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
yes
so, with 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 the root we won't be touching articles that are been agreed at a referendum we will proceed essentially to those aspects of the tax where that we have not yet reached agreement and will urge where delegations have something to say it would be much appreciated if we get concrete recommendations or draft proposals in terms of what can what what correction they want to see or addition. And if the certain that that addition will either bring further clarity or further make such an article or a paragraph more acceptable in in the room that having said I now open the floor we'll start with was the first article that is up
okay, so articles will start with Article Six, paragraph two, it's one of those that has not been agreed. Ad referendum.
Okay, maybe I think to better make use of our time, I will invite the room, too. So that we take this chapter by chapter. So chapter two, if we will, the floor is open to take views on Chapter Two specifically, I see the request for the floor from Iran. You have the floor please.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the paragraph two of Article Six my delegation would like to declare that although in in our domestic legislation and our domestic legal system regarding for without right or dishonest regarding for the dishonest man, 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 the your cause, with your consultations in the informal meetings, and we are 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 site regarding for how to criminalize matters and to take the criminalize issues. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of Iran. With that said, may I immediately right on that that flexibility to then ask the room if the ad hoc committee is in a position to consider and agree, Article Six paragraph two 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, it was applicable to Article Two, paragraph two of Article Seven 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.
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 711 and 12 Thank you.
Okay, thank you, Albania, you have the floor.
Statement. Also, we do not accept this dishonors and sell and cram so yeah.
Okay, if I understand the room, what you're saying
is like so to speak.
Sorry, if I understand this interventions, what you're saying is that you do not agree with 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 any other views regarding chapter two?
Pakistan, you have the floor.
Thank you very much chair. Chair. I recall our discussion in this room and even in informal in which my delegation showed a lot of flexibility even in one of the informal I recall that distinguished delegates 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. And we do not want to comment on that. But we were also flexible by inclusion of this along with dishonest the criminal intent. But since some delegations have expressed their concern with it, so we would not like the that in any form the term this sorry criminal intent to be deleted from the paragraph of the text. As drafted, we are flexible. With the use of the time we can go along with the text as proposed by Madam Chair. In the currently available on our screen, our preference is to delete dishonest but for the sake of flexibility we can go along or otherwise. If there is no consensus in the room, we would prefer to only keep criminal intent. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Jamaica, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In respect of Article Six, paragraph two, Article Seven, paragraph two article 11 paragraph two. Under the foot of article 12. CARICOM had proposed the inclusion of the words criminal intent as a way of reaching compromise, as it was carried coms view that this term has wide application in more jurisdictions than perhaps this honest intent would have and it provides member states with the flexibility to legislate accordingly. currycomb would therefore support Madame chairs 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.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Jamaica, Yemen, you have the floor.
Chakra say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we've stated previously, paragraph two of Article Six is one of the May clauses and not a shall cause 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 then other cases it could be this, this aren't only dishonest, so is this honest and criminal at the same time.
It is a main clause and not the shall clause, but we believe that the both terms should be included. And the same applies to paragraph two of Article Seven
where the intent is mentioned
but is mentioned as only an intent and not a dishonest intent.
Get good the speaker speak at a normal speed and clearly so that the interpreter can relay.
Thank you very much. The Russian Federation, you have the floor.
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 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 was no flexibility in the room, then we would be forced to only accept this criminal intent and not dishonest. Thank you.
Thank you, Indonesia, you have the floor.
Thank you very much thank the chair. And in Asia noted that this issue has been long discuss. We have discussed this in informants 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 intents or otherwise designers. So I think the the the existing proposal to have designers or criminal intent is some somewhat is a middle ground. So for UniSA we prefer to have criminal intent. But for a spirit of consensus, we can accept the proposal language, dishonest or criminal intent. Thank you very much then
thank you very much, Uganda, you have the floor.
Thank you very much chair, Uganda, I would like to, to state the articles. The paragraph two of Article Six, seven, I think living on top of a discretionary nature. And it's the part it's article, the first paragraph that are that are mandatory. And since they are discretionary, it does not majorly affect the text as it is. And therefore it would be prudent in the spirit of reaching the consensus and not wasting a lot of time to live 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
Thank you very much. Malawi, you have the floor.
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. Dishonest intent is not a term consistent with criminal law generally. Thank you, Chair.
Okay, thank you very much. I would your views are noted. I would in the absence of any other views, I will Oh, okay, Australia to be followed by Tanzania, Australia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair and good afternoon to colleagues. From our perspective, we would prefer the original texts in terms of referring to dishonest intent. We were you think that perhaps articles six 711 and 12 would be a little bit more unclear if we do adopt those changes. However, for the purposes of consensus, we could accept six, seven and 11 referring to those. However, we have major concerns with article 12, including criminal intent. When you think about fraud, those kinds of 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.
Thank you very much, Tanzania, you have the floor.
Thank you Chair Tanzania joins the submissions made by Jamar economy 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.
Thank you very much Mauritania, you have the floor.
Chakra This is my cell. Good afternoon, everyone. We believe that these three paragraphs two of Article Six, two of Article Seven and two 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 mentioned this honest intent in other places we mentioned a criminal intent. Therefore, I believe we should harmonize our use of these different terms so that the paragraphs tallied together. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Venezuela, you have the floor.
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.
Thank you very much the 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 the further revised draft text of the convention in refers now to criminal criminal intent, in addition to dishonest or fraudulent intent. This paragraph or this article rather is not discretionary. And this this. We believe that here, Mr. Chair, the problem is that the very essence of the crime of fraud is that 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 and article 12, actually has the effect of vastly increasing the scope of this offense. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much the United States you have the floor.
Pretty much, Mr. Chair and good afternoon to colleagues. As was stated by the delegate of Australia, as well as the as well as of the UK on Article 12, 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 I 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 legislature's attempting to transmit, 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 we still have an issue with the title of article 12 That theft does not belong there because we're addressing fraud in in this particular article. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, the Netherlands you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. From a legal perspective, the complainant criminal intent in Article Six para two and elsewhere is a bit strange. I would like to explain why. The first paragraph criminalize the conduct. One of the components of the first paragraph is intentionally this makes it to describe conduct must have been committed intentionally or otherwise to describe conduct is not criminal. That brings me to the second paragraph. The components criminal intent consists of two components criminal and intent. There's no need for for the component intense. This is 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 conviction is already criminalized in the first paragraph. Conclusion, there's no need for the company of criminal intent, adding it does not improve the understandability and workability of the article. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much. Okay. With this, we've taken on your views in respect of chapter two. If there is no other Okay, Egypt, you have the floor.
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, amen. Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and Iran. With regard to article 13. Now 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 on sexual violations we stand against any rafting that runs counter to the Convention on the Rights of the Child for ticularly the definition of a child or as in paragraph three, the exceptions with regard to the application of paragraphs one and two of this article and a manner that would undermine the rights of the child.
We also object to the inclusion of paragraph five in this article. Because of its relevance there, this paragraph tackles the non criminalization of consensual sexual relations. And with regard to article 15, it is necessary. Microphone for the speaker please microphone, 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 and articles 13 and 15. And we believe that our proposals will see the light if we are keen on reaching consensus on these two hours articles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Brazil, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd first like to make a comment. brief comment on Article 16, paragraph two C. 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. S. 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 discussion 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 that wheel tube. 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 to a larger group of people without 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 three, four, and five. Now, we recognize that that's been very hard. And we'd like to point out that we do believe that inclusion of the concept of child is under 18 In the article plus being flexible to delete what is now three b and a possible rewriting of four.
Yeah, request flow for Brazil to complete his proposal.
Thank you. And the rewriting of foreign five which doesn't need to be the one on screen now since we could strike a better balance between the protection the the exceptions needed and best protection that we can get to two 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 as a possible compromise. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair for giving me the floor. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the EU and its and its member states. I would like to first agree with our distinguished colleague from Brazil pointing out the importance of articles 13 to 15, which are indeed we also believe it's a major added value in this in this cut of this convention. That said there are some some details that that are still need to be discussed, it seems the UN its members is fully support, article 13 and 15 as proposing an original revised draft text of the chair in article 13, we can be open to some some some of the changes that we see in the most recent revised text. But the EU cannot accept paragraph one D and the proposal tentative language that will replace progress four and five. Regarding this article, there have been a lot of difficulties as been highlighted also by our distinguished delegates from Brazil, including us in the last two weeks where we are in the very final stages of his negotiations. The draft textbook was 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 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 EU and its member states. But we believe the tech 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 the future convention. It simply recognizes the possibility for measures that aims 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 persecution with regard to self generated material involving children and material that has been consensually produced or possessed in relationships between persons who have reached out The legal age of sexual consent for the private use only. Some states set out possibility for an explicit exemption. There are criminal laws, others can choose not to prosecute, it's under certain conditions. As also emphasized in the explanatory note, note notes of the chair. These provisions offer an important exception to recognize adolescents progressively developing rights to self determination. The draft tax proposal of the chair aims to take this complex issue into consideration. The deletion of paragraphs four and five 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, paragraphs will make it impossible for the EU and its member states to agree to the convention 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 adolescence 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 four and five. Mr. Chair, we sincerely hope that the requests for deleting those paragraphs or their very significant reformulation does not reflect the request in delegations views also on the implementation of the UN CRC and its optional protocol. And 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 certain four of the current paragraph four of the current draft provides that states may take steps to exclude the criminalization of children for self generated material. The OSC HR believes that this discretionary commitment does not sufficiently protect rights of the child as guaranteed under international law. The OSC HR therefore recommends amending this language to explicitly preclude criminalization of subjective material by children when it is incompatible. The international human rights law in terms such as state parties shall exclude the criminalization of children for self driving material, as described in paragraph two of this article. Mr. Chair, therefore, I would reiterate that the US member states can support the text of article 13 with the caveats I mentioned.
Sir, the EU, you are you done or you were almost? Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm gonna finish just quickly on Article 15. If I may, and I will finish our brief. We also support the original draft text. And we are quite concerned to see the new paragraph six 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, this edition, paragraph six, unfortunately, therefore, please confirm the support for the original text. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you very much. excellences. distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, at this point I have on the speaking list you have Japan, United States, Philippines holy sea, 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 of the Dominican Republic. He will take us from this point forward. I thank you for your cooperation and for your time. Mr. Cloud user
Okay, good afternoon, everyone. So, to keep on the list that we have here, Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair on behalf of delegation of Japan, and in fact, on behalf of a government, I regret that I'm forced to express our deepest concern over the proposal to delete paragraphs 325, article 13, that was raised by a delegate of a member state. These paragraphs needed to stay in its entirety in the convention that's drafted originally by the chair. First of all, these paragraphs, particularly paragraph three, from the perspective of Japan, are based on extensive discussions that a committee has had unhealth, the basis on the delicate and the careful balance, which is the outcome of the discussions. I would like to record 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 and the chairs original text, and not the further revised text of the convention. Again, this is the result of tremendous discussions. And as you can expect, that their careful wording including the flexibility to cater for different domestic context, jurisdictions will be retained as drafted. And especially, we strongly support for the retention of paragraph three. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Japan, United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chair on articles 13 through 15. The United States believes that the recent changes to the draft texts are inconsistent with the majority viewpoint that had been expressed in the informals, which was to maintain the church draft text as drafted. What is clear from the many hours of informals in 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 three through five and article 13 as drafted, and we strongly oppose the addition of paragraph six 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 Two, 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 in dangerous children throughout the world, but turns a victim into an offender across borders. And as the Chair stated in the explanatory note for six h c, 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 regional instruments that specifically deal with the protection of children against criminal and cyber abuse and exploitation, which the CRC does not do. Paragraph 72 of the guidelines the Optional Protocol 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 chairs tax going into the session was that magic and we support that text for these articles and the definition of child. Thank you.
Thank you, United States, Philippines. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair for Article Three. At the end 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 this honest intent but also criminal intent depending on the state's domestic law, covering the offense. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for doing so. Next on my list I have Holy See Australia, Cameroon, Argentina, Norway and Egypt policy on the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Good afternoon colleagues. on Chapter Two article 13. The holy Sea is obliged to reaffirm unequivocally the importance of this provision, and the importance of its retention, noting that child sexual exploitation and abuser and related material are one of the greatest scourges of our society. We have previously said, and the have heard the rate the rate in this room that protecting children is the key purpose of this article. In this regard, we appreciate and support the inclusion of paragraph one D, as well as paragraph six. In previous rounds of negotiations, we strongly requested the deletion of the expression without writing in the shadow of paragraph one. 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 them 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 four and five, the Holy See would like to support the alternative proposal current included in that further revised tax. While we can support paragraph four as drafted Originally, the retention of paragraph five which in our view is misplaced, as well as the retention of paragraph three at this stage would lead us to support the alternative proposal here included. With regard to part three 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 has been eloquently and repeatedly voiced by a large number of delegation. For the reasons previously provided the the holistic 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.
Thank you, holy see 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 chairs 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 criminalization that we all expect to combat this crime. As many before me, our strong preference is to maintain paragraphs three through five as they are, in our view, paragraph three goes to the flexibility just mentioned to ensure that we can achieve a truly global response to this crime. In terms of paragraphs four and five. These are critical to avoid the over criminalization of children and young persons. We thank Brazil for the four dash five volt proposal. However, in our view, identifying clear, very narrow exceptions such as those that are provided currently provide a better framework to protect children abroad 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. are undermined legitimate sexual exploration of young persons. Clear parameters around criminalization are absolutely necessary to achieve the objective that we are discussing right now. We agree with the comments made by the US and the definition of a child and support returning without right in paragraph one. Turning to article 15, we would like to retain the original text. Australia recognizes the importance of combating this crime, as others have said, this text sets a minimum on criminalization. Should their domestic laws go further and are not based on consent, then, then that state may choose to criminalize further. Inserting paragraph six also raises questions as to whether the other offenses in six to 14 and 16 could go further without actually having such a provision. We're 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.
Thank you, Australia, Cameroon, you have for
Muslims you represent. Thank you chair. My delegation is extremely concerned by the exceptions ended in paragraph one of Article Three. And therefore, we have strong reservations when it comes to the term without right. Moreover, in Article Two II, the end of the phrase that comes after 18, or the 18 years old is a concern. We could think make this can make us think that such a young age could be that a young age could be that of the attainment of 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 reiterate that Corporal integrity is a use cautions norm that no convention can affect in the same spirit. My delegation believes that article 15 should be rid of any dispute provisions that could lead to confusion. Thank you.
Okay, mucho Gracias, Senor, proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 protection and promotion of the human rights of the child. I'd like to reiterate that for our delegation is extremely relevant to maintain the wording of the text submitted by the chairman, the original revised version without changes. Specifically, we emphasize the relevance for Argentina of the wording proposed in paragraph three of article 13 of this draft. Our delegation would like to emphasize that the definition of the child and Article Two should be the one originally drafted in the text of the chair. Thank you. Thank you, Argentina, Norway.
Thank you, like many others, we see these articles as extremely important, and we think it would be 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 comments on some of the interventions that have been made. Article 13 Part One and Two they set out a clear obligation for states to criminalize all forms of season. We support this but as about as has been said by many in order to fight this horrible crime it isn't necessary in some instances to access or share such images. Many examples have already been given I cannot investigation given evidence in court victims telling their stories and research with every receipt necessary to keep the words without right. Since paragraph one, and to 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 sexualized pictures of themselves and sending them to a perpetrator, it is the perpetrator and not the child which should be criminal liable. Furthermore, we want 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 therefore need paragraph four. 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 the paragraph five, we would have to criminalize such actions. I would also like to underline that para four and five 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 for deleting the definition of child in Article Two. As a part of if this would help people to 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 chairs 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.
Thank you, Norway, Liechtenstein, you have the floor.
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 seeming less, seemingly endless hours of maybe negotiations. We strongly call for the retention of the original text as was drafted by the chair. We especially cannot support the deletion of para three to five of article 13 under any circumstances, which don't fully supports the statement by the European Union in this regard. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you Liechtenstein. So I have next thing my list. Uganda, Iceland, Avenida Burkina Faso, El Salvador, Egypt, Switzerland, and Jamaica, Uganda, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you chair. I would like to I would like to state that article 13 and 15 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 13. The first paragraph Uganda is concerned with the use. We've previously shown our discomfort with the words without right. But that notwithstanding and with the aim of reaching a consensus, we just I just want to put point out that the use of word 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 notwithstanding, even if that is to be maintained with a word without rage, you can still find 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 program. So it was we humbly submit that that could be reviewed, and may be if possible in the word producing deleted, to ensure that you 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, of criminal liability, edge, edge of criminal responsibility and the edge of maturity. The two are different and yet run Hand in Hand in reef in reference to criminal justice system in different jurisdictions. So that's why it is important in the paragraph. So there is contention in respect to material that comes out for for for children, to ensure that domestic laws take precedence in respect to the age of liability, criminal liability and the age of majority. Thank you.
Thank you, Uganda, 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,
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, as is not as Iceland would have preferred, but in the interest of reaching consensus, we support the retention of it with paragraphs three to five. And we want to ask her specifically what Argentina has stated regarding the importance of retaining the delicate balance drafted in the chairs 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 chairs proposal here on this as drafted on one to five and but we cannot accept any further concessions to that. Thank you.
Thank you Iceland. Albania, you have the floor.
ways. 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 chairs proposed, thank you.
Thank you again. Yeah, Burkina Faso. You have the floor.
Maxie Missoula. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Articles six, paragraph two, Article Seven, paragraph two, article 11 paragraph two and article 12. The delegation of we're gonna Fossum would have prepared the hitting criminal sanctions but with a view to compromise. We are willing to accept the chairs text with regard to article 13 paragraph one, we request the deletion of the mention of the right because otherwise. Otherwise, a C and D of that paragraph. We support Cameroon's comments on this issue. Thank you,
Maxie universal.
Thank you. Salvador has the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 integral incorporation of any norm much incorporates the interest 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 a version reviewed by the chair and case, Brazil's proposal is a possible compromise solution. Our delegation will reserve the right to have it and to issue an interpretation in which we will express what we believe in terms of this principle. Thank you. Thank you, Salvador, 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 on 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 you will criminality and consequently, will hinder international cooperation, aiming to prevent and combating this very serious and disturbing crime. The optional protocol to the convention of 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 set of child sexual abuse or exploitation material. That's why these delegations and many other delegations asked for the removal of paragraph three. On paragraph five, Mr. Chair, once again, this allegation wants to highlight, as mentioned in the statements made by many countries, that paragraph five 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 appreciated the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Brazil, and we can work constructively on it taking into consider that in the in the in the informants, it was supposed to be an alternative for paragraphs three, four, and five. We can work on Mr. Shear having the definition of the child here in article 13. Instead of Article tune we have we can show flexibility in disregarding so chair, and we can work on the altar that as presented by the distinguished delegate of Brazil, taking it to hear that we are still insisting on the deletion of paragraph three and paragraph five. Regarding paragraph four, Mr. Chair, this delegation proposes the retention of the of paragraph four with an amendment to be added at the end of paragraph four provided other preventive or corrective measures may be instituted. Again, Mr. Chair, we can accept the retention of paragraph four within addition, provided other preventive or corrective measures may be
sorry, your three minutes are up. So I have next in my list, Switzerland, Jamaica, Italy, Colombia and Vanuatu in write your request for the floor again. So.
Okay, so please give the floor back to Egypt before Switzerland so he finishes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair for your indulgence. This is pertaining to article 13 Regarding article 15. Mr. Chair, we are asking for a new six Biss ALT and new six 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 one, 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 Upstate party to criminalize the dissemination of images under domestic law. And here, Mr. Sherr, 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. Sheen. Mr. Chair, once again, for your indulgence.
Thank you, Egypt, Switzerland, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Switzerland has a strong preference for 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 our delegations as well. We think that the drafting of the original tech art texts already took a lot of efforts and coordination in the first place and therefore believed that the original text could be more acceptable for most delegations without the new amendments. Thank you.
Thank you, Switzerland, Jamaica, you have the floor.
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 one subparagraph a to see 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 support of article 13, paragraph one, in respect of article 13, paragraph two curriculum support, so paragraphs A, B and C. In respect of D, we can also support it as it has no been formulated. CARICOM supports article 13, paragraph three in its entirety. In respect of paragraph three, 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 criminal criminalized, or the thresholds that needs to be met. CARICOM also supports article 13, paragraphs four and five. paragraph four 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 we're 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 Five, this provision meets allowances for jurisdictions to maintain or adopt measures towards leniency, thus avoiding over criminalization. CARICOM is generally supportive of paragraphs one to five of article 15. And in respect of paragraph six, CARICOM is concerned that the inclusion of this provision would in principle, change the nature and intent of this offense, as violation of privacy is a constant based offense. CARICOM had posed for this as a priority from the beginning of this process. Therefore, Mr. Chair, we call for the deletion of paragraph six. Thank you, Mr. 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. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Italy fully aligns itself with the US 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 right and paragraph four and five in article 13, aimed 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 without right or the deletion or power of four and five Without right is a technical expression, which is already used in many other articles by in this same convention, which is used to allow the police to operate on the cover or even simply to access the sides. But it's not only about law enforcement functions. It's also about other actors. For, for example, in Italy, private associations, also religious associations do an extraordinary job. They scan Internet to find these websites where they exchange as CAPM and report them. As for power of four and five, we think that there is a great misunderstanding, in power of four and five, we are not talking of abuse of abuse whatsoever. They have nothing to do with abuse, nor with any of the abusive or exploitative, hideous acts described in part one, 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 them 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 the for the Egyptian proposal in article 15. Let me repeat what I already said in our informal 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 motels state members can do in their domestic illegally illegal framework. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Italy, Colombia.
Colombia has the floor.
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 six, these new wordings, open up the possibility of criminalizing the spread of images in the framework of conceptual 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, thank you, Columbia, Vanuatu.
Thank you, Chair. One way to support the retention of articles 13 to 15 of the chairs, original tics or revised sticks without any additions of Mr. Chair echoing what the delegation from Australia had said this, this articles provide a suitable and perhaps ideal platform in this in this Convention for the Protection of Children from the Scourge is of the hideous crime often perpetrated with the use of information and communications technology. What is also opposed to the deletion of paragraphs three and five. But he's 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 in article 13, the one who is mindful of the fear, how this word may be abused by, by, by 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 the suitable protection for the children. And we don't believe that if it's clearly articulated in domestic legislations, that it can be used as a legit legitimate defense by any person claiming to have right in a wrong situation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. So next in my list, I have Canada, the Netherlands, Georgia, Austria, United States, Japan and winning kind of Young.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To start off Canada supports the chairs original text. This is an important article that reflects talking about 13. The 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 three to five the provide for flexibility do not undermine the purpose of this article that is focused on child protection 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. Two 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 three to five. On the proposal, alt four five 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 airtime was spent on the discussion of whether or not the chairs original text was near consensus. While I appreciate the 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 is presented. Well, 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 attack, which we are talking about in which are under a dock 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 six is a curious addition. This
kinda Your time is up. Are you almost finished?
Thank you, just about 30 seconds. As already mentioned, we'll go further. As France up aptly noted in informals. There is nothing in this article which would preclude a member state from enacting morality events, as has been described by Egypt. This new paragraph 15 Six is therefore completely unnecessary, and is also unacceptable for Canada, which has been advocating for greater human rights protection exists in this treaty. This is 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 edition would set a new precedent, because the HC 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.
Thank you, Canada, Netherlands, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As one of the 27 member states of the European Union, the Kingdom of the Netherlands aligns itself with the EU statement, and 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 breath you, we agreed as 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 chairs proposal. As mentioned by our delegation earlier this session, the compromise that struck the precarious balance between the interests of many countries. And the patient leadership of the Nigeria is co chair. Law lot of energy was put into this compromise by many countries. The proposals incorporated in the latest text in the mind a compromise. And this stands in the way of protecting children from abuse. Regarding the proposed article 15, Paris six, our delegation will never accept that the UN Convention legitimize states or restricts their adult citizens in their self self determination over their own intimate images. As eloquently explains by the representative of Italy, this convention provides for a minimum of criminal offenses, states are free to provide for more far reaching criminal offenses in our national law. This also explicitly emphasized that article 59 para to no state needs this article. So I mean, the proposal for article 15 para six for legal reasons. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, and Otherland, Georgia, we have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Georgia shares concerns. So the previous speakers so we're over criminalized the risks of over criminalization. And for that reason, we strongly support chairs original draft hypergraphs, three to five and we cannot support an alternative proposal by Brazil and we also support keeping without writing paragraph one. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Georgia, Austria you have.
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 criminalize children that have reached the age of sexual consent and lawfully engage in sexual activity. We can also not commit to criminalize adults, that means any person over the age of 18 that lawfully engages, for example, with a person that is 17 year old. We also appreciate appreciate the proposal of Brazil on for Paris for five ot but we would like to note that it refers to article 21 para seven. This provision addresses prosecution policies. And this interpretation was just confirmed by the distinguished delegates of Egypt that pointed out to 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.
Thank you Austria, Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We strongly support the retention of paragraph three as proposed by the distinguished delegate of Argentina in the previous intervention, especially regarding a real child requirement under paragraph three, a, there is a significant difference between a real child and unreal child in the context of a system geofences concerning CCENT are the real child significantly violate the rights of that child. On the other hand, concerning and under your child, we should not that we should note that it does not do any harm to the real child, which those are take into full consideration, the freedom of expression, which is a fundamental human right. For Japan, paragraph three A 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 bodies. We believe that paragraph three does not undermine the fight against child abuse, as the distinguished delegate of Canada stated, paragraph three exempt criminalization of, for instance, an act of artists who draw pictures over and over an imaginary child, it is obvious that it does not undermine fight against child abuse. Mr. Chair, in light of 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 or vision excessively limit the number of countries that can conclude the convention. We all will fail to achieve the objectives of diminishing safe havens for cybercrime. Japan Herbes, that throughout this discussion, all member states, well considered meaning at the ultimate goal of stipulating criminalization provisions from a broader perspective in this convention. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Japan, Vietnam was available.
You'll have the full
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a real pleasure for us. And in a personal capacity because of our friendship, to see you're 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 and at the UN level in particular, where practically all states have it adhere to those plus internal legislation, which has sufficiently clear definitions of the child. So it would not be wouldn't it be consensus in 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 follow the drum Germanic Roman traditions which I follow one looks at the age of the child, but it's their majority. At that point, that 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 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 the 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.
Massey Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will finish now. I'm speaking about if we think of transposing, what to where would we have? What would we find the consistency between the internal that legislation that we have, and the various instruments to which we are parties at the African level? We does it mean that we haven't respected our own signatures are in terms of Budapest or in 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,
Max, even thank you, this United Kingdom, Iran, Germany, and New Zealand, UK, you have the floor.
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. At our convention, and as a result of this, the fact that they have been the subject of intense 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 the 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 one, we do not support the addition of all lawful authority alongside without right. This calls into the into question the very meaning of the term without right, as it has already been agreed in article 678-910-1112 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. We are in the same paragraph in paragraph one, 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 defenses for the conduct in his 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 criminalized without such a provision. Turning to paragraphs three, four and five 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
wait UK Can you please name the program?
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. out finally, we would support article 15 as was previously drafted, like CARICOM, we cannot support the proposed new paragraph six of this article, as Canada explained before me, article 59, paragraph two 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 six. Thank you, Mr. 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, Mr. Chairman. To giving the floor to me. We strongly support the inclusion of the provisions in the UN Convention that criminalize any form of child sexual exploitation. However, the current formulation reflected in the draft Texas text in article 13 is still fraud and fraud with with loopholes that might be exploited by the criminal criminals who have committed the atrocities crime against the children. The underlying basis of the or proposal for modifying the current formulation reflected on Article 13 and 14 is based on the our firm conduct conviction to fighting child sexual exploitation online to protect our children and families from this horrendous crime and to deter and fight criminals who criminal 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 their various supports, supports from the thumb delegations for enforcing including the paragraph three of the article 13, which is in fact the killer loophole that would allow criminals to victimize our children via ICT, we absolutely cannot accept paragraph three of the article 13. For the reasons mentioned, there is no such 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 one of article 13. As we firmly believe that there is exist no rights to produce, sell, offer discriminate, etc, material that depict child sexual exploitation. We heard from the some delegations, that the inclusion of the without right is necessity is necessary to 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 matters.
Hold on a second.
The lawful exercise of the functions by law by law enforcement is already covered and presumed in domestic laws, not only not to mention, in fact that the terms when committed intentionally in paragraph one of article 13 says suffices to set the criteria for the right foods wrongfulness of the conduct, since it is understood that it this term addresses the intent to sell, offer produce, etc. of the child sexual exploitation material not to intend to counter 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 sanction functions, the ICANN ontact Do not include such carriers in for example, without right or 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 there's, in said conventions. However, given the state this some delegation preferences to address this aspect, no matter if essential or not, we could go along with the proposal of the delegations of distinguished delegations of Iraq and Russian Federation, which forms of good basis to address the conch concerns raised by the Sun delegations, I would like to reiterate our position on Article 13 and 15th. As we expressed, as we experienced in the previous meetings of this section, this sessions, including for the inclusion of the term, live streaming, in an article 13, a term of Unreal in article 20, in paragraph two, A, and deletion of the paragraph three and five, 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, four, paragraph four regarding for the correction, corrective measures to protect children from the generating materials refer to the said article on Article 15. We reiterate our position we express 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.
Thank you, Iran. So next in my list, I have Germany, New Zealand, Tonga, France, and Iran is it I mean, I remind you, we have 47 minutes left in a clock. Sorry, Germany.
Thank you for giving us the floor. We allow ourselves to the statement made by the European Union as one of his 20 September 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 and how to best reach the shared goal and are willing to be flexible. However, as mentioned by and many others, Germany has to retain exemptions and power of four and five article 13. De considered the differences between the legal systems of all EU member states, we cannot support the insertion of Article of Paris six and article 15 as consensual sex 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 full future convention we are all working for. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Germany, New Zealand, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, following your lead will be as brief as possible. Children must be protected online. And we urge all member states to agree article 13, paragraphs one to five. However, we support the United Kingdom and their explanation for deletion of lawful authority in paragraph one. We cannot agree paragraphs four and five out or paragraph six on Article 15. We cannot agree paragraph six which undermines the whole purpose of this offense and must be deleted on Article 16 para two sub para see, the use of the vague language have a certain degree of seriousness creates uncertainty. And we support the deletion of this sub para Thank you, Chair.
Thank you New Zealand Tonga, you have the floor.
Chair. At this point we can we only speak when there's something we can all live with. So in terms of article 13, the Alt for five we cannot accept that. And as for article 15 Paragraph six, we can also not support that. Thank you.
Thank you, Tonga, France and then I have German and Japan France.
You have the floor. Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much chair. France wish to take the floor particularly on Article 15. And even more specifically on paragraph six, which was added to article 15 As the other 27 states of the European Union, Francis have 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 six is not acceptable, because it creates confusion over the nature. And the what needs to be protected from these infractions, as the title of the article says, is to protect intimate images. And paragraph six 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 the competent over the dissemination of a, a an image with consent, even if this is created beyond their own territory or goes beyond
their own territory. Yeah, man, you have the floor. Chakra last.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We support the statement by Egypt. And we don't support it, because we like to support but we 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.
Amending domestic clause is not an easy proposition. However, when we agree internationally, we go back to our Parliament's and we make our proposals and hope to introduce changes to our domestic legislation. Like all other states, that demand their own national domestics. However, the phrase without right is an ambiguous phrase. domestic laws prohibit lewd actions, it prohibits amoral 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 cyber crime, and it requires accurate DraftKings 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 you should know microphone
Could you please give the microphone to Yemen to finish?
I have completed my statement I ended 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 or the view to reaching a consensus. Flexibility can help us achieve our common objective. Thank you.
Shukran, Yemen, Japan.
Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor again. With your indulgence, Japan, this time would like to articulate their position on articles 15 and 16. Japan strongly supports article 15, as it was, in a chairs original text without any amendment. Mr. Chair, or article 16 paragraph to see, 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're hoping to formulate the text as follows. States parties may require predicates like 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 untuck is also limited to transnational organized serious crimes. Therefore, our proposal does not necessarily overly limit the scope of predicate offenses as compared with on talk. Finally, we would like to emphasize that other delegates also share their concerns regarding the scope of the predicate offense. proposal addresses multiple member states concern. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Japan. So I have nothing on my list. Saudi Arabia, Cameroon, United States and Chilean Saudi Arabia, you
have the floor Shukran.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. To all of you, Mr. Chairman.
We share the concerns regarding paragraphs three, four and five. And we believe that this point has taken so much time in our integrals 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 three, as well as the proposal made by Brazil. In paragraphs four and five. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we seriously need to consider these proposals.
And, and not to keep repeating our interventions and positions as we have heard the over the past days of our negotiations. This is our proposal. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Shukran,
Saudi Arabia, Cameroon, we have the floor
of some sort of 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 was the idea here is that perhaps the the 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 to 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 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 the words without right is quite simply unacceptable.
Massey, Cameroon.
Thank you, Cameron.
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 two C, 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 untuck or UNCAC. Money laundering articles is vague, maybe contrary to existing international standards, and could cause difficulties for international cooperation. We note that similar language was not accepted by the plenary and article 31 Because of similar objections by member states, so we believe paragraph two c should be removed here as well. For the same reasons, we would object and be opposed to a proposed reformulation of paragraph two C, that would provide for a possibility to restrict predicate offenses to serious crimes as to those conventions 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 three to clarify the scope of this article was not included in this draft. This new language for a new paragraph three to make clear that an offence is only considered an offence under the article where that predicate offense is an offense established in accordance with Article Six to 15 is important to ensure that the article does not become a money laundering article for any predicate offence regardless of the connection to the offenses established in accordance with the convention. The language for the new paragraph three would read as we propose before, for the purposes of this convention, and offense shall only be deemed to be an offence under this article when the predicate offense is an offense established in accordance with Article 6015 of this convention. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, United States, Chile, the monopoly.
We took it so senior pcnt.
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 LinkedIn 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 four or five, but we prefer the present drafting of three to five as the minimum acceptable position on Article 15. We cannot accept the inclusion of paragraph six delegations have expressed the reasons for this, and we joined them. And with regard to article 16, we join and the views of the delegation of the United States and others that we cannot accept, paragraph to see 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. Thank you, Charlie.
You have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. I'll be very brief. Chair. My delegation believes that I One thing which we are sure there is consistencies, we all want to retain these offenses. But the problem is some delegations have restrictive components within the domestic laws, which are which are which have compelled them to provide positions, which may not work for other delegations. So in 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. Father, we support the 455 out as proposed by Brazil. And we also call for the retention of paragraph six of article 15 is currently drafted. We can also support deletion of para to see of article 16. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. That's any Egypt, we have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very briefly, Egypt aligns itself with the delegations who objected the the inclusion of paragraph two C in article 16. And, frankly speaking, Mr. Chair, we don't know how this paragraph find its way in the in the text taking into journal that there was no consensus or real support for having it in this article. Also, it is in line with what is we have in uncut and on top. 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 United States regarding having a paragraph three, again, inconsistency with Article The Uncock and own token 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 two a and to be, I think,
thank you, Egypt, Liechtenstein, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for giving Liechtenstein the floor again. We can Stein wishes to add its voice to the proposals by New Zealand and the US on Article 16 Concretely, the deletion of article 16 para to see and the important clarification entailed in the newly proposed paragraph three of article 16. We highly fear overburdening our petitioners if we don't add this clause. Thank you very much.
Thank you listen, science. listeners. Thanks, sorry, Kiribati, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'll be very brief. In relation to Article 13, I get the vessel. So I like other distinguished delegates before me call for the deletion of all lawful authority. In para one on Article 13, this creates more ambiguity created, provided that this already without rights being there in better one in article 15 That ASICs like other distinguished delegates before me We cannot accept this inclusion in this convention. Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you. Can you write the Norway you have the floor?
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 para to see and support. We support the inclusion of the new paragraph three as opposed by proposed by the US. Thank you.
Thank you, Norway, United Kingdom. You have the floor. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Just very quickly on Article 16. The UK would like to join those calling for the deletion of paragraph two c. And we also think the proposal for a new paragraph three as made by the United States would bring some welcome clarity to this article. Thank you.
Thank you, UK, Australia. You have the floor.
Thank you Chair for giving me the floor. We would like to express our support for the changes proposed by the US to article 16 Thank you.
Thank you, Australia, Georgia.
Thank you will also join our previous speakers supporting us proposal on deleting to see and adding paragraph three, which would clarify the scope. Thank you.
Thank you, Georgia, Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. We support the proposals of the US for article 16. Thank you
Thank you kinda Albania. You have the floor. Kilo
chair also been supporting the proposal for us. Thank you.
Thank you Albania, Israel, you have the floor.
Thank you chair is rarely
you know, having the microphone you know, push it again. Now you do?
Yes.
Yes, thank you, Israel support the United States in article 16. And also the United Kingdom to delete the article sub article to see Thank you.
Thank you, Israel. Well, that finishes my list. So I take it, no, nevermind Tanzania, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. While we support the deletion of paragraph two c of article 16. We do not see merit in addition of the new paragraph three. And we have the view that Article, Article Two, paragraph A and B. have clearly stipulated the the scope within which this particular offense of money laundering will apply. So part of two, which stems from paragraph one is very clear on what offenses are to be applied in respect of the offense of money laundering. And if you read the formulation of this particular article, is slightly different from article 23 of Juncker because Indian Cook is opposed to this formulation, young cook had a paragraph which criminalized all predicate offenses without making specific references to offenses established in accordance with Yonka. But when it comes to this convention, part of two, A and B clearly identifies offenses under this convention. And we understand that the scope within which this offense will apply will only be limited to these offenses. And then therefore, there is no need of having additional paragraph three is proposed. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Tanya. So with that, we'll now be moving to Chapter Four on procedural measures and law enforcement for which we have a whole 20 minutes.
Any request for the floor? Should we so we agree on for move to five.
If there are requests for four and you have any four or five, then please request the floor.
United States, you have the floor. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. If we are indeed moving to chapter five, 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 this would strongly support language that would clarify that this article only applies in relation to the offense is established in accordance to the convention. Thank you.
Thank you, United States. Any other requests for the floor? Japan you have The floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor again, I am making an intervention on Article 16 paragraph two subparagraph C. Given the topological unlikeliness of the 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 six to 15 each state party may determine what constitutes we live in two crimes as provided for in paragraph two subparagraph. A based on that understanding Japan at this stage of the negotiation. X exercises its flexibility to accept the deletion of paragraph two subparagraph C in the spirit of the consequences. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Japan. Any other request for the floor?
Russian Federation you have the floor.
Now especially well, thank you very much. short comment regarding article 36. In paragraph 336. We don't support the changes that were proposed regarding the written written requirements for the transfer of information 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 a an easier path towards this transfer of information. This is something that we already have established under one a where the states can or not. The states can agree amongst themselves. Thank you.
Thank you, Russian Federation New Zealand,
you have the floor. 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 offenses established in accordance with the Convention, which we do see another standalone provisions in article 38 for transfer sentence persons and article 39. For transfer criminal proceedings, as drafted article 48 could be used to establish a joint investigation team for any offense and not just cyber crimes. They surely cannot have been the intent and should be explicitly limited to those effects offenses in the criminalization chapter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, New Zealand. It used to be followed by Mauritania and then Argentina, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair, regarding chapter five international cooperation. For article 14 Egypt insists on the reference to the serious crimes in paragraph one to guarantee wider scope of international cooperation. Also, Egypt insists on the retention of this article as proposed in the rd RBTC. Without any amendments, especially part of 20 Regarding the grounds of refusal of MLA, it's worth noting that this article is consistent with the same article articles in on took and Konkuk. For article 41. Egypt proposes on the on the reference of insists on the reference to the serious crime in paragraph one 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 inconsistency 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 our There is scope for law enforcement cooperation, not only visa vie offenses established in accordance with this convention, but also to take onboard serious crimes when committed through the use of ICTs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Egypt, Mauritania. Shukran see the rise. Minister.
Thank you. So with regard to article 23, and chapter four. So that's article 23, paragraph two. The expression will 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.
Which refer 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.
Sukhram Mauritania. thing was he and the minister handiness.
Argentina followed by list list and Stein, or Dominican Republic, Brazil, Norway, South Africa, Argentina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Concerning paragraph 18, and 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. The for that to be that it'd 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 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 four, Argentina proposes in order to simplify their text to delete the phrase on the first line the competent authorities, so we would only have a 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 two is now the paragraph that would have been replaced by current paragraph one. So we should delete paragraph two.
Concerning articles, 45 and 46, Argentina in order to have more effective cooperation, we'd like to maintain shell with the understanding that those measures have caveats and their own articles when they refer to domestic legislation in articles 29 and 30. On procedural measures, when even article 30 establishes that states party and legislative should say, purport serious crimes, these measures would apply, these measures would be requested through mutual legal assistance, and therefore delegation causes would operate and this together with the need 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 answer is would be from the requested party, making it clear that this is Argentina's preference. Nevertheless, if there is no concern interest to maintain shall the minimum position for Argentina. One moment Argentina, please. 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 motors which prevent the procedure with regard to article 47, Argentina and I 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. Thank you, Argentina, 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.
Thank you for listening sign liability Gala, mini Ghana, the
Dominican Republic. Thank you, sir. We have a couple of comments on Article 41. Under 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 mentioned is made of the collection of this digital evidence. The stuff working in these units is technical stuff, which preserves the evidence but it doesn't have the competence, the legal competence, nor does it have legal stuff available 24/7. And much less in the ministries of justice or service providers, they don't have a 24/7 legal stuff either. So we understand that it would be much clearer to delete the the terms of collection, and to simply refer to the preservation of the evidence so as not to create any unreal expectations. Thank you. Thank you, Dominican Republic
left and a request for the floor. So we have to finish at six Brazil, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'd like to agree with Dominican Republic, I believe we just spoke about the need to for the 24/7 network to work specially in specifically with reservation. Also, we'd 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 will be important for countries to receive a justification why that support was not was not provided. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obrigado, Brasil, Norway, you have the floor.
Thank you. I will be quick. Norway supports article 36 as drafted and we oppose any amendments there to in article 4546, 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 that's a compromise, we can accept them if they are not mandatory. Furthermore, we would like to support the US proposal to amend article 48 ensuring that it's only applied to offenses stablished in accordance with this convention. Thank you.
Thank you, Norway, 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. Similar to Brazil, Argentina and Egypt. We prefer the use of Shell Thank you.
Thank you, South Africa, Switzerland, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair in article 45 and 46, we strongly support the word may instead of Shaul, for the reasons that were just explained by Norway and support the suggestions of the US in article 48. Thank you.
Thank you, Switzerland,
Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. To make this short. Every thing that Norway said you can just put our name beside it. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. Iceland, you have the floor.
Same. So, we support everything that that Norway said on Article 45 and 46. And we cannot stress enough how important this is, first, we otherwise we will have a little constitutional concern. And 48. We support as suggested by the US. Thank you.
Thank you Artie Lange, United Kingdom.
Thank you chair. We also agree with Norway. But we do have a couple of quick comments on Article 41. The UK considers that paragraph two appears to have been included in error. At the moment, we seem to have two separate articles that says out the scope of 24/7. I see the Secretariat, nodding at me. In paragraph one, we think the reference to purposes in paragraph three should instead be to paragraph four. And the tiny drafting point but it is important the word and in the final sentence of paragraph one needs deleting to ensure clarity on the scope of this article. Thank you.
Thank you United Kingdom. We have three minutes left Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair very briefly that my delegation would like to prefer the word of shall instead of May, in article 4546. Thank you.
Thank you, Iran. So I have an announcement to make. The Secretariat would like to inform all delegations that document a slash ac dot 291 slash 22 slash red.to. 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 a caller can make it in two minutes.
did ask you. 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. Thank you.
Also making two minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be quick just to add Morocco for delegation requesting the retention of shall in article 45 and 45. Six, thank you. Great,
Algeria,
you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Algeria, also, is also for retaining shall instead of May in articles 45 and 46. Thank you, Mr. 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 10am in this room. Thank you. Have a nice evening.
