excellencies ladies and gentleman. You're all welcome to Ted meeting. Just before we go in, I have an announcement. As the Chair mentioned, this is the final session of our ad hoc committee. As a result, we must make the best use of the time we have available about consultation with the borough. The chair proposed to begin using the speech timer, which will be set to three minutes. During the consideration of agenda item three. Delegations will therefore have three minutes to speak each time, I will explain how it works. When you are given the floor, you will be given three minutes to speak. Once you have one minute left, your microphone will start to blink. When your time is up, your microphone will be silenced automatically. I will also take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the governments of China and the United States for their generous contributions to the organization of the concluding session. Their contributions have helped us to support the hybrid infomercials and the night infomercials, which could not be covered by the budget allotted for the committee by the United Nations. Thank you for your cooperation.
Excellencies distinguished representatives, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening, depending on where you are. We will continue with the constitution of Agenda Item three, entitled entitled revised draft text of the convention. I will guide our discussion of the chapters on general provisions, criminalization, and jurisdiction. As we have only a very limited number of meetings to reach agreement at referendum on this three chapters. I would like to recall the chairs appeal for your spirit of compromise, and flexibility. Please only make proposals that your delegation is convinced to be absolutely necessary for us to approve the text and to offer alternative language that can enjoy broad support. I would also like I would also invite you to be concise and specific when proposing amendments. Before we consider each group of articles, I will give you a brief presentation of the provisions we will be discussing, as Madam Chair has already provided more specific explanations of the changes in relation to the draft text that we examined at the sixth session. We will start with Chapter One on general provisions. Under this chapter, we only have article one to discuss. It is based on a proposal made by the chair, which follows the wording of Article One of UNCAC. Two changes were made in paragraph C first the inclusion of a reference to capacity building and the second the deletion of the last half sentence to adopt a more general approach. May I take it that ad hoc committee agrees with the article with Article One as contained in the revised draft text of the convention
Okay, Japan, okay, Japan you have the floor
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair for giving me the floor. Good morning. And good morning to you all. Japan supports the chairs proposal on Article One as it sounds and hopes to reach consensus on this clear and concise text. I thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Japan
Okay, all right, I see. Okay, we have okay because there Okay, you have the floor please. Gracias.
Thank you, Chairman. Yesterday, we took the floor to refer to the preamble. So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask your forbearance to refer to this topic.
With regard to the preamble, I'd like to make a comment on the way Costa Rica understands this convention. Costa Rica believes that human rights are not simply a just a rhetoric is not an item of the agenda that can be included or deleted human rights are intrinsically related to the dignity of human beings. This is why they are they are present in a cross kind of way and all international documents. So taking this into account, we do not see it possible for the preamble of the convention not to have a solid reference to the importance of protecting human rights in cyberspace. Costa Rica strongly believes that all rights are applicable in cyberspace and should be guaranteed in the same way as they are outside of cyberspace. It would not be possible to build an instrument that establishes a common criminal criminal policy with the purpose of protecting society from cybercrime. As mentioned in paragraph four in the preamble preamble without taking into account the protection of human rights, we cannot leave outside a specific mention to paragraph in paragraph 10, on the importance of incorporating a gender perspective, in all efforts to prevent and combat crime in cyberspace.
Because Costa Rica regrets that gender violence online is just as serious as real gender violence, it's very important for this convention to take into account the adverse and diverse differentiated impact of gender violence that also extends to cyberspace. This is why we support the dimensions that included in the preamble should be maintained in the next version of the text, we aspire to a free, open, safe and peaceful cyberspace for all people.
As for article one that we are currently discussing, the delegation of Costa Rica supports the proposal of the chair. Thank you very much, Chair.
Okay, thank you very much. May I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees with this article, and we can take it as a grid add referendum? I see no objection. Okay, Egypt, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, your colleagues. Egypt aligns itself with the statement made on behalf of the African group yesterday, including the common African position pertaining to Article One. The Egypt supports the inclusion of a reference to the transfer of technology in the in Article One, paragraph three. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Okay, Iran, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the general regulations, my delegation has already presented his positions and suggestion. However, we would like to propose the final sentence in paragraph C of Article One retain and the wording of transfer of technology would be asserted in this paragraph. After capacity building. Regarding Article Two Iranian delegation has been participated participating in the informal meetings to announce his opinions and suggestions including the definition of the stakeholders and as well as emergency Of course, this issue is also considering in informal meeting. My delegation is of the view that the in definition of the proceeds of crime predict predicate offense. We need to mention them in the framework of the convention with the adding of the word establish Finnish adding of this warding established in accordance with accordance with this convention. Finally, Mr. Chairman, regarding the criminalization especially article 13, and 14, the Iranian delegation has considered several opinions and suggestion which will be presented in details in informal meetings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. Before I yield the floor to the to the next speaker, let me just crave your indulgence that to help us move along and maximize our time, it will be appreciated if we can focus on the articles were taking one after the other. So like you rightly said, Article Two is still being considered in informals. We'll focus on Article One. We'll get done with this and we'll move to the next one. Please. I thank you for your understanding and your cooperation. I now yield the floor to South Africa to be followed by Tunisia, South Africa, you have the floor.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. So in line with the African position presented by His Excellency from Egypt yesterday, South Africa supports the inclusion of transfer of technology in sub para c. After technical assistance and capacity building, we believe that these terms would all assist state parties to comply with their obligations in implementing this convention. Thank you very much.
Tanisha you have the floor please.
thank you, Ambassador. Pardon me. Thank you chair. As for Article One, the delegation of Tunisia also endorses the statement of the African group which was delivered yesterday, which concerns the inclusion of a reference to technology transfer. In paragraph C of Article One. I also endorsed the remark made my Egyptian and South African colleagues Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. The Russian Federation, the floor
Thank you chair. Division did a delegation on the whole supports the wording of Article of chapter one. A notes the importance of promoting and strengthening measures to prevent and combat ICT for criminal purposes more efficiently and effectively. We think that's a good basis to ensure that the convention forms the legal basis for cooperation among EU and member states in preventing crime, the Russian Federation will never tire of repeating that it's easier to prevent crimes than to cope with their aftermath. Especially given crimes with financial losses are in the billions. But there's also immaterial damage, and sometimes the damage that can exceed the financial component at the same time. Nowhere are we talking about crime prevention here in the text. That's why we think it's necessary to include in this text provisions about prevention, in article 3, 23, 35, 41, and 47. The aim here is for law enforcement bodies of UN member states to be able to establish among one another ways to cooperate to respond to contemporary challenges without looking at documents that are 20 years old. At the same time, once more, we wish to know that we've met here in order to pursuant to a resolution a GA resolution asking for a comprehensive convention that's resolution 76 slash 247. So we should aim at Universal and procedural methods to carry out cooperation among law enforcement bodies of EU member states. So this is not only going to answer to contemporary challenges, but also respond to new and emerging technologies. We also think it would be expedient in paragraph C to set out the need for technology transfers in the context of capacity capacity building another measures to counter crime in developing states in that regard. We agree with Egypt, Iran and the others. Thank you. and South Africa. Sorry, thank you.
Thank you very much. Again, I will crave your indulgence is that we I know some of the issues As you feel are interrelated, but it would be very helpful if we just focus on the article that has been considered at the point in time. Having said that, the Syrian Arab Republic you have the floor please to be followed by Cabo Verde.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. In brief, we just want to say that we support adding transfer of technology to paragraph C of Article One. Thank you.
Thank you, Governor, you have the floor.
Thank you chair, you want to join our wars to support inclusion of transfer technology as an African group, declarative
Namibia, you have the floor.
Thank you chair, Namibia. I would also want to join the statement read for Africa group with read last night the inclusion of transfer of technology Thank you Chair.
Thank you very much, India, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. India would also like to support the word transport technology. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So at this point may I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees with Article One as it is contained subject to end the proposal to add the transfer of technology? Oh, okay, Jamaica. You have the floor place.
Okay, good morning chair. I am pleased to deliver the statement on behalf of the 14 member states of CARICOM. CARICOM wishes to thank you for your leadership during this process, and we remain committed to contributing to this important process as it as it concerns Article One. CARICOM supports article one A, which reflects our retention of the text in the draft text. Paragraph one B is already agreed on referendum. As it concerns paragraph one C. CARICOM notes that there have been significant adjustments to the text. The adjustments may constitute in our view an improvement on the text and brings it in line with Article One B of the UNCAC. However, in further achieving consistency within this text, we would recommend that the words to prevent and combat be deleted and replaced with the words in preventing and combating this would result in both paragraphs B and C of Article One being similarly worded and therefore more consistent.
Okay, Nigeria, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and it is good to see you. chairing this session this morning. As Nigeria was not able to take the floor during the discussion on the preamble, we would like to make this following points with your indulgence. Mr. Chair. Nigeria is concerned specifically with reference to article 10 of the preamble. With regard to mainstreaming agenda perspective, we understand the position that was taken by the chair yesterday after the intervention of the distinguished delegation of Cameroon, who so eloquently expressed and elucidated the concern of this delegation, we have also come across this kind of references to gender, but that is in connection with discussions on resolutions. We cannot recall in recent memory, any such reference to any criminal justice convention, especially when we keep in mind, the own talk, and on card. So we believe that this reference to agenda perspective should not and perhaps does not add any value in the placement In the preamble, we believe that any such consideration about the attitude to agenda or how law enforcement would react to issues regarding agenda could be discussions that may find some place in the preventive measures, where states may take certain measures to appreciate how crimes may impact in on different genders, but not an overarching paragraph in the preamble. But Alternatively, if this committee would like to accept this proposal in paragraph 10, Nigeria would like to see the proposal of Cameroon to add appropriate cabinet to this proposal so that domestic realities would actually take effect so we would like to support the proposal to have them subject to domestic law immediately after the reference to gender. And Mr. Chia would also like to support the statement delivered by the disintegration of Egypt on behalf of the Africa group and also to endorse the reference to transport technology in Article One. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. The distinguished delegates of Nigeria once occurred, okay, we have Ghana. Brianna, you have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would ask that you crave CARICOM's indulgence? Again, we would like to make a statement respect the preamble as we did not get the opportunity to do so yesterday. So Mr. Chair, Guyana is pleased to deliver this statement on behalf of the 14 member states of the CARICOM community. Mr. Chair CARICOM is largely pleased with the draft preamble, as this draft in a concise manner captures the spirit and intent of the draft convention. However, I like to speak briefly to the proposed revisions concerning the revision to preambular paragraph three. CARICOM joins with all the distinguished delegates by indicating that our preference is for the general term, transnational organized crime to be used instead of a list in criminal offenses. Therefore, our considered view is that this paragraph should end with the words, including offenses that constitute a transnational organized crime curriculums rationale is that keeping this paragraph General will allow the preamble to remain contemporary and relevant as new types of transnational organized crimes may emerge over time.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chair CARICOM recognizes that inclusion of the words and transnational organized crime such as in the revised texts may prove to be a workable compromise. With respect to preambular paragraph four CARICOM supports the inclusion of the Word Global. However, we also support a suggestion of the United States with respect to clarify and that it is a criminal justice policy and not a criminal policy that member states should collectively pursue. Concerning new preambular Paragraph nine, Mr. Chair CARICOM can lend its support to this paragraph as drafted. CARICOM has always indicated that the preamble should, in a clear manner, emphasize international cooperation between and among state parties. And then if necessary, speak to the role of stakeholders. This is now reflected in the new preambular Paragraph nine. Finally, Mr. Chair, CARICOM has no objection to the amendments, the preamble of paragraph 12 as these amendments make the intention of this preambular Paragraph clearer. Importantly, the inclusion of the word arbitrary reflects what is already contained in other international instruments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. I'm just gonna make one more appeal. For those who would want to comment about the preamble, let's remember that the preamble is still under informals. Madam chair is presiding over that. It will actually help us to make progress if we stick to Article One, finish it take the next one. Particularly for those things that are still under informals you have ample time sure you have more time to discuss that in the informal so you can make your elaborate this thing. So I hope that this appeal meets with your kind consideration. Now we have El Salvador
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to all the delegations. El Salvador supports the current wording presented by the chair for article one. And the chapter on general provisions. As El Salvador stated during informal consultations, the description of the description of transfer of technology in article 54 should not be in conditional. Paragraph C, strengthens this component as part of General Commission provisions within the relevant chapter and its inclusion would make it possible to balance what was already stated in article 54. We need to have some flexibility from other delegations in this room said that this kind of characterization or description is not simply voluntary. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. At this point, I see no further requests. Oh, sorry, United States. You have the floor, please.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States supports article one as drafted by the chair and the revised draft text with no changes. While the United States does support the inclusion of technology transfer on voluntary and mutually agreed terms in article 54. We don't support the inclusion of the language here. Purpose of the convention is to promote, facilitate and support technical assistance, which can include issues like capacity building and technology transfer, that we believe these are better placed in the broader technical assistance umbrella in article 54. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. We'll give Okay, is Israel to be followed by Norway? Israel, you have the floor, please.
Thank you. And good morning Chair, I would like to support the US comment right now. We don't see the merit of using this language, the additional language, as already the both the terms the technical assistance and capacity building may include also try a voluntary transfer of technology. Thank you.
Thank you very much Norway, have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We also want to support what our colleague from the US just said, we do not support the inclusion of transfer of technology. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Canada, you have the floor to be followed by the European Union and Albania.
Canada, you have the floor next to Mr. President.
Thank you, Vice Chair. Canada believes it's very important to include technology transfer in the convention. Having said that, we would prefer to discuss it in the chapter on technical sciences. And we reserve our position regarding the inclusion of debt in articles one, and three. Thank you.
Thank you very much. European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states. I would like to support the intervention made by the US and also by Canada. We prefer to keep the original language and discuss this in the technical assistance chapter. Thank you.
Albania, you have the floor, please
We would prefer to support the proposal from USA and not to inserting this transfer of technology. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. The UK supports the chairs draft with no amendments here. As others have said, we believe article 54 Already goes into detail on technical assistance and capacity building, which can include things like voluntary technology transfer, but also things like knowledge and information sharing as well. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Senegal, you have the floor.
Thank you very much. Vice Chair. I simply want to say we support the proposal of the African group and our African colleagues to include technology transfer in this paragraph. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much. The distinguished delegate of Senegal. Okay. It was seen that I thought we were very close to agree article one ad referendum, but with the spirit of interventions may I ask that, can we at least focus? May I propose that we take a look at we put the articles that... no article 1 a), can we at least look at it and agree that it is agreed at referendum? Maybe we need to take it in bite sizes and make progress. Right. Okay. I see Algeria, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. I fully endorse the statement delivered yesterday by the African group namely on technology transfer. In this regard, we support the inclusion of this reference to technology transfer in Article One. Thank you, Chair.
Okay, thank you very much. So, do we...?
All right. So, can we try that we look at article 1 a). And would it be right to take it that the ad hoc committee agrees that Article 1 a) is agreed at referendum? I see no objection. Okay.
All right. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Now, article, 1 c)
is it possible that we've notedthe views about the difficulty two components, can we at least subject to.... can we also agree, Article 1 c), at referendum? It would appear that some people, it's just about the placement of the technical transfer of technology. So, in pushing forward for consensus, I will think that one way or the other, it is possible since we have we can have a further discussion on what happens in article 54. Would it then be safe to at least agree article 1 c) ad referendum? You know, we can always revisit this knowing that it is just the concern is about the placement of the transfer of technology. Okay, I do not see any objection to that. So we'll take that as agreed at referendum. Okay, Egypt. Okay. Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry for not keeping you going forward in this regard. Because I think that for for Egypt is of paramount importance to have a reference for the transfer of technology in the purpose of this convention as a part of assisting the developing countries of having and attaining or having an access to the sophisticated needed sophisticated technology to prevent and combat the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. This is our main goal, concern for not adding this here. The second point, Mr. Chair, that we cannot have an agreement at referendum on this article. And while article 54 is still open, where some of the distinguished delegations are still asking for more caveats for the transfer of technology. So it would be, in our point of view not fair to have an agreement at the referendum here while there are requests for more caveats for the transfer of technology, particularly for developing countries, in article 54. So I think that it is premature to have an agreement on this article for the time being Thank you.
Just before I yield the floor to the next two speakers that have requested the floor, Yemen and Zimbabwe, may I make a proposal that we, in view of since we have divergent views, we can step down article 1 c), right, move on, and then come back to it if we do get a chance to. If that meets with our current concentration, we could do that so that instead of continuing to take the divergent views on Article 1 c), we already know what they are. Right? We can move ahead, consider other articles online, while delegations reflect on on this. Thank you very much. So now that I see the request for the floor from Yemen, Zimbabwe and South Africa, Yemen, you have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, as for technology transfer. We are here considering draft the Convention on the abuse of ICT for criminal purposes. Therefore, we are dealing with technology transfer in a most important field. So perhaps if we add a reference to transfer of technology is specifically for preventing the use of ICT for criminal purposes, not a technology transfer in general, but only for the purposes that we seek in this convention that might help. Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much. Zimbabwean you have the floor.
Good morning, everyone. And thank you Chair for the opportunity to share our views Zimbabwe. Just also to join the rest of the colleagues who spoke yesterday and this morning to concur congratulate you and your team for the effort to reach a consensus in relation to this convention. Zimbabwe like the statement delivered by Egypt yesterday, on behalf of the African group, we subscribe to the sentiments that we actually are raised in that statement, including the issue that is under discussion at the moment chair around article one see that we support the inclusion of the wedding transfer of technology or technology transfer, whichever way it's put. And also to support sentiments raised by Egypt just now that I think it would be premature for us to reach a consensus on 1 c) without actually appreciating what our colleagues or what other delegations think around the other articles that we're going to be discussing in article 54. So, Chair, I would support colleagues that have spoken earlier on that. Let's put this to adjourn, in terms of discussions around Article One, see, and see what then happens. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much South Africa to be followed by the Russian Federation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I don't intend to make your work difficult. I appreciate the efforts that you are making. But I just wanted to raise a couple of points. The first is that many delegations that have spoken have affirmed the importance of transfer of technology for the implementation of this convention. We've heard them all. Secondly, we've heard some delegations indicate that capacity building is inclusive of transport technology. So there's already an affirmation of that. And thirdly, Mr. Chairman, and I think it's very important that we do listen to all member states here. And the African group, and many African countries took the floor this morning, indicating to the committee how important We think this issue is, especially for developing countries and Africa as well. You've heard a chorus of voices highlighting this particular point. So I would like to appeal to member states that as we seek to move towards convinced consensus and convergence, we should be mindful of priorities that other countries have as well. So I would follow your approach, Mr. Chair to maybe park this issue for now. But just to make sure the delegations can hear our appeal on this particular issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of South Africa, Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, we see with the spirit of the statements of previous speakers in particular Egypt, we also believe that until the article 54, is is agreed upon, does say that 1 c) has been agreed upon is premature. We reserve our position until article 54 has been agreed on. Thank you.
All right, thank you very much. That being said, I will conduct, who will conduct further consultations and revisit this article in the informal plenary not at night session scheduled for today, from seven to 10pm. All right.
Let us move on to chapter two on criminalization. Article Six to 10 remain as in the original draft, only one minor editorial change has been made to Article Six paragraph one that is employing the singular instead of the plural form of offense. These provisions are based on articles two to six of the Budapest convention articles. Article 11 has been taken over on change from the original draft that we had at the sixth session, and it is based on Article 7 of the Budapest convention Article. Article 12 of the revised draft, which is based on Article eight of the Budapest convention has been amended following discussion both in plenary and in inform us during our sixth session. It now includes the act of deception through an ICT device in paragraph C. Moreover, the bottom of the paragraph has been simplified. Article 13 was based on Article Nine Budapest convention and proposals made by Member States. It has been amended in accordance with discussions in informal and in plenary, during our last session. Article 14 on the solicitation on the solicitation or grooming, for the purposes of committing a sexual offense against the child has been amended in accordance with our discussions in informals. And in plenary during the sixth session. The original draft was based on proposals made by several member states. Article 15 was based on proposals made by seven by several Member States and has been amended to reflect our discussions both in informals and in plenary, article 16 is taken verbatim from articles 23 UNCAC and Article Six UNTOC only in paragraph two, an amendment has been made to limit the predicate offenses under this provision to those to those offenses established in accordance with this convention. Moreover, subparagraph F was included, which corresponds to Article Six of UNTOC
Excellencies distinguished delegates, ladies and gentleman as the crimes in Article Six to 12, and article 16 align with other conventions. And the sixth session has demonstrated a general agreement on their fundamental content. I hope that our discussion will be efficient for articles 13 to 15. I encourage delegations to be flexible and willing to make compromises. Noting, especially that there are differences in legal systems, there are differences in cultural orientations. And a lot of some of what is put there are subject to your domestic legislation. So those little nitty gritty, those little changes those tweaks that are peculiar to you, to your domestic jurisdiction, you can find ways to accommodate them. Noting that in Article four of this convention, we reiterate the principle of sovereignty of states, and therefore, no one takes away your right to make laws within your domestic jurisdiction. It will however, be difficult for us to reach consensus if we continue to insist that what is peculiar to us must also be imposed on every other person. Having said this, I will. I would like to urge and may take it that the ad hoc committee agrees with Article Six to 16 as contained in in the revised draft text of the convention. Okay, the United States, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to focus our comments on Article Six article 16 on money laundering. There, the United States has two important edits to propose to clarify the scope of this article, which we believe is the chair's intent based on what she previously said this is not about conforming to requirements of domestic law. Our primary concern here it is that the article is drafted can be read to include money laundering offenses that have no connection whatsoever to cybercrime, and therefore require cooperation for those offenses. Specifically, the article is drafted in paragraph two could be read to scope into the treaty money laundering offenses, even when the predicate offense is not one in articles six to 15. There is no limitation in the text here that specifies that only a money laundering offense with a predicate offense from articles six to 15 should be considered an offense under the article. And that in turn affects all international cooperation obligations and could make the treaty and to one that provides for general crime cooperation for money laundering offenses regardless of the connection to the purpose of the treaty. To remedy this, we would propose a new paragraph three that would make clear that in offense is only considered an offense under the article where the predicate offense is an offense established in accordance with articles six to 15. It would read for the purpose of this convention, an offense shall only be deemed to be an offense under this article, when the predicate offense is an offense established in accordance with articles six to 15 of this convention. Second, we believe there is a technical edit needed in paragraph two a to specify that predicate offenses that state parties must include in their domestic law, are the offenses established in accordance with articles six to 15, as opposed to the offenses established in accordance with this convention. This is a matter of logic, because the phrase the offenses established in accordance with a convention would include article 16, which by definition is is includes money laundering as an offense and without an edit to specify that the predicate offenses are simply articles six to 15. The text reads as if parties need to establish money laundering as a predicate offense for money laundering, which is circular. So we therefore propose those two edits to clarify the scope of this article. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegates of the United States. Okay. Any other requests for the floor? With respect to? Or All right, you will have Egypt, European Union and the Russian Federation Egypt, you have the floor?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I would like to, to question the methodology of addressing this chapter. Because Mr. Chair, you had dedicated for each delegation three minutes to consider only one article, the general under the general provision chapter, and now we have more than 15 articles and I think it would be difficult to confine ourselves to three minutes. So I would highly appreciate if you can reconsider the methodology and we can go article by Article, this is in general, since I am taking the floor. Now, I would like to comment on the intervention made by the distinguished delegation of the United States and From our point of view, Egypt supports the retention of article 16, as proposed by the chair in the revised text, and taking into consideration two things, Mr. Chair, in the, in the chapter of in Article Two of the use of terms, the definition of the predicated offense, it's clear that here shall mean any offense at as a result of which proceeds have been generated, that may became become the subject of an offence as defined in article 16. So I think that it may address the concern of the distinguished delegation of the USA regarding the moving circles regarding having article 16. Again, in the in this chapter, and this is in line with what we have in the UNCAC. Mr. Chair, so I think we didn't have a problem in the interpretation of UNCAC in this regard. The second point regarding limiting the scope of this article to five, five to 16 offices established in accordance with Article Five to 16. I think that it may hinder in the future, any. Any protocol that may include additional crimes, and since we had agreed on having an article article 61, or for additional protocols, I think that limiting the scope of this, of this article to offenses established in accordance with Article Five to six, six to 15 is not.
Thank you. But I'm just going to, before I hand the floor to to the European Union and the Russian Federation. I want to make this in terms of methodology. As I stated in the introduction, articles six to 16. By and large, you know, almost things that we've basically gone over and largely in agreement. However, to make an we hope that this will make it easier. I would propose that we can, while it remains open for delegations to raise any particular articles that are of concern to them. We will take the articles one by one, we'll start with Article Six. And as much as possible, if that if we we can then go article by Article and possibly you with your kind consideration, we may be able to just agree them add referendum and then move on. Right. So if that proposal is agreed, it will address the the observation by my my brother, the distinguished delegate from Egypt, who highlighted the fact that three minutes is too short to deal with the entire criminalization chapter. But I was hopeful that, you know, we were a lot of it is agreed and we will do that now. So, with that being said, I give the floor to the Russian Federation. I after which we will commence article by Article concentration, please. Thank you, Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I would also ask you not to switch off the microphone when we're speaking. There's very, very little time allocated for our statements. So I would ask you to take that into Ms. Chairman, representatives of delegations. this chapter has become one of the most difficult in achieving consensus, even though it is one of the key blocks in the structure of the convention. Unfortunately, a minimum amount of time was allocated for discussion in the ad hoc committee the discussion of such important topics only in the framework of informal groups did not make it possible to have a substantive discussion due to the fact that not all delegations were able to take part in full, sometimes due to their the fact that they're smaller delegations, and they could not be present in the same time in several in several events and platforms. And once again, we have to note with great regret the lack in the draft of the convention, articles that we proposed as recognizing as offenses using ICTs, for terrorist purposes, for the proliferation of weapons, drugs, incitement to illegal activities, or other activities. inducement to suicide, rehabilitation of Nazism, justification of genocide and illegal impact on critical infrastructure.
Now,is any of the delegations who are against the introducing this ready to claim that such offenses are not the most dangerous kinds, and their dangers only compounded by the fact that it's through the ICTs, they can be prepared and carried out in a very short time, and within an involvement of a large number of participants, for example, by recruitment of terrorists or involvement in mass disturbances? it's these kinds of offenses, when they are you carried out with the use of ICTs that we're talking that they're particularly dangerous. So why is it that having the possibility of creating legal obstacles, unfortunately, speakers reading a text very fast that has not been provided to the interpreters?
Thank you, the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation. First off your request not to turn off the mic. The timer, like I announced at the beginning, the timer is automatically set. I don't turn anyone off. Once your three minutes is up, he goes off. But having said that, and to help us make progress. I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees with my proposal that we'll take, we'll go through the articles one by one. So we will start with a consideration of articles starting from Article Six. Having said this, I need to I'm just again going to reiterate something they need to maximize our time. And considering that we have gone through this offenses when we open the floor on each article unless there is such over arching, unless it is something that is so absolutely, totally disagreeable that you must object to but also consider that over the six sessions, if this articles, particularly Article Six to 12, if it is something you can live with and implement in your jurisdiction as it stands in the text, it will be helpful if we just proceed to agree them ad referendum until we get to that point where we can look at maybe stuff that there is less consensus upon and then we can devote a little more time to see how we can cross the T's remove the chinks and make progress. I thank you very much for your kind understanding and having said that, will open Constitution on Article Six. Okay, I see a request for the floor from Iran, Yemen, Cameroon, Iran, you have the floor, please. And sorry. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your or endeavor for clarification, everything's but my delegation has some, you see questions regarding for how to proceed them. This chapter, as mentioned by my colleague from Egyptian delegation regarding for how to find that one general landscape to the all of the article six to 16. But I abide your instruction and your framework regarding article by Article consideration, but I think even need to have a one very general, you see consideration for all of the articles because this article has not been agreed at referendum in previous meetings. However, my delegation would like to regard them for the Article Six, in paragraph two, we prefer to use after the measure in second sentence, second line, see infringing security measure, or any access without right or unlawfully. And in the third sentence, we propose to change this honors for unlawful or criminal intent. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Yemen, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our comments on Article Six we suggest a different word in Arabic for the word access. We prefer log in instead of access. Illegal login instead of access. And we realize that sometimes after the login is lawful, is legal, but the remaining in the website is the criminal act. So we would like to add this part to the crime. And we suggest deleting this onst intent. And we suggest the add the addition of a third paragraph. It is acceptable to member states to adopt other legislations. Instead a login or state has taken place. State party can adopt any legislative measures or any measures through which they can impose a strict punishment as a result of the login on manipulation of computer data. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Cameroon, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. My delegation is somewhat concerned about the wording. Which follows Chapter Two was speaking of criminalization, and when there's criminalization there's a criminal law. And when you have an offense, there's the technical aspect and the legal aspect, but the fact that always is recurrent is a description of the offense. This can be problematic, because determining an offense falls into the scope of a judge. So if there's an offense at issue, there's an intentional offense and whether or not it's intentional, it's still an offense. And this is an area where the law has the responsibility and the unfailing responsibility. So if an offense is committed, and then the judge needs to determine whether or not it was intentional or not intentionally, whether or not the action was honest or not. So my delegation has great reservations about putting in this aspect intentionally or dishonestly, which is in the paragraph, dishonest intent. So we can't prejudge the action of a particular actor, because of because we know that someone could be malicious or someone could be have a dishonest intent, intent, but it's up to the judge to do that. We note what the offense is, and the judge does their work. So my delegation thinks there's a need to get beyond this ambivalence here. And to consider the legal term, which has a technical counterpart that needs to be taken into consideration. So the text needs to be structured appropriately. And one has to remain within stringently within the legal framework of the text. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much. Just two quick things. Before I yield the floor to the next speaker, one, I would like you to bear in mind that all issues relating to what the text sounds like in the Arabic or in, in the French version, those are matters that will be addressed by the consistency group. So it will also help us if we don't take up our time talking about what we would like to see in the individual languages, because that will be addressed by the consistency group. And they remain open to take your, your feedback and your comments. Right. Now, the the other the other comment is that if we don't want a particular word or something, it is helpful to propose what is your alternative to it. And in those in your three minutes, you possibly can try to convince others why the word you're suggesting is a better one than what is there, the aim is for us to find agreement. And permit me to say this, where at this stage, it is not to say we would like the text to capture this and that it is our responsibility as Member States to ensure that we drive for consensus. So if you have a proposal, it is not the chair, it is not the responsibility of the chair, to see that your proposal is accepted. It is your responsibility as a member state to convince other member states that what you're proposing is more efficient or a better option. So I wanted us to bear this in mind as we continue our deliberations and again, I urge you, it will help very much that in our interventions, let us consider in the list is the text as it is implementable. Is it efficient? For you? We could also, like we said fine tune things in our individual domestic jurisdictions. You can nobody takes away your power to separate in aggravating circumstances. So as much as possible, you know, we should avoid interventions that are based on whatever you want to do are gravitons nobody takes you by a sovereign state, you can always do that. Okay, thank you very much, and I hope this will help us. Move ahead. The Russian Federation you have the floor please.
Chairman apologies, but it's very unpleasant that I was interrupted. I substantially shortened my statement and I will note the following. Right. Right now all of us are here at the UN HQ. At the concluding session to decide whether or not a truly effective instrument will be created to prevent and counter the use criminal activities with ICT. And it's important for criminals to know that there's an international mechanism that can hold them to account no matter where they may be. And no matter what citizens of which that what countries of which they are citizens. So in turn potential malefactors should know that there the existing mechanism also pertains to the prevention of these crimes. Right now, you and I are engaged in a grand undertaking, and we need to make sure that it is effective and useful and not formal and political. Let me address the Distinguished Delegates and the Distinguished Chair in the So, particular forms of crime should be included in chapter two on criminalization that I mentioned before and that we submitted in writing before as well. We want to see them included, but we are prepared to discuss the language of these articles in order to find a compromise among the delegations will also allow for options when articles are combined. And a little bit later, we will provide specific proposals for article 16. Thank you.
Thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation. So my take that Article Six can be marked as agreed at referendum please. I see no objection to that.
Oh, by Russian Federation, you have the floor
Yes, on Article Six. Para two, dishonest intent should be replaced with a more specific formulation. So with an unlawful aim that's under Article Six.
Okay. Yemen, you have the floor? No.
It is an observation. There are two verbs that are not contained here. That is a attempt to log in and stay logged in. And there is no reference to any of thosetwo words. And that as you have said, the national legislation is complemented what is mentioned in the convention here. But to make sure that the convention is a comprehensive the offense of a log in it, we said includes access and attempt. And if we do that, we will ensure that the crime has been covered in its complexity. This is what I wanted to refer to.
just to help with this, I crave your indulgence that you see in the English text. There is nothing about login. And that if that is the phraseology used in the Arabic text. I urge you that whatever observations you have, pass them to the consistency group. They will address that. But for the UN. Unfortunately, I'm not gifted with the ability to understand Arabic. So in the English text as we have it, right, the offense is illegal access. So, again, I appeal to you. Your concerns, I'm sure will be addressed by the consistency group amongst people who understand the Arabic language better. Right. So I thank you for your kind understanding. So at this point, may check that the ad hoc committee agrees that is the Okay. Iran, you have the floor please.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we my delegation proposed to amendment in chapter in paragraph two. And so So, if you if you want to put the I agreed as a referendum, it is possible only for the paragraph one of the Article Six, not to paragraph two, or all of the whole park article. And so, I do believe that it should be very important to consider this mother in informal meeting to consider that our proposal over there, thank you.
Okay, so may I take it that? It is Article Six sub para one and Article Six subpart. Two, we will have to have further consultations regarding this in the informants or the informal plenary later this evening.
That is your microphone, please. Yeah. Yeah, Iran so that you can respond.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. My delegation has no any reservation regarding for the article, paragraph one, if other distinguished delegation has Okay, there is no new problem be considered in the informal informal consultations. But regarding Article Two, yes, we do have some reservations and amendments on it. And so it's better to go to doing formal consultations. Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much. So, may I then take it out? We can agree. Article Six, paragraph one as agreed ad referendum Okay, I see no objection to that you mark as such. All right. So, that we will, we will consider, we will consult further and revisit Article Six paragraph two later this evening. Okay, so we move to Article Seven.
On article seven, this is the offense of illegal interception. For ease, may I take it that we can agree? Article Seven, sub paragraph one ad referendum Japan you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On Article Seven. Japan strongly supports the chairs proposal based on the understanding that this article does not require a state party to criminalize interception of any radio transmission, which even though non public takes place in a relatively open and easily accessible manner. This is the same understanding as any existing convention. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So I take it that we can agree. Okay. Mauritania. You have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, all. Our observation on Article Seven is specifically on paragraph two. In particular, in relation to the fact that that state party may require that the offense be committed with dishonest intent. We suggest to use illegal instead of dishonest Thank you
.. [inaudible] you have the floor
on Article Seven. We have some comments on paragraph two as well. And they are analogous to what we said about paragraph two Article Six dishonest intent should be replaced with other unlawful aims, Thank you.
Thank you very much. Cameroon, you have the floor. Supervisor,
thank you Chair. my delegation still believes that and paragraph one, one should limit oneself to the offenses. So we think the text should be as follows: "shall adopt certain legislative order da da da da, that offers under domestic law. And without right on the left committed intentionally either criminal or, there's a criminal offence, whether or not it's intentional. In paragraph two, my delegation believes that we think that we should say, "offence be committed with criminal intent, or in relation to. Thank you.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Cameroon. Again, I will crave I'm reiterating this, because you see, the observations with respect to Article Seven, too. It's just an additional layer to the main offense, you can you may choose to use it or not use it. But, again, just like is going on in the group about use of terms it is possible that you might prefer to use the term without right, or you might prefer to use the term 'without authorization'. You see. I'm urging us not to burn time on things that don't affect the substance. Okay, so we acknowledge what you've said. Again, if you I don't know if you're reading from the French text, but I am certain that the consistency group will be able to address those issues as to what is the correct terminology and it will be agreed by, you know, French speakers, it is not us on this side. So I thank you very much, Yemen, you have the floor.
thank you, once again. remark on Article Seven. I'm not speaking about a linguistic issue or difference between Arabic or English, I'm talking about verbs that are not included here. So in Article Seven, the term interception, we would like to add another term that is that seizure, interception mean intercepting data so they do not they do not reach the recipient, as opposed to that seizure or capturing of data. They capture the data while they are moving from from one party to the other party. And this data could be copied. Therefore, our suggestion is to add another offense which is capturing in addition to interception. Thank you.
Thank you very much. My brother, I'm going to just say something. Interception, you know, we're drafting a legal instrument here. So, when you say interception is the interception of, I mean if you intercept There is you what what if the person intercepting is holding it, so the term in itself, it it does not speak to the deflecting is not that the interception, as crafted here is not about, it's not like you're passing, sometimes someone throws tries to send it off, they're intercepting. Why? Because they want to collect. Right. So it is intrinsically captured in this. But again, since we're not talking about linguistics issues, remember I said it is your obligation to put that phrase so that we can also read it and understand it, and agree with you. So, I don't know, if you feel very strongly about this. We can pocket and keep but I thought that the offense of interception as it is, it's quite clear. And in the room, we seem to understand what intercept you're intercepting, not just not not for when you intercept you hold. Right. So it intrinsically captured. I don't know if I have if that meets with your agreement. But if it does not, then maybe if you have if you have a formulation, then you can send it to the to the Secretariat, and we'll be able to look at it right. So I take it that from your from your views, it is not possible for us to agree. Article Seven paragraph one at referendum, but again, before you answer, please consider that if it is possible, that we can agree this ad referendum and you if you have, if there is an element that you would want to see in your domestic jurisdiction, you can always add that, right? So Iran, no Yemen. Does that work, please?
Hello, nice. KDF Yeah, the guy looks like we have no problem with retaining intercept as this is a crime in itself. I just mentioned that there is a difference between interception and the capture of data, there is a legal difference. We want to criminalize capture as a crime in itself. And also to criminalize interception as a crime in itself. And I mentioned that the difference between interception and capture is that interception is that we intercept the message and we don't allow it to continue to the sender whereas capture refers to us taking the data but it's still that message still makes it to the sender and this is why in some laws are indicate to both interception and capture. So there is no problem with the text if we add capture if it is added then this is useful, but if it is not added then we can refer back to a local legislation and we have no problem with that. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. I would in that instance I thank you for your flexibility so we agree paragraph article seven paragraph one as agreed ad referendum right. I see no objection. Thank you
article seven paragraph two Can we agree this ad referendum please, noting like I said that this is an just an additional layer you you could need it, you may not need it. And for those who need it, you can actually do with tweak it to fit your purposes. So that can we may I take it that we can agree this ad referendum? Okay, the Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Could you please tell us on part two of Article Seven. How can we make some changes, given the the concerns I expressed in other words, just to replace "with dishonest intent" by "other illegal actions". Thank you.
Okay, Again, you know, we've had this conversation, dishonest intent, unllawful, criminal intent. Basically, this is criminal law we're talking about and what makes a conduct criminal. It is when the law prescribes that you don't do that conduct, right? So here in seven, one, you have prohibited interception, unlawful interception, interception, without right. So, there are now when you come to this additional, this is just additional to what can happen in one, right. And it says the state party may require that the offence be committed with dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another. Right? So, these are add-ons to the offense of illegal interception. And I would say that nothing stops the Russian Federation from using the phrase criminal intent if that is what you prefer. The understanding is that there is an additional requirement to the interception, and it could form the basis for aggravated sentencing of sanctions, right? So, but again, like I said earlier, it's about, I prefer this word, and I don't prefer this word.
For some people, it sounds circular to say, the offenses committed with criminal intent, because, you know, the offense itself, it's a crime right? as defined by law. Now to say the intent is also criminal. I it's the same circular thing. But the more important appeal, I like to make is the fact that it's not the crucial thing. It's not the main offense has been defined, and we agree, this additional stuff, you may need it, you may not need it. So if we take that notion that we're sovereign states, then it will be possible for us to agree this ad referendum, and we make changes as we first see fit. Does that meet with your your kind of agreement? But if you want to take a couple of minutes and discuss this with your delegation, you can while I yield the floor to Mauritania to be followed by Cameroon, and then we come back to you. Right? Mauritania, you have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This sentence in the second paragraph, according with the Arabic translation with dishonest intent is quoted from Article Three of the Budapest convention. So this is stated in the Budapest convention with this honest intent. And as you refer to yourself, Mr. Chair regarding the difference between dishonest intent or a criminal or illegal intent, there is a basic difference such as something that is unlawful has a clear standard. However, this honest does not have any clear criteria to qualify it therefore, to remove this ambiguity and to respect the title of the article itself. As it talks about illegal interception, then we should also say with an illegal intent so that there is harmony between the two paragraphs, and so that the criteria and standards are clear in both cases and thank you.
Thank you very much, Cameroon, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chairman. My delegation would like to make a comment In connection with your previous comments. Yes, you say that it's up to sovereign states and their internal legislation to do what is necessary. However, I want to remind you that we're talking about international law here, and is precisely now, sovereign states here are expressing their points of view. And when this convention will be adopted, it will be a framework in which national legislations will be then enacted. So, Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here, no, don't don't try to present this as kind of light or or inconsequential work, we are expressing positions as sovereign states. S,o please let us go to the end of what we're trying to express. You can't just say that afterwards, each state can do as it wishes, no, once we have a convention, if we adopt a convention that each state has already agreed to this, the specific provisions, so Mr. Chairman, I really would like to support your methodology. However, the adaptions of ad referendum, which are increasing in number will ultimately could actually muzzle states. So, we should not we should not in any way restrict the sovereign right of states to to express their views on the wording or the provisions of this convention. Thank you.
Thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of Cameroon. Just for clarity, there is no way I would sit here and minimize the importance of the work and the efforts that distinguished delegates are put in. That having been said, I appreciate your commitment. And I'm just going to make a slight adjustment. I would urge that in view of the divergence regarding dishonest intent. In Article Seven, paragraph two, I would like us to take some time comes out a little bit more. And like we said, if we can find substitute phraseology, or substitute word that works better and finds consensus across the room, we will be happy to take that on. So I will suggest that we move this we will park this for now. That is Article Seven, paragraph two, we'll park it and consider it later in the plenary at night from seven to 10pm. I hope that if this is agreeable with those who have requested the floor is on this subject, then we can pack this and return to read later. Thank you very much. Peru you have the floor to be followed by Egypt.
Thank you. In fact, they're just a suggestion that might help clarify this issue of of dishonest intent, In the proven criminal legislation that is used in Latin America, we're talking about offenses of that require ultimate goal that goes beyond the immediate goal. For example, for example, talking about murders, there'll be someone who who murders someone with particular cruelty, that would that would be kind of a transcendental ultimate goal to inflict cruelty, like just a suggestion.
Thank you very much. Distinguished Delegates of Cairo, Egypt. You have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, allow me to align myself with the first two interventions made by the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation, pertaining to the missing crimes in the chapter of criminalization. This delegation fully aligns itself with the intervention made by The Russian Federation in this regard regarding Article Six and seven, Mr. Chair, paragraph two, and after listening to the different views and your pertinent remarks in this regard, and I wonder, Mr. Chair for moving forward, if there is a possibility, and this might be we can sleep on it till the afternoon session or the night session. We can have both of them dishonest intent and unlawful intent, for example to say committed with with dishonest, honest or unlawful intent, in accordance to domestic law. So, something like that Mr. Chair, so that we can, it depends on the domestic law, whether they are in favor of the dishonest intent or unlawful intent, taking into consideration that this is non-obligatory, or non-mandatory paragraph in itself. So it can take on both both of them, if possible, so that we can have a consensus, just for the room and trying to moving forward. Mr. Chair, thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. I would at this point, just ask, does the room agree with the suggestion of the distinguished delegates of Egypt? If, if that's something that works, please?
Okay. Yeah. So added so that we can see and so while we according to his domestic law.
Okay. All right. That's, that's what it would look like. If delegations would like to mull over this a bit, or we can, if we can agree. If it's agreed, then we can take this as agreed ad referendum. Okay, but just before then there was the request for the floor by the by Syria, Syria, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My Intervention is in the within the framework of paragraph two of Article Seven. So I don't know if I should make my statement or if we should wait till the pm session.
Mr. Chair, this based on what you have mentioned in relation to criminal law, and I'm here as a legal person or not as a diplomat and I teach criminal law. So, I am speaking based on the point that Russia and Mauritania, first presented, and you yourself even mentioned this topic, criminal law has certain terminology that is acknowledged in international law as a whole. And so, when we refer to dishonest, this is not one of the purely criminal terminology, it is more accurate to use unlawful as Russia has suggested, or illegal, to indicate that the act is unlawful, the offence is unlawful. And it is not like some has referred to this is personal and we can leave it to domestic legislation. In fact, we should agree on this here, and domestic legislation will thereafter adhere to the conventions in accordance with their domestic laws. And so to have a sound text, we should reconsider the term dishonest. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. The United States you have the floor place.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First, I'll start by saying that the United States understands the perspective of providing to the room which is that this language intended as treaty text is intended to be broad and that member states may choose was to implement this language as they wish, in the context of their mess of their domestic law. So from our perspective, adding "or unlawful" does appear to us to be duplicative to paragraph one, which establishes the core offense itself. But we are willing to take a look at it, consider it further and see if it is a step in the right direction or whether it confuses matters. So we will consider it further and reserve on it. Thank you very much.
European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you Chair for giving me the floor, they are on the same position as the US we would need to reserve a position on this and consider a bit further before we take a position on this. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, so we park this, delegations can look at it, and we'll return to it later. And while we're looking at this, whatever the finding is, will we also consider if such if we apply this to Article Six 2) will that also cure the because basically, we had the same issues around that. So you, that's for your consideration? Thank you very much.
So we now move to Article 8. Interference with computer data, slash digital information. I see no request ok? the Russian Federation job to be followed by Japan, the Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you. In paragraph one of Article eight, we believe that it's important to add the word copying, after the word damaging, or rather before the word damaging, other wise the copying information for criminal purposes, within its subsequent use forum for malicious intent will remain outside of the scope of this article. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Japan, you have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On article 8, Japan has been interested in how the article is formulated in this convention. Japan supports a text as it sounds always, based on the understanding that the interpretation of what constitutes serious harm, serious harm is left to the discretion of the domestic legislation of each state party, and Q.
Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Rwanda, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I would like to add, we add our voice to the, to inclusion of copying of what the revision from Russian Federation has added who would like to see it there? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you very much. May I just ask, it is the addition of the word copying? Is this something that if it is added to this, can can the ad hoc committee agree this ad referendum with the addition of the word copying? Is that something the United States you have the floor please?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we express our view of the last time, we would have to look at this more carefully as we see the language in Article Six, which addresses intentive, obtaining computer data that that appears to us to address copying, and we ought to at least distinguish between circumstance of unauthorized access to obtain information ie copying and the purpose of Article eight. So we would, again, reserve our view on whether copying belongs in this article, and we'll certainly consider it further. Thank you.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of the United States, Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Japan, again, Japan, supports the original text as it stands without any modification. And we also aligned with the United States. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Austro, you have the floor?
Yes, thank you very much, and good morning to everyone, or good day or good evening, wherever you are. With on the addition of copying, we would like to add our voices to what the United States have just said, we would not only see copying, being covered by Article Six, but also by Article Seven. And there, we fully agree with your interpretation, Mr. Chair, that interception is a prerequisite for copying content. So we see that covered. And I'd also like to add my voice to what you have said, Mr. Chair about the, the wording in the convention. And, and that, of course, states parties are free to use different wording that fits with their national legislation. And I can assure everyone in the room that our national legislation does not copy multilateral treaties word by words. But I think the main aim is that that you cover the intention of the whole article, and we also support what you said that these provisions are sought to say minimum harmonizations that we want to agree upon. But it is not really absolutely not a word by word implementation that you would need to do in your national legislation, many things.
Thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of Austria, Senegal, you have the floor, please. Proceed.
Thank you, Chair, we would simply like to support the draft of Article eight, regarding the integrity of computer data, just to say that we are not in favor of including copying, and in the revisions of Article eight, because we think that copying is not undermining the integrity of computer data. It is more like an act of reproducing computer data. This is why we are in favor of maintaining the current text of article eight, as shown here. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you. Chair. We would simply like to support Senegal, the United States and Austria. We also think that copying introduction of copying is not necessary here, I think.
Okay. Israel, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to support the United States and others that are have commented that copying is not necessary. Thank you
Okay, I'm just may I ask the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation. In in view of the remarks made here and considering the offense, interference with. Would you want to do like a reprise, and look at it because copying does not alter the information here. And so if it's something you want to think about, we can again pack this and come back to it but in view of all the views, expressed. And remember that again, this is just about finding a common ground. Thank you, the Russian Federation, you have the floor?
We want to reserve our position. We heard the view of only a small number of states, we haven't heard the views of others on this matter. So we would request that we put it in a reservation of our position. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. But just just for clarity again. All right. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. But the fact that because we have limited time, the fact that all the other delegations in the room haven't requested to speak on this does not also mean that they do, because as as it stands in the room, I would say that we can actually outside of your delegation, there is no other delegation that has an issue with us agreeing this article ad referendum, that's the truth. So that's why I said to ask if you will do a reprise. But again, you have more time to think about it.
So we will move ahead and consider Article Nine right. Oh, pardon me, sorry. Okay. We focused our concentration on Article eight one. So, Article eight, paragraph two. May I Is it possible that we can take that as a grid referendum? Okay. I do not see any objection to that. So we take article eight paragraph two as agreed at referendum. Okay. Article Nine, we'll move on to our considerationion of Article Nine interference with a computer system and information and communication technology device.
Any requests for the floor on this article or it is safe to take it that the committee agrees with Article Nine and we can therefore mark it as agreed at referendum. Jamaica, you have the floor
chair. Jamaica is delivering the statement on behalf of the 14 member states of the Caribbean community. In large part CARICOM supports Article Six to 12 as they are worded, as CARICOM believes that member states can achieve some consensus as they formed the core cybercrime computer systems offenses. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. The distinguished delegate of Jamaica speaking on behalf of CARICOM we thank you for your understanding. So we agree on Mark Article Nine as agreed ad referendum.
I see no objection. Thank you very much for your cooperation. We now move on to consideration of article 10. Misuse of devices. We will wow. It has plenty. Okay. So, article will start with consideration of article 10 paragraph one
Okay, may I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees with? And we can mark article 10, paragraph one as agreed ad referendum. We have requests for the floor from Egypt and the Russian Federation, Egypt. You have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, regarding article 10. In general, Egypt proposes the deletion of the term articles six to nine of wherever it appears. in the article, taking into consideration, Mr. Chair, that the misuse of devices in general is not confined to to the articles from six to nine, but also the other articles or offenses established in accordance with this convention. Also, as mentioned before, there is a potential for additional protocols later on, so for for other crimes. So I think that we need to be as generic as possible in this regard. This is regarding the use of term, Article Six, to nine of a minor amendment, Mr. Chair, in article 10, paragraph one. As you see Mr. Chair in paragraph one, a Roman number two, a password access, credentials, electronic signature or similar data title, I think that there is a need for having the same terms in the last part of article one as well. So the last part of Article One we need to have with the intent that the device password access credentials, comma electronic data, including signatures all similar telecoil tags. So it has to be a replica to what we have before in Roman number one and Roman number two of sub para II. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. The Russian Federation, you have the floor please.
In principle, we don't have any objections about article 10 Except for one B, the second sentence either requires explicit explanation or more specification or it should be removed because it can create legal uncertainty with regard to one or a number of such devices. So we were to ask the authors to explain why that part is necessary.
Any Okay, in the absence, it will appear that we are not able to agree, article 10 paragraph one at this point. And I would therefore urge that we further consult amongst ourselves. It would appear that? Well, the second the question by the Russian Federation is addressed to the room as to why paragraph B needs to be there. So I will think that will park article 10 paragraph one for pending when the further consideration further consultations and we can return to, alright. Let's look at let's move on to consider article 10 paragraph two. Oh, sorry. I see the request for the floor from Belarus. Will this be in? Special?
Thank you very much for giving me the floor chair. I want to return to article eight, if I may, Belarus supports the proposal of the Russian Federation as regards copying. We believe this action also is a violation under national law, including in my country. So adding the word copying would also be justified before the word damaging. Thank you.
Thank you very much. All right. Okay, so we move on to construction of article 10, paragraph two.
Article 10, paragraph two
okay. All right. It will appear that we have the object from by the observation by Egypt regarding deletion applies to paragraph two also. So, will it appear that we can agree that at referendum at this point? So, we'll put that along with paragraph one. And move to paragraph three.
Can we agree paragraph three ad referendum?
I see no requests for the floor. world. May I take it that ad hoc committee? Okay. Austro. You have the floor, please?
I'm very sorry. But I think we would like to have a little bit more time to reflect over what the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation said. Because it would in respect of the need to have one B. Because indeed, in one A we have obtaining and one B refers to possession and obtaining something is requirement to possess this item. So there are some overlaps. But I'm afraid that para three is very much linked to one a. Yeah, and and you know, it all links together. So we would appreciate if we would have time to think that over a little bit further. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So all right. While we're thinking about that, so it is it possible to agree. Article 10, paragraph three ad referendum. We will. Oh, oh, okay, sir. All right. In that instance, we'll leave this and we'll return to it after we've given it some further thought. Okay. So we look at, we move on to article 11. Computer related forgery, or information and communications, technology related forgery. All right. This has two paragraphs. So, okay. Iran, I say the request for the floor by Iran. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding paragraph two article 11. As you mentioned this in this article. So So regarding for the using of the unlawful instead of dishonest and so I propose your suggestion with the previous articles that we had the unlawful or within the in accordance within domestic laws. As we have done in previous articles in paragraph two of Article Six When and as well, as we suggested in Article Q, R on paragraph two, Article Six, dishonest will be replaced with unlawful or, as you mentioned regard when in accordance with domestic laws. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
okay. Oh, the Russian Federation, you have the floor?
Article 11. At para two we propose deleting that because in our view it offers no added value to paragraph one of this article. Thank you
Thank you very much, Senegal, you have the floor.
Thank you very much Chair. First of all, we welcome the criminalization of the forgery activities under Article 11. We don't have any particular objections with regard to these provisions. However, we have a proposal of criminalizing, specifically, the utilization of falsified IT data by inserting that in the text of the article after article 11, we think it's important to criminalize the use of falsified digital data, because this behavior risks posing problems to international cooperation due to the issue of double jeopardy, which is nearly a universal requirement. So we would add the need to criminalize the use of falsified digital data. This stems from the wording of article 11, paragraph one, that's because this provision talks about inauthentic data with the intent that they'd be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if they were authentic. So the proposal that we would make is to add a provision that criminalizes separately the use of falsified digital information thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, no other requests for the floor. So however, it would appear that if there is a request to delete. Okay.
Your Excellencies distinguished delegates, ladies and gentleman, as it is we have one week, we can look at, there's a request to delete paragraph two of article 11. I want to ask, what is the reaction in the room to that? There is also the Okay, I see the request for the floor from the European Union. European Union you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to we support a text as it is, was proposed and we objected to deleting paragraph two. First of all this provision is an optional provision creates no obligations and second of all, it provides more flexibility when it comes to avoiding over criminalization and applying when necessary, this extra extra condition, so we don't see no real valid reason for deleting. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mauretania you have the floor.
Thank you Chairman. We support the position of the EU. This paragraph ought to remain and I say this for the same reason that the EU put forward it is a protocol that is voluntary. We therefore do not support the deletion of this paragraph concerning the proposal from the distinguished representative of Senegal, on criminalization of the use of falsified data, we believe that paragraph one does include criminalization criminalisation of such use. Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much. , United States, you have the floor now.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We'll just briefly note that we will align ourselves with the comments of the EU as well as Mauritania. And we note as well as Mauritania pointed out that, that paragraph one, because it refers to the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes, that it does cover the use of this data. As while I have the chair, while I have the floor, Mr. Chair, I may ask as well of the Secretariat, how we will memorialize the changes that are proposed here we have seen some changes by proposed by Member States and others who think no changes are necessary. And for clarity, would just like to ask whether it will be memorialized, that these are not options that were agreed to in the plenary, but in fact proposals by Member States Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much the distinguished delegate of the United States the changes that are proposed will be reflected in the document. and presented to Madam Chair, we are also taking note of those that have received greater support or not, and then those that delegations want to move over. But it's may also be possible to maybe share what those changes are. Maybe at the end of the day, so that people can write.
Okay, so the Secretariat informs me that it is what you see on the screen. In red, those are changes that at least we seem to be on the verge of reaching agreement upon. And that's why they are reflected there. But other proposals, of course, will just be noted and brought to the attention of the chair. But whatever you have reflected on the screen was so that delegations can actually see what it looks like, because we seemed it seemed to be like, pathway to consensus. Thank you. You honor. United States, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the explanation. That's fine. I think the United States as well as other delegations have reserved positions in some of the language and I don't know, we will be back to it again. And that's fine. As long as it's understood that it's not agreed at ad referendum. The additions Thank you.
Thank you very much. All right. So so we return to article 11. Paragraph one can make is it possible that at least we can agree this ad referendum that it didn't seem to be? Okay, I see no objection. So May May I take it that ad hoc committee agrees with and agrees, agrees with article 11 paragraph one. Oops. Oops. Okay. Senegal, you have the floor, please..
Thank you very much. I simply wanted to draw your attention to Senegal's proposal to criminalize the use of falsified criminal computer data, I'm going to say that article, the first paragraph of Article 11, doesn't take into account that activity, it talks about falsification. That is the input alteration or deletion of computer data, it doesn't take into account the use of falsified computer data. So I really want you to consider the Senegal's proposal. And we have a proposal for the wording of the criminalization of the use of falsified computer data. Thank you very much.
Okay. Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Senegal, but just for clarity. Are you proposing this as a separate offense? Or this is part of what we have here in adequate level one, because, and I'm asking this taken into consideration that the phrase that it may be considered or acted upon for legal purposes, that makes the use of falsified data, as you call it, that captures the offense of falsified data. So if you falsify data and you use it, of course, it is. I will, Well, my understanding of English language, we'll see that that is captured here. Right. So that's why I asked the question, Are you proposing this as a separate offense because if it is, in terms of if someone uses falsified data, right, inauthentic data, that it may be taken and acted upon, as if it were authentic, that is the use of falsified data and it is an offence as captured in article 11 one. So, you have served but before we let me is sort of Canada so that Senegal will respond, then we can come back to Australia had requested the floor.
Merci beaucoup. Many thanks, chair. So as we understand the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 11, the text says, data, the intent that it would be considered acted upon for legal purposes, then that is the aim pursued by falsifying the data. So this data is supposed to be considered to act upon acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic. But when we criminalize the use of falsified computer data when criminalized as a material conduct, this is why we believe the delegation of Senegal believes that the first paragraph of Article 11 doesn't consider the material act of the use of falsified computer data. So this is why we think that there should be a specific offense here through the insertion of a specific text that criminalizes the fact of using computer data that is falsified. That fits into the framework of a penal code as well. We talk about something that is falsified and the use of something that's falsified and this is the use of falsified data in the digital context. That's it. Thank you.
Okay, maybe to make this easier. Would you mind At request, the distinguished delegate of Senegal to maybe put that, because from what you say, the proposal for a different offense from what is in article 11 One. So that being said, may we therefore proceed to, to agree ad referendum article? Yes. I've gotten back to Austria. But because you raised the issue when we mentioned article 11. One, may we therefore, agree, article 11. One, as it is, while you send your proposal for the separate offense relating to using falsified data to the secretariat, right.
we completely concur. We will provide the language for article 11. So we support 11, paragraph one, and we will add a drafting proposal that we have with regard to the separate criminalization of the use of falsified computer data.
Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Australia have the floor, please.
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In an attempt to help. I would also have a question to the distinguished delegate of Senegal, in respect of the additions that were proposed. I mean, we've we also have article 12, on fraud and theft. And I'd like to recall that specifically, article 12. Point C has been amended considerably. So it's also encompassing any kind of fraud. So I would expect that using falsified data would be covered by the offence of article 12. And maybe also, but maybe someone else can help me with that. I will also it might also be covered by the misuse of devices, as it is not only hardware that we're talking about in article 10 but also electronic signature or similar data. So, also this provision has been amended and the scope expanded. So, I hope any use of falsified data would be covered sufficiently by the provisions that we see right now. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. with the flexibility with the understanding of the distinguished delegates of Senegal that he was signed in his proposal for a separate offense, it therefore paves the way for us to return to article 11 one and I will again ask the room if it is we can take this as agreed at referendum Okay, I see no objection to that. So we mark article 11 One as agreed at referendum Okay. We will now proceed to consideration of article 12 which is computer related computer or information and communications technology related theft or fraud. all right, the floor is open for consideration of article 12. Our sim simply be asking the room if it is possible, if we will, if we agree that we can Mark, we can take this as agreed at referendum.
The United Kingdom followed by Iran UK, you have the floor, please.
Thank you chair. We're generally happy with this article. But we have a suggestion for the ad hoc committee as to how we might be able to just clarify it slightly. So in the last sentence at the bottom of this article, we would propose deleting the words in money, or other Sorry, just money or other. And then, so that the article would just read a gain in property. From our perspective, we think this is clear because we think property would encompass money and other assets or things. And think that this could just help to clarify the text. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Iran. You have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the in last paragraph of this article, my delegation would like to propose a gain in money or other property, or any kind of economic benefit. This is our proposal, any kind of economic benefit? Thank you.
Okay. Thailand, you have the floor, please.
Mr. chair, Thailand would like to propose another form of wording. we were flexible on this, but we think that economic benefits might not cover everything. And there might be other forms of benefits, for example, benefits from for example, if the fraudster causes the other person to lose the chance to prosecute another person, for example, or you know, causing the deletion of data, which leads to another scenario which might put another person to lose another form of benefits, which might not be economics ones. So we would like to propose or other benefits without the word economic Thank you.
The Russian Federation, you have the floor please.
In this article in sub para c, see, we'd also like to draw your attention to the the words, dishonest intent, and we'd like to, you know, amended just as in previous articles.
Thank you very much. The United States, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As other delegations have stated, The United States is generally comfortable with article 12. As it's drafted. We do appreciate the chairs explanation, which made previously that for some member states, theft is a subset of fraud. For us, of course, those two terms are distinguishable. But we won't stand on any pedantic grounds to say that to argue we ought to have two articles for this. We do have one suggestion. Again, it's not for us critical, but we believe it might be add some clarity to the language, which is in paragraph three that we would strike the word using and replace it with through. And we of course, are interested in the views of member states as to whether that helps or not. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Australia, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Like the distinguished delegate of the United States just mentioned, we have the same feelings. With regard to theft, but we will not ponder on that any further. With regard to the proposals made by the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom, as well as Thailand, I think the proposal from the United Kingdom should be read in conjunction with the definition of property. And there we we could agree with with a proposal that was made by the United Kingdom because it's, it's referring only to economic values, so to say, however, we would have a lot of problems going along with the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Thailand in respect of non economic benefits, because we do think that theft and fraud are provisions that are intrinsically linked with economic benefit. And we've we would not be able to accept any further criminalization in that regard. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Senegal, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chairman. Just a few comments on Article 12. On the the term theft, well, we didn't insist too much, because this is related to a linguistic issue. But we think that this is the criminalization speaks of computer fraud, which is in the Budapest, in Malabo conventions. We're not in favor of extending the criminalization to non economic damage, because we believe that computer fraud and its philosophy is a crime. That that is has an economic purpose. It's an offense that that is aimed at seeking gain, which is why we're not in favor of extending the criminalization to non economic damage. Thank you.
Japan, you have the floor, please.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Japan would like to support the intervention that was made by Austria just a couple of minutes ago. And we think this current formulation of this article is in line with the work of the hour work out the sixth session of the committee, both out the plenary and infernals. And I think the current formulation covers the many of the concerns that have been raised in the room. So we would like to support the current formulation. And we're also comfortable with the UK is proposal to amend in line with the discussion about your terminology on a definition of property. Thank you very much.
Mauritania you have the floor place.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We support the views of the US in relation to the reservation on the use of theft. Because through the acts in this article, in different paragraphs, those acts are acts of fraud, and there is no actor that indicates theft. Therefore, we have reservation on the use of theft, and we support maintaining fraud consistent with the verbs included in the three sub paragraphs in this article. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Now again, just saw that let's see if we can make Some progress. We note that there is everywhere you Oh, sorry, Australia, you have the floor. But before I yield, okay, let's listen to Australia, you might just do the magic.
Thank you Chair. I'm referring to the proposals to and unlawful intent in the criminal offense provisions. Article 12, as well as some of the earlier references proposed. Australia doesn't does not support these additions. Because committing the conduct as described within each criminal offense article would already need to be made illegal in each state party. We believe it's confusing and circular to add an additional unlawful intent element. And that dishonest intent is appropriate here. Dishonest intent provides clear parameters about when conduct will be an offence, where it is done with dishonest intent and not limited only to intentional conduct. So we consider that the existing references to dishonest intent actually enhance the flexibility of the convention, applying to a range of different legal systems. So ultimately, in relation to Article 12, we support this article as it is in the RDA TC. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Peru, you have the floor.
It has. Thank you on the topic of intention, because this has to do with the translation or consistency because we use the word criminal intent as a translation of dishonest intention, I don't know maybe it's good to help improve the understanding, because the issue of the intent is important in punishing these offenses. So in our legislation, dishonest intent, when it is translated into official documents, we understand it as criminal intent and Spanish delictiva. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, Vanuatu, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One word who wishes to align itself with Australia in relation to the addition of the expression, unlawful intent, proposed by several distinguished delegates. We believe that in line with what the US had said in relation to articles seven and eight previously, the those words in particularly in the in the second paragraph of seven and eight, and in relation to Article 12. Paragraph C, ought to be helpfully can be viewed from the perspective of a legal draftsman, this being a legal document. The expressions are more more specific, if read, together with the more general provision in either in the first paragraph of each of those articles. I think it's it might be helpful to delegates if they were able to read together and understand that first paragraph is a more broader general expression of the law, which encourages member states to to enact appropriate legislation whereas in the in the second paragraph, which contains those words, it is more specific and gives liberty to member countries to either to enact or or not. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Vanuatu Qatar, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We support Mauritania. Since article 12, has not included reference to theft. For theft, it means obtaining money that is belonging to others without right. Therefore, we believe that article 12 It should be confined to fraud and not include reference to theft. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Yemen, you have the floor? No.
We support the view that distinguishes the two crimes. And as it was stated, article 12 is related to computer fraud and no theft. Therefore, we propose to amend the the heading of the article as such. We see that article subparagraphs, b, and c are related to computer fraud, a note theft before we support the deletion of theft from the heading of this article.
Great, thank you very much, Baron, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We agree with the US Mauritania and Qatar in relation to Article 12. This article is related more to fraud than theft. In Bahrain law, we have distinction between theft and fraud. Therefore, we are supporting the countries supporting the retention of fraud and deletion of theft. Thank you so much.
Okay, thank you very much. Okay. Now, and by way of moving forward, will recall that in the earlier iteration of this article, it was computer related fraud. Right. And it was at the some delegations made the proposal to add theft, but it will appear. And as the distinguished delegate of Vanuatu has appealed to us, if you read article 12. I'm saying this also with relation to the thing about adding dishonest intent or unlawful or illegal intent. You'll find that it and let me just read it says each state party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offense under eight domestic law, when committed intentionally and we have right the cousin of a loss of property to another person by means of then at least a B, C. So the but just so that we find the little way forward, the first question I would ask around the room is, does the room agree that we should amend the title and remove theft from this article as it does not? As it has come to be stated? It does not fit in? Can? That's the first question. If Do we have the agreement of the room that theft has does not fit into this? Okay, I seen Senegal, okay.
Thank you, chair. We support the position of delegations who proposed thedeletion of the word theft and the sub paragraphs of article 12 Because if we look at the content of this provision, we're talking about computer fraud. The text does not speak of theft, and most countries for of the civil law tradition The theft means something very specific. It's very difficult different from computer fraud as specified in article 12. So we're in favor of deleting the word theft in the title of this article.
Thank you very much. Okay. So may I take it that out of committee agrees? Okay, India, you have the floor.
Okay, Mr. Chair. India does not support the removal of the word theft from the title of article 12. Because, in the last session, it was deleted from some other article and included in this particular article 12. So, if we remove that from this article itself, that will defeat the purpose. So, we want to include the word theft in the article. Thank you.
Okay. Okay, I see the request for the floor from Namibia and Iran. But before I hand the floor to them, the distinguished delegate of India. I'm just going to ask this, so that we can reflect when you look at your legislation, when you look at your panel code, the definition of theft is clearly known, which of these A B, C, that we have listed here, which of them falls within the description of theft, as you will have it in your penal code, just for reflection, you may not need to answer immediately, but I would want you to reflect on that. And then maybe it will help you see the point of the other delegations of the major the the several other delegations in the room that have seen and identify that the conduct that qualifies as theft in our laws in our congressional laws, is none of that is reflected in what you have in either A, B, or C. So why you do that reflection, I'll give the floor now to Namibia to be followed by Iran and then China. Thank you, Namibia, you have the floor.
Thank you chair, Namibia, I would like also to retain the word theft. And when you are looted. And by asking with off a B or C, we want to add the word copying in a so we that's why we want to keep theft a after let's say inputs or alterations or deletions, we add copying, that is the word will be capable of keeping theft on the title. Thank you.
Okay, this is getting interesting. So, you want us to add in a word that is not there. So that you will now be able to keep the title, the text in the title. That's very interesting. Like I said, it is your responsibility to speak to all the other delegations who do not see this. And I'm not sure that if you look at your penal code back home, take it. I'm not sure that just adding the word copying will justify keeping theft? I'm not sure. But reflect on it. And we'll see. We'll Iran you have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, as you mentioned that it is very interesting debate, but I refer to the explanatory notes prepared by the chair of that committee. And so, we had the same debate during the previous sessions regarding for the using of theft and fraud, when so, some of the Member States believes that their domestic laws consider that the causing of the loss of the property by manipulating of the computer data or digital information would institute theft rather than fraud. This is the explanatory notes by a chair. And my delegation would like to keep the title of this article as it is. Because we are in this context, discussing regarding for the manipulating of the ICT devices or computer data's Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much, China, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. China supports India's and Iran's statements. We hope to retain theft. This will help different countries with more flexibility. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Before Okay. Wow. Okay. The Russian Federation, you have the floor?
Yes, I would just want to remind you that earlier in the draft, we have to separate separate articles theft and fraud and the the article on theft was deleted, but the solution was found to create one, one article, which is why we have theft here. We're against the deleting the word theft from the title, and we support the delegation of China, India and Iran.
Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Papua New Guinea, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like public who would like to support the delegates of India, Iran, China and Russia. We think we're gonna get to things that if there's any reason, if you see article 12, a, any input alteration, deletion or suppression of computer data or digital information already gives us a reason to retain theft. Now, in order for a theft to happen, you would need to digitally deprive someone of the computer data or digital information. So I think we're gonna get things 12 A already supports a retention of theft. Thank you.
All right, thank you very much. We were out of time. We need to round this up. I thank you very much for your cooperation, your understanding, we've made some progress. We will be breaking for lunch, we'll look at some of the delegations that need to talk to one another. I urge you to do that. Some of the some of the proposals we have parked to be considered at the next session. So, we we thank you very much. And we hope that we will speak amongst ourselves with the aim of reaching consensus, especially where or finding language that reflects the middle ground. That having said we the meeting is adjourned. We'll resume at 3pm Thank you
