Thank you, Chair. While we support the deletion of Paragraph 2C of Article 16, we do not see merit in addition of the new Paragraph 3. of the view that Article 2, Paragraph A and B have clearly stipulated the scope within which this particular offence of man laundering will apply. So Paragraph 2, which stems from Paragraph 1, is very clear on what offences are to be applied in respect of the offence of money laundering. And if you read the formulation of this particular article, it is slightly different from Article 23 of Junkerk, because in Junkerk, as opposed to this formulation, Junkerk had a paragraph which criminalised all predicate offences without making specific references to offences established in accordance with Junkerk. But when it comes to this Convention, Paragraph 2, A and B, clearly identifies offences under this Convention. And we understand that the scope within which this offence will apply will only be limited to these offences, and therefore there is no need of having additional Paragraph 3 as proposed. Thank you, Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Tanzania. So with that, we’ll now be moving to Chapter 4 on procedural measures on law enforcement, for which you have a whole 20 minutes. Any requests for the floor? So we agree on 4, move to 5. If there are no requests for four and you have any for five, then please request the floor. United States, you have the floor.
United States:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we are indeed moving to Chapter 5, then we have one short intervention here. On Article 48 on joint investigations, the United States believes that the scope of this article must be limited to the offenses established in accordance with this convention, and the text as drafted does not include such language at present. The United States, thus, would strongly support language that would clarify that this article only applies in relation to the offenses established in accordance with the convention. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, United States. Any other requests for the floor? Japan, you have the floor.
Japan:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor again. I am making an intervention on Article 16, Paragraph 2, Subparagraph C. Given the typological unlikeliness of crimes that are covered in this convention to generate proceeds of crime, we understand that on the crimes that are required to be criminalized under Articles 6 to 15, each state party may determine what constitutes relevant crimes, as provided for in paragraph 2, sub-paragraph A. Based on that understanding, Japan, at this stage of the negotiation, exercises its flexibility to accept the deletion of paragraph 2, sub-paragraph C, in the spirit of the consensus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Japan. Any other requests for the floor? Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Russian Federation:
Thank you very much. A short comment regarding article 36, paragraph 3, 36. We don’t support the changes that were proposed regarding the written requirements for the transfer of data. We believe that a high standard must be implemented from the very beginning when it comes to the protection of personal data, and states, if they agree, can create an easier path towards this transfer of information. This is something that we already have established under 1A, where the states can agree amongst themselves. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Russian Federation. New Zealand, you have the floor.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For articles 45 and 46, we support the use of may rather than shall. It has been a compromise for us to have the inclusion of these highly intrusive powers in the convention, and member states should have a discretion as to whether they will cooperate with another state party. On Article 48, we support the United States. There is no limitation to offences established in accordance with the Convention, which we do see in other stand-alone provisions in Article 38 for transfer of sentenced persons and Article 39 for transfer of criminal proceedings. As drafted, Article 48 could be used to establish a joint investigation team for any offence and not just cybercrimes. This surely cannot have been the intent and should be explicitly limited to those offences in the criminalisation chapter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, New Zealand. Egypt, to be followed by Mauritania and then Argentina. Egypt, you have the floor.
Egypt:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding Chapter 5, International Cooperation, for Article 40, Egypt insists on the reference to the serious crimes in Paragraph 1 to guarantee wider scope of international cooperation. Also, Egypt insists on the retention of this Article as proposed in the RDTC without any amendment, especially Para 20, regarding the grounds of refusal of MLA. It’s worth noting that this Article is consistent with the same Articles in UNCTUK and UNCAC. For Article 41, Egypt proposes on the reference of – insists on the reference to the serious crime in Paragraph 1 to guarantee a wider scope for international cooperation, particularly the use of the network to share evidence of electronic form related to serious crimes. Regarding Article 45 and 46, Egypt supports maintaining the obligatory nature – mandatory nature of these provisions, taking into consideration its importance for meaningful and effective international cooperation and also which is in consistency with these two Articles in Budapest Convention. Regarding Article 47, Egypt is in favor of retaining the term covered by this convention in this article to guarantee a wider scope for law enforcement cooperation not only vis-a-vis offenses established in accordance with this convention but also to take on board serious crimes when committed through the use of ICTs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Egypt, Mauritania.
Mauritania:
Thank you, sir. With regard to Article 23 and Chapter 4, so that’s Article 23, Paragraph 2, the expression, well, unless the convention states the opposite, and I find that there’s lack of clarity here, so we propose that reference be made to Article 30. So, in order to have more clarity in this text and in order to be more consistent with the Budapest Convention, instead of referring to other than this convention, provided otherwise in this convention, we should refer to Article 30. Thank you.
Chair:
Argentina, followed by Liechtenstein, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Norway, South Africa, Argentina.
Argentina:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Concerning paragraph 18 in Article 37, Argentina would like to go back to the original text and to refer to what was stated at informal as well as formal meetings with regard to protecting life of persons in cases of asylum or refugees, for that to be, that it be an exception not to offer reasons for rejecting extradition requests. So only international legal obligations should be a motive to not having to give reasons for rejecting an extradition request. The concrete proposal would be to delete on the last line after by the phrase its domestic law or its, and then we would only say by its international legal obligations. Going on to Article 40, paragraph 4, Argentina proposes in order to simplify the text to delete the phrase on the first line, the competent authorities. So we would only have state party as a reference. In this way, obviously, states party will remit the information through the competent authorities. Article 41, my delegation notes that paragraph 2 is now the paragraph that would have been replaced by current paragraph 1. So we should delete paragraph 2. Concerning Articles 45 and 46, Argentina, in order to have more effective cooperation, would like to maintain, shall, with the understanding that those measures have caveats in their own articles when they refer to domestic legislation in Articles 29 and 30 on procedural measures, and even Article 30 establishes that states party in legislating should say for what serious crimes these measures would apply, and these measures would be requested through mutual legal assistance, and therefore denigration causes would operate. And this together with the practical issues of having to make a request, verify high standards, have translations, in order to know, we don’t know what the answers would be from the requested party. Making it clear that this is Argentina’s preference, nevertheless, if there is no consensus to maintain, shall, the minimum position for Argentina
Chair:
, one moment, Argentina, please.
Argentina:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To accede to May, when the requested state, without delay, if it could not comply, would be obliged to state the legal motives which prevent the procedure. With regard to Article 47, Argentina would like to maintain the present wording proposed by the Secretariat, and concerning Article 48, we support what was stated by the United States. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Argentina. Liechtenstein.
Liechtenstein:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Liechtenstein supports the statement of New Zealand regarding Article 45 and 46, and the use of may instead of shall. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Liechtenstein.
Dominican Republic:
Dominican Republic. Thank you, sir. We have a couple of comments on Article 41 on the 24-7 network. Mr. Chairman, in the case of the Dominican Republic, from the adoption of our law in 2007, we have had a 24-7 network unit, which, in fact, in recent years has been coordinated by me. And I know how it operates and what the reality is of how it operates. And we are concerned mainly because these networks exist mainly in order to preserve evidence. In the wording of this paragraph, mention is made of the collection of this digital evidence. The staff working in these units is technical staff, which preserves the evidence, but it doesn’t have the competence, the legal competence, nor does it have legal staff available 24-7. And much less in the ministries of justice or service providers. They don’t have a 24-7 legal staff either. So, we understand that it would be much clearer to delete the terms of collection. and to simply refer to the preservation of the evidence so as not to create any unreal expectations. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Dominican Republic. We have six minutes left and eight requests for the floor. So we have to finish at six. Brazil, you have the floor. Thank you.
Brazil:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to agree with Dominican Republic, I believe, who just spoke about the need for the 24-7 network to work specially and specifically with preservation. Also I would like to agree with the Argentinian delegation on Articles 45 and 46. We also believe that we also prefer shall, but if we are going to have may, it would be important for countries to receive a justification why that support was not provided. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Obrigado, Brasil. Norway, you have the floor.
Norway:
Thank you. I will be quick. Norway supports the Article 36 as drafted and we oppose any amendments thereto. In Article 45 and 46, we would insist on the use of the may instead of the shall. These are highly intrusive measures which we have opposed the inclusion of before, but as a compromise, we can accept them if they are not mandatory. Furthermore, we would like to support the U.S. proposal to amend Article 48, ensuring that it is only applied to offenses established in accordance with this Convention. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Norway. South Africa.
South Africa:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. With regard to Article 40, we support the inclusion of serious crime for a wider scope of cooperation, similar to Egypt. Articles 45 and 46 are similar to Brazil, Argentina, and Egypt. We prefer the use of shawl. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, South Africa. Switzerland, you have the floor.
Switzerland:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In Article 45 and 46, we strongly support the word may instead of shawl for the reasons that were just explained by Norway, and support the suggestions of the U.S. in Article 48. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Switzerland. Thank you, Canada. You have the floor.
Canada:
Thank you, Chair. To make this short, everything that Norway said, you can just put our name beside it. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Canada. Iceland, you have the floor.
Iceland:
Same. So we support everything that Norway said on Article 45 and 46, and we cannot stress enough how important this is for us, otherwise we will have a little constitutional concern. Article 48, we support as suggested by the U.S. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Iceland. United Kingdom.
United Kingdom:
Thank you, Chair. We also agree with Norway, but we do have a couple of quick comments on Article 41. The U.K. considers that Paragraph 2 appears to have been included in error. At the moment, we seem to have two separate articles that set out the scope of 24-7. I see the Secretary nodding at me. In Paragraph 1, we think the reference to purposes in Paragraph 3 should instead be to Paragraph 4, and the tiny drafting point, but it is important, the word and in the final sentence of Paragraph 1 needs deleting to ensure clarity on the scope of this article. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, United Kingdom. We have three minutes left. Iran, you have the floor.
Islamic Republic of Iran:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Very briefly, that my delegation would like to prefer the word of shall instead of may in Article 45 and 46. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Iran. So, I have an announcement to make. The Secretariat would like to inform all delegations that Document A slash AC.291 slash The further revised text of the Convention is available in the six languages of the United Nations and has been made available at the webpage of the session. Thank you. So, I have two minutes left. If Ecuador can make it in two minutes.
Ecuador:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Only to support other delegations who have said that Articles 45 and 46 should use the word shall and not may. And to support the Dominican Republic to reformulate Article 41. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Can we also make it in two minutes?
Morocco:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll be quick just to add Morocco for delegation requesting the retention of shall in Article 45 and 45-6. Thank you.
Chair:
Great. Algeria, you have the floor.
Algeria:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Algeria is also for retaining shall instead of may in Articles 45 and 46. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Algeria. So, we are now at six, and I have four requests for the floor that will remain for tomorrow. We’ll make that five, Tanzania, Albania, Nicaragua, Libya, and the European Union, and Nigeria. So, tomorrow, right? We’ll reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. in this room. Thank you. Have a nice evening. . . . . .
Speakers
A
Albania
Speech speed
115 words per minute
Speech length
72 words
Speech time
37 secs
A
Algeria
Speech speed
124 words per minute
Speech length
25 words
Speech time
12 secs
A
Argentina
Speech speed
113 words per minute
Speech length
561 words
Speech time
298 secs
A
Australia
Speech speed
154 words per minute
Speech length
569 words
Speech time
221 secs
A
Austria
Speech speed
117 words per minute
Speech length
204 words
Speech time
105 secs
B
Benin
Speech speed
104 words per minute
Speech length
396 words
Speech time
228 secs
B
Brazil
Speech speed
122 words per minute
Speech length
540 words
Speech time
266 secs
BF
Burkina Faso
Speech speed
88 words per minute
Speech length
84 words
Speech time
57 secs
C
Cameroon
Speech speed
112 words per minute
Speech length
348 words
Speech time
187 secs
C
Canada
Speech speed
165 words per minute
Speech length
694 words
Speech time
252 secs
C
Chair
Speech speed
112 words per minute
Speech length
1982 words
Speech time
1064 secs
C
Chile
Speech speed
130 words per minute
Speech length
190 words
Speech time
87 secs
C
Colombia
Speech speed
135 words per minute
Speech length
152 words
Speech time
68 secs
DR
Dominican Republic
Speech speed
97 words per minute
Speech length
196 words
Speech time
121 secs
E
Ecuador
Speech speed
123 words per minute
Speech length
42 words
Speech time
21 secs
E
Egypt
Speech speed
105 words per minute
Speech length
1296 words
Speech time
740 secs
ES
El Salvador
Speech speed
123 words per minute
Speech length
137 words
Speech time
67 secs
EU
European Union
Speech speed
168 words per minute
Speech length
1001 words
Speech time
358 secs
F
France
Speech speed
116 words per minute
Speech length
205 words
Speech time
106 secs
G
Georgia
Speech speed
115 words per minute
Speech length
83 words
Speech time
43 secs
G
Germany
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
164 words
Speech time
65 secs
HS
Holy See
Speech speed
170 words per minute
Speech length
380 words
Speech time
134 secs
I
Iceland
Speech speed
132 words per minute
Speech length
245 words
Speech time
112 secs
I
Indonesia
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
108 words
Speech time
43 secs
IR
Islamic Republic of Iran
Speech speed
121 words per minute
Speech length
909 words
Speech time
449 secs
I
Israel
Speech speed
66 words per minute
Speech length
34 words
Speech time
31 secs
I
Italy
Speech speed
144 words per minute
Speech length
416 words
Speech time
173 secs
J
Jamaica
Speech speed
162 words per minute
Speech length
532 words
Speech time
197 secs
J
Japan
Speech speed
126 words per minute
Speech length
856 words
Speech time
409 secs
K
Kiribati
Speech speed
93 words per minute
Speech length
83 words
Speech time
53 secs
L
Liechtenstein
Speech speed
152 words per minute
Speech length
207 words
Speech time
82 secs
M
Malawi
Speech speed
121 words per minute
Speech length
42 words
Speech time
21 secs
M
Mauritania
Speech speed
82 words per minute
Speech length
200 words
Speech time
147 secs
M
Morocco
Speech speed
191 words per minute
Speech length
29 words
Speech time
9 secs
N
Netherlands
Speech speed
161 words per minute
Speech length
454 words
Speech time
169 secs
NZ
New Zealand
Speech speed
163 words per minute
Speech length
338 words
Speech time
124 secs
N
Norway
Speech speed
160 words per minute
Speech length
606 words
Speech time
227 secs
P
Pakistan
Speech speed
143 words per minute
Speech length
208 words
Speech time
87 secs
P
Philippines
Speech speed
167 words per minute
Speech length
180 words
Speech time
65 secs
RF
Russian Federation
Speech speed
125 words per minute
Speech length
241 words
Speech time
115 secs
SA
Saudi Arabia
Speech speed
91 words per minute
Speech length
151 words
Speech time
100 secs
SA
South Africa
Speech speed
169 words per minute
Speech length
52 words
Speech time
18 secs
S
Switzerland
Speech speed
171 words per minute
Speech length
137 words
Speech time
48 secs
T
Tonga
Speech speed
122 words per minute
Speech length
29 words
Speech time
14 secs
U
Uganda
Speech speed
144 words per minute
Speech length
532 words
Speech time
221 secs
UK
United Kingdom
Speech speed
134 words per minute
Speech length
820 words
Speech time
367 secs
UR
United Republic of Tanzania
Speech speed
105 words per minute
Speech length
378 words
Speech time
216 secs
US
United States
Speech speed
161 words per minute
Speech length
1120 words
Speech time
417 secs
V
Vanuatu
Speech speed
80 words per minute
Speech length
235 words
Speech time
176 secs
V
Venezuela
Speech speed
113 words per minute
Speech length
38 words
Speech time
20 secs
Y
Yemen
Speech speed
83 words per minute
Speech length
491 words
Speech time
355 secs
Related event
