Good afternoon, good evening, good morning, depending on where you are excellencies distinguished representatives, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you back to this session the afternoon session we were we will continue consideration of the revised draft text of the convention. We we have we stopped at article 16. The aim is to run through all the the entire criminalization chapter and then we will return to those bits that we packed for further consultations. We just for purposes of information, we had informal informal calls this morning from nine to 10am focusing on articles 13 to 15, there was some progress made, but there remains if you items that need to be considered. So for that reason, we will proceed where we stopped there, we'll we will make arrangements and get confirmation from the Secretariat, when there will be room and time to continue to inform a informals. So, that having been said, You're welcome. We'll continue where we stopped. We were looking at article 16. Just by way of reminder, there were a couple of there were a couple of suggestions and some new proposals. And like I said I keep repeating if you have new proposals or you have additions to make it is your responsibility to convince colleagues in the room that this will help in the in the investigation, prosecution of cybercrime. So to that extent, I will be opening up the floor with respect to article 16. If any of the delegations have some good news to report if they were able to get others to join to be on the same page with them in respect of their proposals, we'll listen to that I open the floor. Yes, before I yield the floor I just did a red text you see up there are aspects article 16 that this is just to remind us where we had left off. Okay, it we're not doing track changes by just to remind us that some people may not have remembered what others proposed additionally. So that's just a reminder. Having said that, I have a 620 here with no okay. Okay. There is I have a request from 620. If they can I can identify themselves it will help. Okay, okay, pending when we identify 620 on my list, I have Japan and followed by Egypt. So I'll yield the floor to them in that order. Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Good afternoon to you all. I also would like to thank Chair Mr. Chair and the Secretariat for showing the proposals to amend this article on those screens on the screens in front of us. I am making an intervention on our app proposal that is labeled as B this under paragraph two. Japan proposes an amendment to paragraph two in this in the same spirit as we did in the previous session on Article 31. Some of the offenses provided for a draft are not necessarily the types of fences that are considered to be committed for economic gain, or as organized crime. Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to reasonably limit the predicate offenses covered by this article. After weighing the seriousness of just crime, against the protection of property rights. As a proposal made by Japan on the sixth session to include language, limiting the predicate offenses to Serious Crime, do not receive support from the floor. Regrettably, we engaged in active consultations with many member states, during and after a session and on this session as well. Based on the outcome of these discussions, we propose this language as is shown on the screen. And we are confident that we have been supported by a number of member states. Thank you.
Thank you very much, distinguished delegates of Japan, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, dear colleagues, I will reflect on the proposal for adding Article Six to 15. Egypt to support the retention of the of the text as proposed in the revised draft, Mr. Chair, and we will get back to you at a later stage on the proposal made by the distinguished delegation of Japan. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much the European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states. And we can we would like to express our support for the Japanese amendment for the abundance of the Japanese delegation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Okay. So I'm going to ask this question, please recall methodology, where we said, if we agree with something we do not all need to come up and request the floor to speak, in respect of it. Is the room. What is the indication in the room? Does the room agree? Wait with the proposal by the distinguished delegation of Japan, and as supported by the European Union? Can we get a filler in the room that I see the request for the floor from Brazil? You have the floor, please?
care very much, Mr. Chair, we're still reviewing the Japanese proposal. On the preliminary reaction. We do have some some concerns with the vagueness of the language, believe that certain degree of seriousness ends up being too too wide open for interpretation and doesn't have the the preciseness that we would like to see in legal instruments, so we're still reviewing it, but we do have some initial concerns regarding the vagueness of the language. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Vanuatu. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Like the European Union one or two supports the proposal made by Japan. In respect of Article of paragraph two subparagraph B. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Cameroon, you have the floor. Simply done.
Thank you for giving us the floor. Mr. Chair. My delegation has reservations with regard to the language proposed for being this. The expression sir, certain degree of seriousness is not legally strict. Thank you very much. We have reservations.
Okay, thank you very much. Okay. All right. So I would say let's see what can we do with article 16 as it is now. Sorry. Give me a minute. okay. Oh, okay. Sorry, the United Kingdom you have the floor please?
Thank you, Japan. Is that a new record? Okay, Japan, the Russian Federation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Having listened to the discussion so far over our proposal to amend the article 16 paragraph to sub para be we are happy to discuss about the vagueness or rather what it means illegally on legal terms. We're happy to discuss with a relevant member states that have been shown interest in this proposal. But yes, thank you. That's
the Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates on Article 16 laundering proceeds of crime, we have a common to make the role of the new item F is not clear. Which states that knowledge intent or purpose required have an element of an iPhone set forth in paragraph one may be inferred from the objective factual circumstances How can it be otherwise? We'll think this subparagraph F is redundant and suggest deleting it altogether. Thank you.
The United Kingdom is that a Nurik? Okay. But sorry, before I sorry, before I yield the floor to the unit acting now. I just want to clarify something with respect to subparagraph. F. As regarding the comments by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation, I would want you to refer to remember that this sub paragraph reflects what is in Article Six paragraph to have on talk. All right. So it is basically almost what what you call a great language. I don't know if you when you check back whether you still see it as redundant, and maybe we'll come back but just look at it. And we'll see if you change your mind about your observations, and I'll yield the floor to the United Kingdom. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good afternoon to everyone. We very quickly wanted to register our support for the US proposal on Article 16. Paragraph two a and two B and 16. paragraph three. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. Let me do something. It's afternoon is after lunch. Let's get some something. Let's get some adrenaline. Let's go back to one. All right. 16. One. I see no objection to article 16. One. So can we may I take it that the ad hoc committee can agree? Article 16 one ad referendum Oh, Iran. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to due to redundancy of support subparagraph f. So, so we propose to delete of this paragraph of of the is here. Yeah. The knowledge and 10th. Yes. Should be deleted. Thank you.
All right. Back to the question I was asking in the room. Law, let's start from something that works. Right. I see. Do we have any objection to agreeing? Article 16? Paragraph one? I see no objection in the room. So with your Oh, Yemen, you have the floor.
No objection, Mr. Chair. However, and the third line of Article One A. I believe that there is a mistake in Arabic. The speaker is talking about a term that is used in Arabic. And it seems that there is an issue with the wording used and the Arabic version, which has no effect on to the English version.
Okay, thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Yemen. Like I have said, Miss, you see, His Excellency. Mr. kloudio, who is the chairman of the consistency group is happily waiting for us to agree these articles and send to them. So like I said, the it'll be fine tuned in to the finest this thing of the Arabic version. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So that haven't been said, there is no objection to grain article 16. One, it is hereby agreed ad referendum. Okay. Let's see what we can do it. Article Two, for Article Two. Sorry, for paragraph two. I want to again, appeal that, you know, pending when, you know, the overriding issue of whether we're going to refer to it as articles 116, or cover various convention or that in sub that's, that's the only correction made the and I have no problem with that. My total will be that since that's the horizontal issue, when it is subsequently decided the language will fall in place appropriately. I don't know if that would represent an understanding of the room in which instance, we can say we we can agree. A paragraph to add referendum or we want to wait until that issue is resolved. I mean, your hands on the floor is open. Egypt, United States, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I think to be in consistency with what under the chairmanship of the two esteemed vice chairs. Regarding other chapters, I think that we did not agree at referendum when the issue of the stablished under this convention or covered by this conversion, or six to five, six to 16. We did not agree. So I think that we need to make the same method to apply the same methodology. Mr. Chair, I thank you.
United States you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In terms of the two proposed changes and these two sub paragraph, the United States, I think would have to respectfully disagree. I think we think that this is an issue distinct from the issue throughout the rest of the convention as to whether we use the term Article Six to 16 or articles established in accordance with this convention. And the reason is here, a matter of logic. This is talking about predicate offenses the underlying offenses for a money laundering offense. The need for this technical edit here is because without this edit if this were merely To meet in offenses established in accordance with this convention, that would include this article, article 16 on money laundering. And that would in turn make the meaning that each party shall include as a predicate offense money laundering as a predicate offense for money laundering offence, which is circular and does not work. So, we are proposing this as a technical at it to make clear that the predicate offenses are the other cybercrime offenses that we're including in the convention, and not this particular offense of article 16. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Okay, I see the request for the floor from Egypt or New Zealand, and I will yield the floor to them shortly. But I just want to say again, that if we look at this edits, like the US side, is it okay, from a technical point that we keep this word specifying the offenses that are covered? And clearly, you cannot include article 15 in it, but the point is that as predicate offenses, were referring to the offenses established in Article Six, up to 15. So I would have and that was why I thought that we could agree to this and take off the read. And I know, it's just it's a technical thing, and it's just logical. So is and as I yield the floor to you, I would appreciate if you endeavor to answer this question, if you really think that we need to practice and if there's any other issue. Thank you, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first remark was regarding the methodology, but from a technical point of view, regarding this issue, which we didn't have a problem with it in the Uncock. Mr. Chair, if I'm not mistaken, it is the same definition. I can read the definition in Article Two. Which in Article Two, predicate Yes, Mr. Charity, number n, predicate offense shall mean any offense as a result of which proceeds have been generated that may became become the subject of an offence as defined in article 16. So, it is already mentioned that we are in article 68, the definition had implicitly excluded article 16 itself from this issue. The second point, Mr. Chair, in this regard, that if we had limited ourselves to Article Six to 15, it means that any additional protocol in line with article 61 of this convention that has additional crimes, might not the scope of this article will not be applied to. So I think that we have a precedence in this regard, it is functional, it is, unless we are going to ask for changing the convention of Uncock in this regard, and I think also it is in Tokyo, if I'm not mistaken, I have to check my my my papers again. So unless we are going to change the other conventions or convention, there is no need for having the same having a different definition and the different terms provisions in this regard, I think.
New Zealand you have the floor to be followed by the Russian New Zealand.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I think we spent quite a bit of time in relation to these particular paragraphs. I absolutely endorse your words, in terms of this is logical I hear from the delegate from Egypt. But we haven't negotiated a protocol yet. What we have here is the negotiation for our convention, and we shouldn't have money laundering included within an offense in relation to determining predicate offenses. We often speak about the certainty for practitioners this provides the certainty for practitioners so New Zealand endorses the US proposal paragraphs to stop paragraph A and B. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you for giving me the floor. For now, we don't have any final decision on the number of articles should. Therefore, we believe it is premature to refer to specific articles with regard to 16. I have to say, to this day, the suggestions of the Russian Federation are being ignored as to including other types of offenses in this convention. Something I mentioned in the formal session earlier, when we discussed the article on criminalization, I think it's premature once again to refer to specific articles. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Australia have the floor.
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair for giving me the floor. I think the intervention of the distinguished delegate of Egypt makes who referred to the definition of the predicate offense in article to make it all the more important and relevant to set out. What in fact, the predicate offenses should be, because the definition refers explicitly to offenses as defined in article 16, if I read correctly, so if we do not define which offenses, we want to establish it as predicate offenses in article 16, we will run into trouble and I fully concur with what the distinguished delegate of the United States said that we cannot have an endless circle or so to say tale of money laundering offenses and money laundry of the money, laundry, and the money laundry of the money laundry, this, this will not work in practice. So all the more reason to refer to Article Six to 15. And in respect of what the distinguished delegate from Egypt said, about protocols, I think that would remain for the protocol to, you know, establish the relationship with the mother convention. And and that's something that would need to be discussed whether we want to have the additional offenses set out in protocols also apply as or be predicate offenses in relation to the money laundering offence of the mother convention. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Come around. You have the floor.
Thank you, Jim. My delegation would like to make three remarks. The first is that the aforementioned articles six to 15 Already refer to all of chapter two, which talks about criminalization and which consequently adopts all of the offenses that we're talking about. If this is the case, where therefore wondering why we can't talk about this convention, instead of citing these articles, because when you look at articles six to 15, you're covering the whole of the chapter. That's first thing. Secondly, we've seen that cybercrime evolves very quickly. Given that in our view it wouldn't perhaps be very helpful to a priori sir circumscribe these types of cybercrime. We think that we should leave a certain level of openness within the convention, particularly since Article Six to 15 already cover the offenses that we're talking about. In the terminology, used in article 615
Thank you very much. I'm going to request the Okay. I'm going to make this attempt. And then if we if it is impossible, we'll pack this for further consideration for further consultations now. Oh, care, let me I see the request for the floor from Iceland. But let me say this and then I'll yield the floor to you. Two things. The first one is, we we're optimistic that we will have a convention. But in all fairness, you first of all have to have a convention before you even talk about the protocol. And the practice in negotiation in negotiating instrument is that a protocol will derive from the mother convention. So it's, again an appeal that let's we're running ahead of ourselves, if we're putting in conditionalities, or stopping ourselves from agreeing on things that are going to be functional and practical, on the basis that there will be a protocol. That's one does my first appeal. The second appeal is that while we take, we take language from one talk and OneCard, the context are not entirely the same and not all entirely on all fours. So for example, the Secretary Could you please put up the provision in Ankara relating to predicate offense as it is, as it is, you will see that even in Ankara, it does say predicate offenses are as set out in a particular article of the Convention. So I do not see us as deviating from what is in UNCAC. All right. That's why I said, this is my this is just an attempt to help us if you need some time to think about this fine. If you don't remember exactly what is in Uncock, that is what it says there is a reference to the particular criminalisation article. And it is the same thing we're trying to do here. So having said that, I hope that we will reflect along those lines. I yield the floor to Iceland. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair for for all your efforts in trying to get us past the finishing line with this convention. I had just some brief remarks on Article 16. And I'll have to be honest, that I stent has a high level of discomfort around article 16 in general. And for us, it will be important to keep the references in the text to articles six to 15 Furthermore, we will be supportive of the 16 to be pace edition with thanks for the proposal. Thank you very much.
Good Okay, thank you very much. Okay. So like I I said one attempt at this I guess we should park article paragraph two while the allegations reflect on my last appeal. We will move to Article no okay, but always 16. Is there any other okay. Yeah, yeah, we will there is also the some divergence regarding the the proposal by the distinguished delegates of Japan to add that the the additional language I am in your hands, what will the room have us do Do we still work on this or we pocket and move on to something else? Because I thought that this is pretty. This is pretty straightforward and we could be able to agree upon it. But like I said, I mean your hands any views on this, please? I want to consider this okay, I see no, I see no requests for the floor in the entire room. Okay, the Russian Federation, you have the floor man.
Thank you for giving us the floor. We have once again, read this proposal very carefully. How are we going to evaluate the degree of seriousness? We're really not clear about that maybe colleagues can clarify. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. While colleagues are thinking about that, and maybe formulating an explanation, I would, with your indulgence, ask that we move we pack that we could, we can always return to it. Well, let's go on to article 18. And see where of course, member states are aware that article 17 is in italics. So we're not written it here. So we go to article 18. And see, in this regard, Article ating relates to liability of legal persons. And I would just go straight on and ask that. May, would the ad hoc committee be minded to adopt to agree, article 18. Era in its entirety, or paragraph by paragraph ad referendum? The floor is open. I see. No. I see no. Objection. So may I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees article 18 in its entirety, ad referendum? Was that? You? Okay. All right. Oh, hold that hold that
Thank you chair. I'm sorry to come on. And this but as a sort of methodological procedural matter. Yesterday, whenever there was references to France established in accordance with the convention that was discovered, that the scope is being still discussed. So if it did understanding that we are mindful of, of this reference in the future is reference we can support the text, or we want to have clarity on the scope. First. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I was going to congratulate you for having adopting a full article. But it seems not the case. I may help you in adopting another article. Mr. Chair, you were waiting for our response to article 14. If I may share with you. On article 14, paragraph four, we we had proposed something that was not accepted by the very considerable number of delegations and after reconsidering, we are not insisting on our proposal in this subpar Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Egypt. This is small wins, right? And yeah, so let's see, that's article 14. Okay, so, okay. Thank you very much. So with may seek the permission of the room to so that we can take another look at article 14 All right. So where Article 14 Start from the top okay, we article 14, soliciting solicitation or grooming for the purpose of committing a sexual offense against the child. In there was the article paragraph one of that article was agreed in informals with the inclusion of the word grooming. May I May I take it that the ad hoc committee is now agreed to adopt to agree this in a to agree. Article 14, paragraph one in AD referendum. Okay. I see no objection. So I agreed. Thank you very much for your your kind help. Progress in bits and pieces. Okay. We have paragraph two of article 14. Right. May we may I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees paragraph two of article 14 ad referendum? Okay, I see no objection. Agreed ad referendum. Okay. At school 14, paragraph three. This paragraph was also agreed in informals. We therefore, ask that May we take it that the ad hoc committee agrees with and with? Yep. Paragraph three as it is. Add referendum? I see no objection to that. agreed at referendum. Okay. paragraph four. With the withdrawal of the proposals of the distinguished delegate of Egypt, may we take it that the era committee can agree this article in this paragraph ad referendum? I see no objection. I agreed. I had a friend. I think I thank you very much. Well, after as a secretary were allowed to clap, but Okay, thank you very much. And you see, it feels good. You know, taking off some of the red and all of that. So, yes. While other delegations continue to ponder on some of the questions. Hopefully we'll we'll make some progress. So we're returning to where did we leave off? Article? 60?
Yeah, okay. Let me just the, the delegation of the EU you mentioned the fact that you the only issue you have is whether we finalize the thing about whether it is in offenses established in accordance with the this convention and so you will like us to hold on to that for now until that is established until you're clear on scope. That's it right. Okay. All right. So let's move to about ABA paragraph two of article 18. Me is it does the ad hoc committee. Agree? Paragraph two of article 18 ad referendum? I see no objection. I agreed at referendum. Okay, paragraph three of article 18. Does See the ad hoc committee? May we check it out? The ad hoc committee agrees at paragraph three of article 18 ad referendum? I see no objection in the room, and it is agreed. paragraph four. Okay, there was no, nothing. Okay. May I also take it that the ad hoc committee agrees paragraph four of article 18 ad referendum? I see no objection in the room. So agreed. Thank you very much. Okay. Maintain, okay, just highlight that particular highlighted. Let's look at it. I will just
Your Excellencies distinguished representatives, ladies and gentlemen, I was going to Well, we could move to article 19. But again, I see that it has the same issues regarding our fences established in accordance with this convention. So we will pack. So basically, there is no other issue with that, say for those concerns. So I would assume that we'll want to have that packed onto scope is becomes crystal clear. All right. So let's look at article 20. Article 20. Is on statute of limitations. May I ask, if the ad hoc committee Ha, on Article 20, New Zealand, you have the floor?
Thank you Chair, I'm afraid the same situation arises. So we have established in accordance with this convention. So New Zealand would ask that it is limited to Article Six to 16 Whilst we have those conversations on scope.
Okay, thank you very much for drawing my attention to that some I think I didn't quite remember. Was that in was the next one article 21? Well, we have the same issues as fencing is established in accordance with this convention, running through article 21 Also, but there are no other substantive issues raised. So we will of course, pack that again, one until we get clarity on scope. And then I guess it will be easy for us to come back and adopted Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair on Article 21. We have a substantive issue. paragraph four, we are asking for its deletion and inconsistency with the consequent onclick in this regard. And think also, Mr. Chair that I need to highlight here that in Article Two of the Code of Conduct of designated law enforcement officials, which was adopted by the United Nations assembly, a resolution or a similar resolution data until 1979, stated that law enforcement officials in performance of their duties shall respect and protect human dignity and preserve and promote human rights of all persons. So from our point of view, Mr. Chair, it is a redundant taking into ensuring that we have Article Five and potential article 24 According to the current situation in the informants. So I think that it is redacted and we are asking for its deletion. The second substantive issue, Mr. Chair, in our Our paragraph I'm sorry, I'm jumping from one file to another in an article in paragraph seven, Egypt asks for the addition of the word applicable before protocols taking into consideration Yes, there is sort of unary universal ratification for the CRC but not for the protocols. So we are asking for the addition of the word applicable before the word protocols I thank you.
Russian Federation, you have the floor please.
Thank you. We have comments on paragraph two of article 21. It should be prescriptive imperative. The criminal offenses against the Critical Information Infrastructure poses a high degree of danger to the public. So, may should be replaced by shell for that reason. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Margarita now, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening to you all. We support the proposal of the representative of Egypt regarding deleting the paragraph four of article 21 For the reasons mentioned by the representative, including the need to have this consistent with on talk and and unclick. Thank you.
Iran, you have the floor please.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and for your able leadership. Regarding for article sub, this article, paragraph four, my delegation would like to support the proposal made by the Egyptian delegation. And regarding this subparagraph. Seven my delegation would like to propose to add they're applicable before consistent. They're applicable before the word consistent in paragraph seven. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of Iran, but I'm sorry, I'm forced to ask a question. Would you please read the sentence in full? Where are you sure about the insertion because as it reads, now, paragraph seven, would you read it with? Okay. May the Secretary put your insertion? Just see, can you insert what he said? And let's read it because I'm just looking at it. And that in session, at least for the English language doesn't like flow. Maybe you want to check where you actually wanted to place it. So where did you want to please begin if you please let it reads like this. State parents shall ensure that appropriate measures are in place under domestic law to protect children who are accused of offenses established under this convention, then you say to insert the applicable, consistent with the obligation, so it kind of doesn't wrap around, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman for your indulgence. I mentioned they're applicable. They're not there. Yet. That's right.
Thank you very m uch. Okay. Trans. So through this. Cameron, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation would like to address article 22, paragraph four, perhaps we should establish the difference between the prosecution phase and the conviction phase. In paragraph three, it says, measures in respect of those offenses and just got up until the end. This should be accompanied by a guarantee of the protection of rights. This is about prosecution. And one delegation already drew our attention to that. Once a person is convicted, that's one thing. But when we're talking about prosecution, that's another thing, each phase should be distinct. And in each phase, the rights of the person must be respected. Particularly when we're talking about crimes against children, this is important to be very precise. Thank you.
Oh, okay. Thank you very much. Now, I was going to, I was going to say, I was going to suggest that we allow the allegations, a few minutes to reflect on some of what we have discussed on the criminalization chapter. Let's look at the chapter on jurisdiction. If it will be possible to agree some of that, then we will come back to criminalization because it's it's, it's a core thing that somehow we must deal with to the end. However, looking at chapter three on jurisdiction, you also have, I think, though, some of it is marked as a grid, add referendum, us still have the issues around offenses established in accordance with this convention. So it would appear that we may not be able to make much progress if we go there at this point. So we, I would like us to go back. We have packed quite a number of things in in chapter two on criminalization before I yield the floor, so my proposal is that we go back and start from Article Six. I'm doing that because I'm thinking that we've had time to reflect we've had time to consult and maybe some of those paragraphs that we packed. There may be some progress made that we can make in respect of our green of reaching consensus on those articles, and then we'll work our way all up. That is my proposal that haven't been said. I am in your hands. It is what the room decides that we will do. I see the request for the floor from Japan and Australia, Japan, you have the floor please.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair for giving me the floor. I have requested for the floor to try to answer to the question posed by the district's delegate the Russian Federation. In terms of the our proposal to amend the article 16 paragraph two days to be this, I should say, I hope this is the right moment for me to do that. I also hope that this will be of any help for the room to make a consensus on this proposal. So if I may, with your indulgence, with your permission, Mr. Chair, I would like to try to answer to the question posed. Thank you. So. So there are some Federation, that this will delegate to the Russian Federation asked, who will decide to certain degree of seriousness that is in the contained in our proposal, and how perhaps, how it will be determined in to the question of who, in one word, it will be determined by state party, each of the state parties to decide to determine in its domestic law, on the seriousness, seriousness, being the our pleased minimum of how many years of the penalty of the probation for the predicate offense. And this will be determined in consideration, taking the consideration of whether factors such as whether the predicate offense is committed for the purposes of financial reasons for money, and also, whether the offense committed very good offense was committed as a transnational organized crime. Now, in this turn, on this vein, I would like to recollect, with your your attention to the history over a proposal, we had proposed to insert a word serious crime. And the serious crime as determined by this convention is a penalty at minimum of four years of probation. And for member states that have a signatories to the on talk, as just as us just as Japan, who are in full alignment of the formulation of the talk, they should have established that serious crime as offenses doubt is on down to the penalty.
Sir, please, the distinguished delegate of Japan, have you finished your explanation?
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, I would like to finish this. So for the inlet for the full alignment of the formulation of the talk, we have we proposed to insert the word serious crime to the article 16. But to our regret, it didn't get much support. It didn't fly at in the past negotiation sessions. So the proposal that we're proposing in this session is a alternative to doubt serious crime. So serious crimes for many member states, who are the signatories to the ondoc, it would mean that four years of deprivation, at minimum, in terms of penalty, but of course, again, it will be for the state party of this convention to decide taking consideration of factors. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of Japan. Australia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. I have some comments on Article 15. And also, I'm 21. If you would like me to hold off on those I can as we go through if that works for you, or otherwise I can just jump straight into it.
You okay, what you have is a restaurant article 16.
It's in article 15
Oh, okay. Maybe you hold that less? Procedurally less. We will we'll go returned back to that. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Yes. One, we thank the distinguished delegate of Japan for the explanation providing. I hope that members, delegations will take that in stride as they consider how to proceed. However, we would, I would propose that we go over to chapter three and look at the provision on jurisdiction. We still have a number of paragraphs that have not been agreed. I would like us to focus essentially on the paragraphs that have not been agreed, and see if we can. We can do that. So article 22. So article 22, paragraph two, Chapo is agreed at referendum. to A. to A to no to a is to a, I'm going to invite views in respect of to a is it possible that does the ad hoc committee agree? Progress? Paragraph two a ad referendum? The floor is open please. Okay, I see no objection. So will I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees? Article to Article 22, paragraph two a ad referendum? Okay, the other Which one is this article? Okay, paragraph two, C. Okay. Okay, adequate to see. May I? Sorry, paragraph two c of article 22. May I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees with and is willing to adopt this ad referendum? Okay. I see no objection. So thank you very much for your cooperation. mark that as agreed ad referendum. Okay. Paragraph now we have paragraph two, paragraph two D. The ad hoc committee is invited to adopt this ad referendum. The floor is open. Okay. I see. No, I see no objection. So it is agreed. Oh, okay. Sorry, Canada, you have the floor.
Sorry to ruin the momentum. Chair. I just have a question on this. I have heard other delegations question why it's included. I have not heard any responses on this. I know what comes from UNCAC I believe in even UNCAC there is some controversy to its inclusion. In my view, most of the conduct would be covered by Article One A in this and I was just wondering if there was a proponent of two D if they could explain for us why this is included. Thank you
Okay, just by way of explanation This, this particular paragraph was is contained is contained in the Arab convention on combating Information Technology offenses, and the model Arab law on combating offenses related to information technology systems. For those jurisdictions, it was not, of course included in one talk, but it was included in UNCAC. And some member states wanted it. Well, it's there. But of course, I am in the hands of the room it is for the ad hoc committee to decide if this is if it does no harm, in particular, and it is something that we can live with, again, I will ask the question, if we're able to agree this ad referendum. Okay, I see no objection. So it is agreed. Right. All right. Thank you very much. We would now return to our consideration of the of chapter two, on criminalization because we have a lot of stuff packed. And like I said. Sorry, my attention has just been drawn to the fact that we have paragraphs three and four, which we have not done. But you know, I've seen it has the phrase offenses established in accordance with this convention, that is three and four. So I'm assuming that again, just like other similar provisions, the room prefers to wait until there's clarity on scope to agree this, right. So we'll keep that until we get that clarity. Any other thing in 12? Which one? Do we have six six. Okay
excellencies distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your cooperation. I thank you for your time. So with your permission, we will now go back to the beginning of chapter two, and begin to look at the offenses. There were paragraphs that we were left parked for further consideration. So let's start from Article Six. Article Six, what we paragraph one is a grid ad referendum but there was some suggestions and contentions around paragraph two. And my, my, my exhortation to members was those who proposed some of these should endeavor to speak with other delegations. So as they're being is that any headway regarding the issue of the auditions. Of course, we have the proposal, which is the standard thing to retain the original formulation, but for Are those who wanted words added? Have we? What is again? The feeling in the room? Have we been convinced that these words need to be added? If not, what do we how do we make progress with this? Do we return the original? The floor is open. I have on my list. There is yes, there is there is Iran to be followed by Yemen. Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you remember, and all of the distinguished delegation remembers in this room, you see, we had proposed to use unlawful instead of dishonest. But some of the distinguished delegation believes that believe that the dishonest has been used already in the Budapest convention. And so has been one proposal has been suggested that you use both worlds Ward's dishonest or unlawful with this caveat, in accordance with the domestic laws of the state parties, or in the domestic laws of the state party. Yes. So this formula, this formula, I think, is would be very helpful for using have the most dishonest or unlawful and in accordance with the domestic laws of the state parties. And the other hand, according to this proposal, we were such changed all of the wordings has been used by dishonest. And so I think, if you want to have a one comprehensive, and one, you see one way to using of the war to boards is it would be very useful and better. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Amen. You have the floor.
Shukran Thank you, Mr. Chair. With the guards to the term itself, when we talked about access, we wanted to change it in Arabic, I would prefer that they are the same in English. So we wanted to change the term in Arabic regarding access. We also want to add the crime of unlawfully remaining on the website to the law because most of the laws on fighting cybercrime, and it comes talk about the crime of accessing a website, but also the crime of unlawfully remaining on our website. So if someone has legal access to a site, but then we find that it was an illegal access to a website, he should leave this website if has not left after determining this, then this is a separate crime, which is the crime of unlawfully remaining on this site. If this can be included, then this would be good for us. But if not, then the domestic laws would be able to cover that in their text and we would have no objection with that, whether you adopt it or if it is left for domestic laws. Thank you.
Okay, let's start from the simpler one, based off of your flexibility, I will happily take your flexibility so that we can proceed without having to get into the any further discussions about so I thank very much the distinguished delegate of Yemen for your flexibility in this regard. Now, I must turn to the room and ask the question, I'm going to ask the secretary to put up the alternative language suggested and I'll be asking the room if this is agreeable. So just you know that stuff about or whatever.
Um, does first of the distinguished delegate of Iran does the addition don't have that. Right. It reflects what you wanted to see. Okay. So my question will be, is the ad hoc committee this edition? Is it acceptable? Is it something we can live with? And agree on this article on this paragraph. I am in your hands. If I see no request for the floor, I'll assume that oops, okay. You have in the United States, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Was the question on Article Two? I'm sorry, particle two of Article Six para two? Yes, I grew up to have Article Six right, we would object to the addition or unlawful in accordance with the domestic laws of the states parties. You know, one of our objectives here is trying to define the type of illegal conduct that we want to include in this treaty. And to include an alternative option there in addition to dishonest and adding in accordance with their domestic laws of the state would undermine that objective. So the US would oppose that addition.
Thank you very much. Cameroon, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegation wishes to note that one might have access to a website illegally without having dishonest intention. You could have access illegal access to a website without having ill intention. Now it's the combination of the dishonesty and illegality but comprises the offense. Because putting dishonest or unlawful is complicated because dishonest refers to the moral aspect, the intention and unlawful refers to legality. Here we're talking about cybercrime. Someone could be acting unlawfully without having dishonest intent. So if you want to use two separate concepts here, we should be saying dishonest and unlawful rather than one or the other.
Renato, you have the floor.
Yeah. Chair, you will recall the discussion taking place a day or so ago. And I think we repeat our plea for understanding how this can be resolved by by understanding that this is a a legal document that must be read in a legal fashion as well. Articles one is a general provision, which creates a a or which provides for the creation by member states by state parties. of relevant if they wish to adopt relevant legislation, but it provides for a a, a situation where there is an unlawful conduct. So the provision in Article One is a general provision in Article Two, and this must be read together article one and Article Two is more specific. And it comes down to a more specific conduct, which talks about intent in relation to a particular kind of reference. Chair, I believe that's the best that I can do. And I plead for understanding so that we can resolve this issue as soon as possible. Thank you.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Vanuatu. I've been pleading for understanding. I've also pleaded that this is not strict liability. This is not this is convention language. You have the flexibility to translate this into Your domestic law as best as it suits you. But if we can, if we continue down the path of seeking to add verbs or add words that end up throwing more confusion in terms of interpretation and all of that, we will not make that much progress. And having said that, and recalling my last exhortation that in the absence of consensus in the absence of a proponent getting member states to support in towards with the aim towards reaching consensus support, what they want added on to the text, the default position is that we will, the madam chair will retain her original formulation, and we'll move on. So once again, like I did before, the attempt to put this up in red was so that we could see if it is possible to reach agreement on it in the room that has not been done. So the Secretary had please take off that we would live. We'll take it that we're unable to reach agreement on this. Okay, before we pronounced on that I have the request for the floor from the Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you. The National Federation also had objections to paragraph two of Article Six. And on paragraph two of Article Seven, on the same issue. In our view, the confusion in terms of interpretation will be created by the term dishonest rather than the term unlawful. The term dishonest is not a legal term. And we've failed to see how we're going to implement it or clarify it in our legislation. Thank you.
Okay, just one last question. Is it possible that if the word is honest, does not work for for your delegation? Is there anything that precludes you? And when you're criminalizing in to use the preferred word unlawful? And I'm asking this bearing in mind that in my for example, in our own in my own jurisdiction, the intention is different from the lawfulness and it is the intention, it is it is an element of the offense. Here, we're looking for the mental element. I don't know. There are, of course, different legal systems for us, you have the act itself. And you have the mental element. This honest intent is the mental element that brings on liability for the conduct described here. So in terms of my jurisdiction, we, if you now, say on lawful intent, for us, just it becomes almost impossible. You know, just like you say, you cannot understand this honest, as intent as an element of the offense. But because we're looking for consensus, the point here now becomes that it would appear that in the room, you have more jurisdictions who have this concept of the mental element and the physical element to constitute the offense. And it is to this, it is in this regard that the distinguished delegate of Vanuatu and I'm reiterating his call for some form of understanding because I, again, I'm gonna say something. I, even though this took place in informals. And we haven't gotten to read in the plenary, but again, we want to commend the the Spirit the efforts, the the flexibility shown by the distinguished delegate of Japan, we we had a similar situation where certain phraseology was acutely troublesome for that delegation. But what happened was that across the room, all other delegations were in tune with this and what we, we play that for their understanding that it is possible to use your sovereign power as a state to make that adjustment when you criminalize such that, because then even on a scale, it is easier, because it will be one or two states changing, you're not even changing your law, you're making it in accordance with your law. But if you insist on putting something that will involve almost over how many member states needing to go back to their law, or train their jurisprudence in upheaval, because of such a change, then it becomes very difficult to accept. So once again, that's where we're at, I see one request from Austria. After that, I close the discussion on this, I will just, we will just report it, we cannot reach consensus. In any instance, this is an additional element, the main offense has been agreed. This is an optional element that you may choose to use or not use. Thank you very much. Um, having said that, Austro, you have the floor?
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, in an attempt to help maybe find a way forward and also, along the lines with what the distinguished delegate of Vanuatu just said, I would like to draw the attention of everyone to also the discussions that we are or were having in the terminology subgroup where when when you look at the documents, that is published, for the sixth session as the working document, you will find a pair tool that reads, this article shall not be interpreted as imposing a requirement that states party apply in the domestic laws, the exact same terminology provided that the core elements defined in the article are covered under domestic laws. So I think that's a very parallel problem that we're having here right now. And I wonder whether what what we have in the terminology subgroup wouldn't apply to the whole of the convention in any way. So maybe that would help with the interpretation of, of everyone here in the room for the convention. Many thanks.
Thank you very much. While we will listen to the last speaker, the United Kingdom acts for the floor. So we'll listen to that. And then members, I guess, delegations will reflect on that piece of information. The UK you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be very brief. We would just like to echo our support for Article Six, two and article seven, two as drafted. Thank you.
All right, thank you very much. We will wait to hear from the Okay, just write a reply to the Russian Federation and then we close this that's possible.
Yes. Thank you very much. As an alternative, with suggested instead of dishonest intent, and review of the comments I've just heard instead Have that just say for unlawful purposes, thank you
pero you have the floor
So paragraph one of Article Six, which has already been adopted, add Reverend and talks about the criminal elements. And it suggests Inc, the intentional when committed intentionally. So intentionality is something as what's already been agreed. Perhaps in number two, we could make intent an adverb here again. Because here again, it depends how each country views the notion we see as we need to ensure that there is a criminal intent. But it depends how each country applies this notion in its own legislation. Thank you.
Thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of Peru I would say that there was further suggestion of an alternate word. I don't know how that works for the room. But we're going on and on about this, I'm going to allow member states to reflect on this again, and we will probably come back to read if it is feasible. Otherwise, like I said, we would just mark it as not agreed. And it will be up to madam chair to, of course, retain her original draft and proceed. But so now, I will have with your permission, I would like us to move on to Article Seven, Article Seven, paragraph two. Again, it will appear that the you have a similar issue, which was we've already spent so much time dealing with in Article Six, paragraph two. So unless there is some there is some breeze of reprieve, I would say we do not need to go over the same arguments again. And like I said, the delegations that propose this, you might try to convince other member states that that this is essential. Okay, let's see article eight. We'll see. Let's see. Article eight, paragraph one, we had one some issue there. Regarding I know that there was a suggestion to add copying by some delegations, there was also some reservation expressed by some that article. Okay, that was just a response to that. So, what are we able to do? Secretariat? Could you please put that up so that people delegations will remember? Yeah, yeah. Okay, it's up there. Okay, great. So that they see what was in contention and either way I recall asking the, the, the Russian Federation to reflect on the discussion and let us know if they will still be insisting on the inclusion of the word copying, which was basically the only issue that we had with this article. The Russian Federation you if you want to speak on this or you still need some more time the Russia the Russian Federation, please.
Thank you very much. Would like to include copying in this photograph? Thank you
all right. Okay, I see a quadro As a request for the floor by Accardo, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ecuador does not support the inclusion of this word in Article eight due to the implications that it might had have on intellectual property rights.
Thank you very much, Australia, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. Similar to Ecuador, we don't support the inclusion of the word copying. I think as it was said, when we previously discussed this issue, we think this is already captured under unauthorized access. And so at least under the Australian system, we wouldn't necessarily consider this interference. And whilst I have the mic Chair, if I may just quickly returned to article 22. In terms of paragraph two D, we'd like to reserve our position on this apologies, I know that we've agreed to that ad referendum. Our reasoning is that we're just a little bit concerned that this could actually risk jurisdictional overreach and the conduct that is represented he is likely already covered by the other elements. So we would just like some time to think that through Thank you.
Okay, thank you for your time, the European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm honored to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states. And we would agree with the points made by the distinguished delegate from Australia. And we will also not support including adding copying in paragraph one and article eight, as it seems also, to be at odds with the title of this offense, and which suggests some sort of change or alteration. So we do not see the point of including it here. And also I'm also apologize for going back also for 22. To the I believe the point just made by Australia, we also have concerns and we were moving a bit too fast. So we will also need some time to reflect on that. I'm sorry about that. Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of the European Union. Okay, we'll slow down a bit. The Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you. We're going to try and clarify our logic a little bit why we would like to see copying included on this article. We don't think that actions for unauthorized copying of information sensitive information addressed by the language on unauthorized access to the system or interception. If we dig a little deeper into the various types of cybercrime or whatever we refer, however, we refer to them when our convention unlawful interception is different from mere copying of information. Therefore, within copying should be part of this. Otherwise we would risk omitting or not covering certain offenses committed by manufacturers. If we hear substantial arguments against copying and if the most important document is that this is duplication, or repetition that is not the most terrible thing. That means other delegations I'm not really against criminalizing this type of action. So I see nothing terrible, or nothing bad about him for emphasizing it once again, even though it has been adjusted in other articles. Nadja was saying that this is not in conformity with the title of this article, information can be influenced in various ways illegally. I don't think anyone of those present here today would be happy if sensitive information in their cyber files were copied by criminals. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation. I have on my list, the request for the floor from Yemen, the United States Mali. But okay, I will take that, and then I will want to ask the Russian Federation question. But I'm hoping that maybe these three speakers might just do the magic. And that question may no longer be necessary. But if it doesn't, then we'll ask that question. And like every other like what we've done before, we will just park this. So I yield the floor to Yemen.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This is just to clarify things. Article eight, and Article Nine, we've agreed on the naming of the offense and the title of the offense. And we've agreed on the fact that we're talking about interference with data. And this means interference with data stored in ICT devices. And this regard, we've agreed on this. And we've, we've agreed on the name of the offense and the predicate offense. And I think that national legislations may be flexible in this regard that may include different terminology, including alteration of data, this is something that domestic legislations do. The Convention has a broad examples. And I think that what was included in these articles is sufficient and then additions can be made in national legislation. And if they think that this offense, for instance, or things or offenses were not included in the article, then they they can add that in their national legislation. And therefore, I don't think that there is any issue when it comes to Article eight and Article Nine. We're talking here about predicate offenses and the material aspect of things as discussed in domestic legislations. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The United States you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First, I'll start by saying that I think that copying is covered by Article Six, which references the obtaining of information. Member states have free to define various levels of sanction or offenses depending on the information that's obtained, whether it is sensitive personal information, financial information, or anything else. Now, let's look at article eight, yesterday, we had what I thought was a brilliant intervention. It is my fault. I cannot recall the Member State who did it. But that member state pointed out that there were three concerns about computers and security, the confidentiality of the information, the integrity of the information and the availability of the information. Now looking at article eight, we see several I guess, my grammar is bad, but let's call them verbs. And we let's see which one may not fit, which one doesn't belong. So we know if we're looking at the integrity of information, which is what Article eight concerns, we have damaging, deleting data can deteriorate can be altered or suppressed. Now what word does not belong because it does not address the integrity of information that would be copying. It doesn't belong in this article because it has none thing to do with the integrity of data. We agree that copying of information should be sanctioned. And that is covered in Article Six. So the view of my delegation is that we don't need it in Article eight. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Molly, you have the floor.
Thank you very much chair. The Malian delegation supports the introduction of the word copying in this paragraph. That's simply because of this particular issue. criminal matters are very sensitive. So I think that specifying copying here isn't over the top, I think we should be very specific, and very concise with regard to criminalization. So I think we should be including the word copying, it's not too much. Thank you.
All right. Like I indicated, after this round of interventions, I'm just going to ask the Russian Federation this question. Well, the distinguished delegate of the United States touched on it. And again, my question is, the offense in Article eight is interference wheat, computer data. So it speaks to its damage, its deterioration, its alteration. My question is, how does copying? Is it damaged data deteriorated all tight? Or what? So in those terms, we're not saying copying, but you say, I've heard the delegation, the delegate with a single delegate of money say copying should be retained there, because criminal matters, delicate, but the point is, you are looking at a particular aim. And all of this if the action, right, how does copying did damage data? To? Like I said before, if this is something that is very important, it you can see clearly in the room, that it is only your delegation. Okay, only the Russian Federation, Mali, and which other delegation indicated they want copy? Rwanda, Belarus. So just like I gave in my other example, a situation where, because, again, I use I'm sitting here I'm using my, myself as an example, because I'm imagining that if I take on this, I will have to go back to my National Assembly and say, Okay, go and amend the offense of interference with computer data to include copying. And I'll be asked some of the questions. In fact, I'll be adding the question I'm asking now. And that is a process that will seem to be applicable to the majority of the delegations in this room. So again, our appeal. And we have an example, in this. Again, I'm not, I'm not putting I'm not rubbing it in people's faces. But we had a similar situation with the distinguished delegation of Japan. And they came back after consultation with a very, with a very appreciable level of flexibility that has allowed us to make progress on a very on very important articles in this convention. So again, I'm left with just two choices. I make this appeal to you, if you will, we're not saying if you want it, it is very clear to you, please, by all means you can keep it in your jurisdiction. So if you consider that appeal and willing to withdraw this additional We will then be able to agree this ad referendum, but if it is impossible for you to withdraw it, then we'll close this at this point. And we'll leave this. We'll leave this as that it is not possible for the arrow committee to agree on this. And I thank you very much for your kind. Attention. Okay, I see the request for the floor from Rhonda and the Russian Federation. I would plead that after the two speakers, we close this, and maybe something else. already closed the least please. The Syrian okay. You have your right of sea. So, Rwanda, Russian Federation, the Syrian Arab Republic. Rhonda, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'll be very brief. Rwanda can be very flexible. So it's okay with us. If the coping is not there, we can be very flexible.
Thank you very much. We will hold you to your flexibility. Thank you. Great, the Russian Federation.
Thank you very much for giving us the floor. Again. Let me assure you we are hearing what other delegations are saying we're always prepared to be flexible. Let me say this. Some people might think that we are clashing at specific words. But please understand when we're talking about very serious matters. We have no option but insist on this. If the article was entitled impact on information integrity, we would have no question here. But it's got a different title, interference with we are prepared to be flexible. If you could answer one question as to whether or not Article Six covers certain actions. Will our convention cover actions whereby access to a system exists when an individual has access to a system? But that same individual copies information in an unauthorized way? If your answer is yes, it is covered, then we'll be flexible and agree that there is no need to mention copying and this article because it's covered by other articles, or would like to hear you answer that question. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The distinguished delegates of the Russian Federation. I'm going to answer that question now. But before I do, I will yield the floor to the Syrian Arab Republic. Just in case they also have a question that could turn the tide. And I will take put if there is any question at all, so I take them at once. Molly You Okay. All right. See Ray have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In fact, I asked for the floor. To get back to a comment you made yourself that the number of countries that wanted copying to be mentioned, is limited. In fact, we have an Arab convention where Article Six also mentions copying. So for Arab countries, the vast majority of Arab countries, even though I'm not now speaking on behalf of the Arab group, but for a vast majority of Arab countries, cyber crime includes the offense of copying. out as often mentioned, side by side with other offenses, as mentioned in Article eight here before us. You're sad interfering with or damaging is sufficient. I would disagree. Damage can take different forms. The fact of copying data could facilitate the commission of other offenses. So it's very dangerous, sometimes more dangerous than damaging. Thank you.
Molly, you have the floor please.
thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we're creating a confusion here at a certain level. When we say copying damages data, whenever said, copying damages data, but the fact that data are copied without authorization must be criminalized. It's an offense. That's what we're talking about. So please clarify your position on that. Thank you.
Okay, we'll have the request for the floor. You know, as Member States, you have the right to, to have your say, but I was hoping that I would answer the question of the Russian Federation, in the hope that maybe we can end it here. So while maybe I should answer that question. And then, if the delegations that I asked him for the floor on this on this matter, if you still feel that you need it, like I said, we can close it and pack it. We will. So with your will that be agreeable. So that, let's let me answer that question. And then we'll see if it helps us move forward. But if it does not, if my answer does not satisfy you, but I'm counting that I'm counting on your, your commitment to flexibility, because I'm certain that the answer will meet your expectations. So, I will attempt that and come back to you, Mauritania and Cameroon if you still require the flow. Okay. The question is, if copying is covered by Article Six and my answer is yes. Though, we have not agreed paragraph two there have, you see, Article Six talks about illegal access. Now, paragraph one is agreed, paragraph two goes on to say is third party may require that the offense be committed by infringing security measures with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest in intent or in order this honest intent or whatever in relation to a a computer system that is connected to another.
So, when you say someone illegally accesses a system that you that is covered by you Article One, paragraph one the intent of obtaining computer data that is where your copying comes in, because obtaining that information, how do you obtain it, you can copy it, you can transcribe it you can. So, in simple terms, copying falls on the illegal access and again, it is a measure that you can it gives you the room to step up, you can even aggravate the penalties depending on okay if you access system and copy information that is commercial, you can have a different sentence, you will copy information that it touches upon your national security, you can aggravate the penalty. So, it covers that is where coffee and seats. But again, just for clarity, like I mentioned, the article eight then talks about interference with the with the data itself. Here, what is envisaged is a situation where, like the distinguished delegate of the United States It's mentioned you, it talks about acts that affect the integrity of computer data. Right? So here you're talking about where data is destroyed, it is damaged, it is deteriorated well, by whatever technical means is applied. Right? And, again, but let's, let's not over delve into this, I know that you have your own experts in capital. But please, I hope that meets your if he does not meet your answer, if he does not meet your question, then I'm going to do this. I'm going to plead with all delegations, that it will seem impossible to that there is no explanation that we you will be willing to take in this regard. So because we have other things to consider? I would, my proposal will be that. Just like Madame Chair, clearly indicated, it is your responsibility to convince other delegations in the room, that the addition of the word copying is required in Article eight. So for that reason, Article eight one, and for that reason, may I please plead that we pack article eight, or something that we cannot agree upon? And let's look at article 10. Thank you very much for your kind understanding. So I think the requests for the floor in this regard may be withdrawn, so that we can attempt to make progress on something else. May I count on your cooperation in this regard? Mauritania, Mali.
I still see the request for the floor by Yemen. We have not opened the next agenda item and discussion on Article eight has been packed aside for further informal consultations when there is that availability. So the distinguished delegate of Yemen, may I also count on your cooperation, we will open the next agenda item, but it is thought it's clear that we cannot reach any listing on Article eight at this point. Thank you very much. Right excellencies. Ladies, gentlemen, thank you very much. We will now proceed to look at article 10. Misuse of devices. Article 10. Misuse of devices 10 paragraph one. Yeah, there was where does it read? Okay. Why did we not agree 10 one ad referendum? Because the EU member states had an objection to obtaining the EU. have you consulted on this? And what are you able to report back to us? Oh, have you seen reason to? What do we do with your proposal?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure we had a strong objection. We just raised the legitimacy of this term compared to procurement and the other terms or otherwise making available was the added value. But we don't want to stay in the way of consensus here. We can support a text. It was more of a question for clarification, put to the room, but we can accept the text as proposed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much for your flexibility. So after a long discuss, may I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees with and is Oh, okay. Egypt, you have a request for the flow. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish that the Qataris had reminded you with In our proposal on this article like the proposal of the distinguished delegation of of the EU, we had two proposals, Mr. Chair to delete Article Six to nine, wherever it appears. And the second proposal in the last segment of Article One, we want to add electronic signature after access credentials, just to be consistent with Roman one, Roman two, thank you.
The floor is open. So that we have reactions to this proposal. The Russian Federation, you have the floor
thank you for giving us a fly. We agree with the proposal just made. To insert the necessary words from one little Roman true. And within also, after devices, say including software, that, again, will be consistent with paragraph one, a little Roman one. Also, we've already said but let me say it again. The latest proposal of one B is hard for us to understand the last sentence in one B the requirement that a number of such items be possessed before criminal liability attaches within this as a direct path to legal uncertainty this type of language would make it possible to avoid responsibility for the offenses covered by this article. Thank you.
Thank you very much. There distinguished colleagues. So with respect to article 10. Paragraph one, we have I'm asking the Secretariat to reflect this the proposals for changes some of it is as stated by the prominent it's just to align it with Roman two right. So I would want that reflect that and I'm just going to ask the viewer in the room is this something that is agreeable? And that is including the the inclusion of electronic signature after access credentials also. So I would just like to get a sense in the room. Let's see if we can walk through this very quickly. Is that something that is agreeable? Okay, the Russian Federation,
Yes, thank you, very briefly. will think we should also make it conform to a Roman one and etc. Within the device, including its program, and so on.
Look, does that reflect correctly why you want started? Okay, thanks. Okay, so my question to the room is what what what are your thoughts on this? This additions, stuff that we can live with I mean your hands if I guess there is no request for the floor, and would it be safe to assume that we can take this? Okay. Jamaica, United Kingdom, United States, Austria. In that order, Jamaica, you have the floor. Thank
you, Mr. Chair, looking at the text as it is drafted. There does not appear to be any offense caused by the insertion of the words including our program and electronic signature. If anything, it brings consistency to what has been mentioned in Roman numeral eight. And Roman numeral I. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. You're not acting dumb. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we will also support the paragraph, paragraph 10 Roman numeral i and basically the paragraph as drafted. Thank
you so much.
The United States you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Although we are also happy with the paragraph is drafted with respect to electronic signature because there is a listing of what's in too little I, that seems a reasonable and not inappropriate step to align the language with respect to including a program that too is simply reflecting what is in small Ay ay ay. But my own view is that device is defined in AI as including a program and we don't need to repeat that definition. Again. In other words, program isn't a separate listing from device, as it were, as it was in the case of electronic signature being a separate listing. But depending on the sentiment of the room, I think we could be flexible with it. It's not ideal drafting. But I understand that we're not all native English speakers in the room. And there might be more clarity if we did approach it this way. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Austria, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I take it you are calling for reflections on all the amendments that are on the screen here. So not only amending the last sentence of a with including program and electronic signature, but also with deleting the references to articles six to nine. And there, we would have considerable objections against that, because we think that would broaden the scope considerably. And given the different offenses that we have in articles 10 to 16. Would I mean that would include a number of devices, we are not prepared to to agree to Yeah, we I mean that that would need a thorough examination. That would take us far beyond the ninth of February, and therefore we cannot agree to that. I'm sorry.
Thank you very much. So just for clarity. I what I tried to do is I want us to agree on the on the things that are agreeable first. So I didn't put in focus. I haven't opened the discussion about the proposal to delete the reference to articles Six to nine, we will come to that. But I want to see if this additions in Narcos enough, and it is something we can live with. And like some of the delegations have indicated, it does bring some sort of clarity for some of us who, you know, I'm not an English, I'm not a native English speaker. Right. So to say. So, first of all, that's what I want us to agree with that, at least this additions, won't, things we can live with. Will that be the sentiment in the room? Okay, Egypt.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the distinguished delegation of Austria. Egypt is flexible regarding the other proposal, Article Six to nine, taking into consideration that we it didn't get to the consensual our consensus in the room. We are very flexible in this regard. Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much. So I hold you to that pledge of flexibility. Please take off the objection. Yeah. And so we agree the rest of the times, please take out the ride. No, one is less than eight. So I'm sorry, I will yield the floor to Zimbabwe. But before I do that, I just want us to be sure now we have what is remaining and read article one, paragraph one, what's remaining red? We don't have anything in red. Okay, so we're good all the way to one eight. Right. So may I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees with and is in a position to adopt article 10? Paragraph one in? Yeah, paragraph one E. Ad referendum? I see no objection. I agreed. I had a referendum. Thank you very much. Okay. Yeah, welcome to progress. Okay. Paragraph one B. What's again, I'm going to ask the room. The there is an issue raised by the Russian Federation regarding the last sentence of paragraph B. Which IRIDE is state party may require by law that a number of such items be processed before criminal liability attaches? I am in your hands. Two ways. One for the Russian Federation. This is an optional thing. So if some jurisdictions will want to maybe if you have just one device or if you have maybe it's it doesn't show that you were what I don't know or wonder was not enough to do the job. If they don't feel like making criminalising that I don't know. But on the other side, the question in the room will be do we would we be okay with the deletion of that last sentence? Either way. So we start with the Russian Federation
thank you. I understood that I needed to provide some further details and we'll be pleased to do so. Once again, the logic with regard to the addition of this or we don't fully understand that the actions described in this article higher up in this article can't occur. By coincidence, or through goodwill. They still can't be announced certainty about that. It was not logical in our opinion.
Sorry, there, you know, the interpret. Was it only for me or the interpretation didn't come true. Yeah, so sorry, I haven't gotten around
I will say it again, is easy to do. I don't know at what point you stopped hearing the interpretation. Let me start from the beginning. We don't see the logic in adding this language here. In our opinion, all actions addressed in this article can not happen by accident, or was good intentions. None of them can be perpetrated with good intentions even. Though it seems obvious, we didn't think it requires a further explanation. But if other delegates want an explanation would be happy to provide it. But again, it seems contrary to logic, to have to say this, just an opportunity, a loophole, an opportunity for perpetrators to avoid responsibility via saying that they have only one such device. Again, in response to the comment that was made here, we're not worried about anyone imposing this on the Russian Federation, what we worry about is that others will do it. And so cooperation over this type of crime would become impossible. And we're now this is not what this convention is trying to achieve. Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much. Again, like I asked in the room, do we have a fundamental objection to to delete this? If we take it off? Would it fundamentally impair our ability to investigate these crimes? Australia, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Chair. And thank you to the distinguished delegate from the Russian Federation for their explanation. I don't have a we don't have a specific, significant concern with this being removed at this stage. But I think ultimately, this really goes down to how domestic legal systems may approach criminal liability in terms of being able to prove the intent of an offense. So if there are multiple devices, then it may mean that they can prove intent in a more effective way. And so that may have been why or the inspiration, at least for its inclusion, because it has been included in other instruments and I believe that that may have been the reason why. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. So, wait, they expressed flexibility? I take it that the room does not object to the Okay, hold on the United States. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States would prefer that that particular sentence remain in the statute although we understand And the reasoning of the Australian colleague. This sentence does two things. One, it distinguishes mere possession of a, of a device and access device, in contrast to the production, sale procurement for use and port distribution as criminalized in subpart. A. So you can see that mere possession itself is not criminalized in this article. But it does allow a member state when the possession of a number of certain items reaches a level where it raises a question that there's something else going on, that a member state may criminalize it, it is permissive. It has been useful to four member states that have legislation like this, that they don't pursue mere possession or nothing is done with the access device. In addition, this potentially can affect the research into access devices where there is no intention to misuse the device, but they still possess multiple access devices, sometimes software as was pointed out before. So for those reasons, we think it would be appropriate guidance in this treaty for member states that would like not to criminalize mere possession unless a certain threshold is met. Thank you very much.
All right. Oh, Austria, you have the floor.
Thank you very much. We were very much support what has been said by the distinguished delegate of Australia and the United States. Thank you.
Okay, the Russian Federation.
Thank you, very briefly. Perhaps when we reach subparagraph B. We forget what we wrote at the beginning of the article above. Let me remind colleagues, paragraph one says, intentionally and without right. So possession, that's referred to in B happens intentionally. And without rights, it can't be accidental. So there's no need to have two or three or 10 devices to suspect that there's something illegal going on, thank you.
But thank you very much. Um, again. This is one of those things where, either way, right, there's some flexibility in the room, we could delete this. I clearly understand. Like several countries, I know that the issue around the number of devices, again, the truth of the matter is that depending on your capabilities, you don't need to have several devices actually to do the damage that is required. Now the truth. I know folks who can who just have one access device, and they can do a lot of damage. So in terms of the number really, you can set all that thresholds. But again, even without this, as a member state, you can make you can you can graduate this in your in your legislation. So if it will help us towards consensus. The thing is that the main offense is established. This is again, an just an addition, it's a major thing. So either way we can accept it, we can delete it, but I'm sure that it won't stop us entirely. Having said that, I'm just gonna ask members to reflect on that a bit. We have very little time left. On the agenda, we, we you'll see that we have because of how we have the enthusiasm to deal with this issues. We have not given the floor to, to hear from stakeholders. Today is Thursday and we might just run the whole week without hearing from the stakeholders in that regard. My proposal is that while you guys while you're considering what to do with the be part of this, we can we will then proceed to give the floor to multi stakeholders in this order we have Electronic Frontier Foundation associated Allenbury access now and interpal You You have three minutes Electronic Frontier Foundation you have the floor where Electronic Frontier Foundation are they online or in the room? Okay, if they are not here, we'll hear from associator and Liberace.
Okay, if they're not here, we have from access now.
All right, access now is not here. So we have from Interpol.
Yes. Can I start? Alright chair, Interpol greatly appreciates the opportunity to deliver the remarks at this crucial concluding stage of the negotiations. Interpol would like to propose a single update to article 47 paragraph one a on law enforcement cooperation. In the second line after the words, agencies and services, Interpol suggests the RE inclusion of the following language, taking into account the existing channels available, including those of the International Criminal Police organization, among others. This amendment would reflect the positions expressed by several Member States during both the fifth and sixth sessions, which had introduced such language in previous iterations of the draft tax, particularly in the consolidated negotiating document as of 21st April 2023, and the draft tax of the convention as of the second of September 2023. It is also in line with Interpol's main strategic priority for the ad hoc committee process, which is to enhance international law enforcement cooperation for a timely and effective global response to cybercrime in Nepal, is here to serve its membership and all of you guided by the principle of neutrality, which is enshrined in our Constitution, and in compliance with a robust legal framework. We are here to offer police worldwide, our unique expertise, tools and services designed to support and enhance law enforcement cooperation chair and the other member states, illustrating the role that our organization plays in facilitating secure and rapid information exchange, as described in article 47. Paragraph one a Interpol officers are currently on the ground in Brazil, supporting the Spanish National Police and Brazilian federal police in an operation to dismantle a major criminal group who has been committing widespread electronic banking fraud using the granderie role malware, Interpol working with relevant stakeholders has provided critical information enabling the identification and arrest of individuals controlling the amount West infrastructure as we approach the conclusion of these negotiations in the poll would like to extend it gratitude to member states for the support received so far. We look forward to your favorable considering
Thank you very much. Okay, one once once more Electronic Frontier Foundation. You here okay, associator library access now. Okay, thank you very much. That's for the stakeholders, we will return to we will return to our consideration of article 10. We, we are done with where we're looking at paragraph, article 10, paragraph one, B. And the question is to delete or not to delete? And, again, can someone show flexibility one way or the other? Because where we are, you know, there are two valid arguments, right? On one side, the field that requiring a number of access devices, creates a leeway. So you can then have someone a threat actor who carries only one device, but then is able to do as much damage, you know, with maybe even more more damage than someone who has several devices in their possession. I know I understand. Like, for example, in my jurisdiction, the fact that you have a number of devices, and this also helped with the simple let me illustrate the simple issue when someone will say, Oh, it's a virus, it's, it's malware that put what you saw on my system. But you could look through their system and you actually find that they have more knowledge, right, than they are, they have more knowledge about computing. To that extent that information is used to disprove right, the attempt or the defense of okay, this is a mistake, or this was I didn't know, so that the issue of having more devices probably was intended to speak to that. But with the way things are right now, the ability to remotely access systems or networks is not dependent on the number of devices in one's possession. So it is to that extent that I feel that this may not really be something we must hang on to. Of course, there is a graduation, you know that you can create aggravating circumstances, like was explained. But again, this is something that you all sovereign states have the power to do. So may I? Okay, the United States, you have the floor.
Mr. Chair, we have been considering from different perspectives, the effect of this language and its absence. And part of that consideration is the current state of US domestic law. And the question of whether we would be able to cooperate with a foreign partner who was investigating the the possession of one access device, I agree with your examples of access with one password and the like, or selling various access devices to others. So the question where you are puzzling through is that if this language were removed, and it is permissive in the first place, and we had a member state that had legislation that criminalize the possession of one access device, it's still not yet clear to me as a domestic matter whether we would be able to cooperate with that state, if that state requested, for example, a search warrant in the United States, because our statute does impose a threshold before it is for simple possession. Accessing a computer is a different story does impose A threshold for possession before it becomes criminal. I would ask that while we try to figure this out, because our goal is to cooperate on all the provisions of this article of this treaty, that we, as your, as the chair says, if we can hold this until the next time, and I could certainly get back to you directly as to whether we are able to remove our objection to striking the sentence. Thank you.
Thank you very much. All right, Russian Federation to be followed by Austro. Russian Federation,
Thank you very much a brief comment. Of course, we respect the domestic legislation of every country. But what we've just heard, makes me say the following we have article four to paragraph 20 subparagraph D, which says, cooperation must be my belief checked it if it contradicts domestic legislation of a specific country. I think we have a lot of items that allow a country to refuse cooperation. So there's no need to be concerned about that. Thank you.
Australia have the floor.
Yes, thank you very much. I just like to point one thing out, because the provision that we have here is well, taken from the Budapest convention, but it has also been amended, because in one, A, we added the word obtaining. And you can see from the actions that you see here, production sale procurement for us import distribution, I mean, they're all they have different qualification when it comes to well, proving criminal intent. Whereas obtaining if you obtain one piece of password, one signature, one program, I don't know, it's, it's getting more and more difficult, because, you know, just obtaining is some thing that might be very harmless as well, or the person might not make use of what he she obtained. So, I mean, since we've made these amendments, I can only agree and stress once again, what the distinguished delegate from Australia said, it will be very difficult to prove the intention of the criminal intention of the perpetrator that obtained only one, one of these devices. So since we have this distinctions between the wording of the Budapest convention and this convention here, we strongly advocate to keep the last sentence in one be Thank you very much.
All right, thank you very much. The distinguished delegate of Austria I guess we'll pack that we had the end of this session. It's obviously impossible to proceed while people sleep on this. I don't know. But I
Okay. All right. So, before we close, I want to announce that the yes, the the night session will hold from 7pm to 10pm. It will focus on preventive measures, technical assistance and information exchange and mechanisms of implementation and It'll be chaired by the distinguished delegate of Japan. The Vice Chair. Mr. Kochi, where is our before we go, I yield the floor to the Secretariat who have an announcement to me.
Thank you Mr. Chair on behalf of the vice chair from Australia, basic Italia, I would like to inform governmental delegations, that the informal informal on provisions in chapter five on international cooperation will continue this evening from seven to 10pm. In conference room 11. And the topics to be discussed on Article 37, paragraph one and 18 article 38, article 40, paragraph one to age 14, E and F, an article 41, paragraphs one and 3d and new paragraph E. And the italicized text in articles 40 to 44 and 45. As well as proposals for new paragraphs in articles 37 to 40 made by Member States. That is a lot of information to note and pleased to inform also that this information is available on the website of the ad hoc committee for further reference. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Okay. Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair, I just want to confirm that none of the evening sessions are televised.
None of them.
Thank you.
You don't want to be a TV star. In Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, you just for the record that, again, the delegation is limited in number and it will be difficult to follow to informants in the same time and it will be somehow against the methodology that the chair had put, but I know that we are the time constraints but please, I'm reserving our right to reflect on what may be concluded during this session at a later stage unfortunately. Thank you. Thank you.
With that we have come to the end of this meeting, which is now closed. See you in the morning.
