Excellencies distinguished representatives, ladies and gentleman, good morning. We are now going to continue consideration of Agenda Item three entitled revised draft text of the convention. I am guiding our discussions on the chapter on procedural measures and law enforcement and the chapter on international cooperation. As we only have a limited time to resolve and reach agreement at referendum on these two chapters, I am going to recall once again, the chairs appeal for all delegations to show flexibility. And to help us move in the direction of consensus. I do ask that you only make proposals that your delegation believes absolutely necessary to improve the text, and to please try to offer alternate language that does enjoy broad support. I'd also ask you to be concise when proposing amendments. And on that note upon consultation with the Bureau the chair had proposed, and we will be continuing to use the speech timer, which will be set to three minutes. During consideration of this agenda item delegations are therefore given three minutes to speak each time. When you're given the floor, you will be given three minutes to speak. Once you have one minute left, your microphone will start to blink. When your time is up, your microphone will be silenced automatically. I am very impressed to see so many of you here again this morning. A little over 12 hours after we concluded our informal session last night. Last night we made our way through several of the articles on in the international cooperation chapter. And to help you prepare for this morning, I'd like to let you know how I plan to proceed.
First of all, last night, in the informal we agreed several paragraphs of articles in informal, I would like to first put those paragraphs to this room to be agreed at referendum. Then I would like to go through some of the proposals that we are worked through last night and put some options to you. Which will I will ask you to very briefly comment on in your interventions when we move on to continuing our discussion from article 41 to the end of the international cooperation chapter. And if we get through all of that, we will move back to then ask those delegations who I gave homework to on procedural measures chapter four. Whether you have made any progress on that.
So on that note, I will ask article 37 is on the screen. In Article 37 in the informal we agreed in informal last night. Paragraph five. I would like to put it to the room that we agree this paragraph ad referendum. so agreed.
Paragraph six. We agreed in informal including subparagraphs A and B last night I put it to the room that we agree this paragraph add referendum. so agreed.
Paragraph seven we agreed in informal I put it to the room that we agreed add referendum so agreed.
Paragraph nine we agreed in informals. I put it that we agreed to add referendum so agreed.
Paragraph 11. We agreed in informal. I put it that we agree at referendum so agreed
paragraph 12 where it was agreed in informal I put it that we agree at referendum so agreed.
Paragraph 13 It was agreed in informal. I put it that we agree at referendum so agreed.
Paragraph 13 We agreed in informal I put it that we agree at referendum. So agreed.
Paragraph 14 We agreed in informal I put it that we agree it add referendum so agree In
paragraph 16, we agreed in informal I put it that we agree at referendum. So agreed.
Paragraph 17. We agreed in informal I put it that we agree at referendum. So agreed.
And paragraph 20, we agreed at referendum. And I put in formal and now I put it to you to agree at referendum. So agreed.
We then agreed in article 39. To agree paragraph two. In informal, I put it to you that we agree this ad referendum. So, agreed. Thank you. I'm sure our consistency group colleagues will have lots to work on now that they have some text. I would now like to turn to some of the articles that we were discussing last night. And some of the proposals that were made by delegates in the room
turning first article 37, paragraph one. Is it possible to show it without the that that's just so they can see the whole thing? Yeah, that's okay. So in regards to this paragraph, last night, we had a proposal to delete the words in the middle of the paragraph by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least one year, this proposal was made, because there was identified an issue between paragraphs one and paragraphs eight of this article that may, in fact, provide or create some conflict in the interpretation of this article, because paragraph one talks about a specific maximum deprivation of liberty, whereas paragraph eight, leaves that to the discretion of the conditions and provided by the domestic law of a requested state party. We had some discussion about this. There were some countries who supported this deletion, some countries who opposed I think, from our perspective, up here, the discretion, subject to the domestic law in paragraph eight provides the discretion for those countries who were worried about deleting the maximum deprivation of liberty of at least one year to still be able to include that in their own domestic frameworks, and therefore not impacting existing domestic legal requirements. It seems that this proposal to delete this text resolves a conflict in the text. And I would be interested, and I put it to you that it may not have too much legal bearing. And I would ask you to consider very closely whether you can agree to this deletion. Given that it does include in paragraph eight conditions under domestic law, which would also, if necessary, cover this issue.
The second proposal that we had two, paragraph one was to delete the final phrase and replace it with in accordance with domestic law. This would delete the requirement for a minimum or a maximum period of sentence that remains to be served. We had no opposition to this proposal. Again, this provides discretion to all countries to work within their own legal frameworks and make sure that your own domestic processes can in fact take care of these issues. I put it to you that perhaps we can agree to this deletion because it provides that discretion. While you are considering those two amendments I would like to move us down to Article 37, paragraph 18.
In regards to this paragraph, we had some debate about whether or not to delete the last phrase. That is the phrase including any reason for refusal of extradition. We had very stark divergence on both sides with not really anything in the middle, I would like to propose to you that we try and add some discretion and middle ground here. And so I have a proposal for you that we include the words were appropriate before that after the word, including so that if you can type this up the requested state party, so it would read the requested state party shall inform the requested state party of its decision with regard to the extradition including where appropriate, any reason for refusal of extradition. We can make that read as well, because it's not text. This is a suggestion to try and get us to move forward from this issue, and not come back to it. I will welcome your thoughts on this proposal. Once I finished with the other ones.
In Article 40, we had a considerable discussion around the first paragraph of this article. I think the room was all in agreement that the way that this first paragraph starts does make it difficult, it's not the right way to start necessarily this article given that it does start with a very clear reference to legal persons. And that could be misinterpreted for the entire article, not just this paragraph one to apply only to legal persons. So we had several options put forward to resolve this issue. There on the screen. Now the first option is to reinsert the old paragraph one. So this is the paragraph one from the original text that we discussed in ASC six. The second option was put forward to include a phrase into the art the current draft text, paragraph one, so that it would read established in accordance with and bracketing articles six to 16, because at the moment, I don't want to open that debate. This convention, including offenses for which a legal person may be held liable. So it's taking away the first reference being to a legal person, and including before that established in accordance with Article Six to 16 bracketed this convention, including offenses for which a legal person may be held liable. So perhaps if we can highlight the addition from the European Union, so that we can see the difference between option two and existing.
So the change would be to the existing paragraph one of article 40, would be to add this phrase. The third option that we had to resolve this issue was to move existing paragraph one somewhere else, we don't yet have a place to move it but potentially not opening this article with the existing paragraph one. I will invite you to please, when you take the floor, I would be very keen to hear your preference of these options without too much justification because we do have to get through a lot but I'm very keen to hear from you whether these options might satisfy this issue, and if so, which one you consider most appropriate?
Then in article 40, paragraph two, we had a proposal here to replace the words evidentiary items with the word evidence That's we didn't hear any opposition to this proposal in the interest of time, and also to accommodate all of the interests going forward, I would suggest we include all of those. So that the paragraph would read providing information, evidentiary items, evidence and expert evaluations. Comment evidence. This is a chairs proposal. And I will invite comments on whether this satisfies the issues that were raised without causing too many problems from a legal interpretive position. Finally, in article 40, paragraph 14, H en o f. Sorry. Yeah. So we had a proposal to delete here, the reference to a time period with some compelling reasons given and then we had a proposal for making the time period discretionary, to allow for the time period to be included or not included in the request. So and to split out the paragraph, so that we would have where applicable, the time period for which evidence information and other assistance is sought. And then an additional sub paragraph that pulls the purpose out. So the purpose for which evidence information and other assistance is sought. Does it appears to be a sensible way forward. And I would like to gauge your opinions on whether you can agree to this change.
That concludes the proposals coming from the chair for agreement, I am going to open the floor to continue our discussions. If you'd like to take the floor on any of these proposals, please do so now. But I would ask you to be brief, as we do have only a number of not too much time. And if you are comfortable just providing your opinion on the options put forward briefly in your interventions on Article 41 Then we can move directly to article 41. But I will open the floor and these proposals now. Secretariat has reminded me we had another proposal put forward in this article that had some support and no opposition. And that was in paragraph 14 E. And that was to replace the words country of origin with nationality. I believe the reasoning for this was that it was consistent with other international legal obligations and instruments. So I also invite comments on whether we can agree to this change. I can see you all thinking very, very hard. So I will let you consider these proposals. But I will we do need to make progress and we did need to agree some things. So while you were thinking about these, I will now move on to article 41. And I open the floor for consideration of article 41.
United States you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. In Article 41 The United States has concerns about paragraph one of this article. And specifically, we're concerned about the scope here. I think though this may not have been the intention for the changes from the previous draft to this draft. And I think this change was intended to simplify the text and provide. I think for more clarity, unfortunately, I think we think that this does the opposite. As written right now, paragraph one expands the scope of the 24/7 networks who that covered the procedures covered by article 35 of this convention. Article 35, of course covers the entire international cooperation chapter, including extradition, mutual legal assistance, international cooperation for the purposes of confiscation and more scoping the 24/7 network in this broad manner would create conflicts with other articles, including the articles on mutual legal assistance and extradition, which set forth specific authorities that need to be used and specific channels. So again, we think that this would create a lot of confusion. We also think that this would place the scope of the 24/7 network in conflict with those other articles and also with other international cooperation mechanisms in other UN criminal justice instruments. We are also concerned that this would create added burdens. When we first considered this establishment of a 24/7 network under the convention, we heard many states express concern about capacity to manage a 24/7 network and expanding the convention to be this broad, would certainly add additional burdens. Our proposal here would be to go back to the language that was in the previous draft for the scope here and removing the procedure is covered by article 35 of this convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much United States, I have India to be followed by Japan. And do you have the floor?
Thank you, Madam Chair. In your proposals to add a new sub paragraph under Article 41 three, which would read as following, ie, the rendering inaccessible of computer data, class digital information, pursuant to subparagraph D of paragraph three of article 28. Madam Chair, under this draft convention, that 24/7 network would serve as a very swift channel for global collaboration, enabling prompt response on urgent issues. neglecting its use for addressing our most critical need, would be doing a disservice to ourselves. Phishing stands out as the predominant cyber crime globally, consistently being identified by reports from the FBI, the Europol the Interpol and other law enforcement agencies, delegates. consulting practices, would recognize phishing as the most significant threat vector in their respective jurisdiction. The current articles in the art etc in the present state appear inadequate in tackling our single largest concern. Effectively combating phishing involves swiftly rendering phishing links inaccessible, and identifying the abuse it resources and the malicious persons behind them. This dual strategy would prevent further offenses from happening using the same resources and also informs the requested state about the vulnerable IT resources and the malicious actors present in their territory. We propose utilizing the 24/7 network under Article 41 to promptly inform the requested state about the identified URLs and websites. And the requested state upon verification can take appropriate action in accordance with its domestic law, contributing to building resilience against such abuse over time. The decision to render the resources in Excel lies with the request state acknowledged under Article 28 Three akin to the provisions of child sexual exploitation material in article 34 Six, while article 4147 one F facilitates information exchange between law enforcement agencies, it lacks a practical mechanism. Time sensitivity in dealing with offenses like CCM, CCM nonconsensual, intimate images or fishing necessitates incorporating the words rendering inaccessible provision under the 24/7 mechanism. That's what we are proposing article 41 Three II. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, India. So far this morning. We've had two proposals, one for the United States to re insert the old scope in paragraph one. And now from India a new sub paragraph to add to the rendering inaccessible of computer data in relation to Article 28. 3d, thank you very much. I invite colleagues, please to consider these proposals and include any reactions to them in your interventions. I have Japan to be followed by the Russian Federation, Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning, everyone. Japan shares the concern raised by the United States, and we therefore support the United States proposal. Thank you.
Thank you, Japan, Russia to be followed by Singapore.
Good morning colleagues. We would like to note that para one, it's true that the content of the article is a link to article 35. And since this time, we don't know yet will be the scope of article 35. We would also like to reserve our position on this paragraph of this article. On paragraph three, on the proposal of India, we would like to support it and think this would be useful for the purpose of suppressing criminal activity, or preventing it. Thank you.
Thank you very much Russia, Singapore to be followed by Georgia, Singapore, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning to everyone. We joined the distinguished delegation of the United States and Japan in our concerns on the scope. We have concerns of course with regard to the potential impact of the scope in relation to our own local law enforcement resources and the 24/7 network. And therefore, we also would like to support the call to have the references to Article Six through 16 reinserted in this particular article 41. One way that we could potentially move forward is something I propose that in lieu of dimension of article 35, which the US delegation had concerns with, to replace that with a mention of chapter five, which therefore then scopes the application of this article to chapter five. But of course, this is this is also on the proviso that references to Article Six through 16. Be repriced throughout this chapter five. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much sample for that suggestion, Georgia to be followed by a United Kingdom, Georgia, you have the floor.
Thank you. Chair George also supports the United States proposal as to the sculpting we share the same concerns or the resource constraints. Thank you.
Thank you, Georgia, United Kingdom you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We also would share the same concerns as those raised by the US regarding 41 One, which you would support reinserting, the previous version of paragraph one to make sure that the scope of the network is clear and is focused on preserving evidence. Thank you.
Thank you very much United Kingdom, Israel. You have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. We'd like to register our support to the American proposal. Thank you
Thank you Israel, Albania, you have the floor.
Thank you. Albania deserves to be to join the all the states that support the proposal of United States thanks.
Thank you Albania. I have New Zealand to be followed by Canada.
Thank you chair. And we also have significant concerns with the way this article is currently drafted. And we have consistently noted our concern regarding the scope of this convention, and the potential resource burdens such a broad scope would entail. We want a well functioning 24/7 network that is focused on the primary purpose of this convention, namely assisting in combating the offenses established by the convention. If we do not properly scope this article, we're setting it up to fail, it will be overwhelmed and result in a cumbersome system. So we can support the proposal of the United States to ensure this article is properly scoped. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, New Zealand, Canada to be followed by Brazil.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Like others, we share the concerns raised by the US delegation. There's a real potential here to overburden our 24/7 network based on the current text. Canada supports the US proposal To Change paragraph one. Thank you.
Thank you, Canada, Brazil to be followed by Iceland.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We also share the concerns of overburdening the 24/7 network shared by other delegations. So we would also support reverting to the previous wording of this paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you, Brazil, Iceland to be followed by Argentina.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Iceland continues to be concerned about the scope of this convention. And, in addition, we have capacity concerns. So we wholeheartedly support this proposal from the US. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Iceland, Argentina to be followed by Norway.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Urgent Tina would look to her virginity and in the list of countries that supports the proposal of the United States.
Thank you and Tina, no way to be followed by the Republic of Moldova, Norway.
Thank you chair. Norway also supports that suggestion by the United States in paragraph one. Thank you.
Republic of Moldova to be followed by Paraguay.
Thank you, Madam Chair in line with the other delegations supporting the US proposal on the issue of overburdening especially for small administrations. Thank you.
Thank you Moldova paragraph to be followed by Senegal. See,
good morning. Paraguay also supports the proposal of the United States with regard to the first paragraph of Article 41. Thank
you. Thank you, Paraguay, Senegal to be followed by the European Union.
Thank you, Madam Chair Senegal, would like to support the US position on the scope of the provisions of article 41 as well as the proposal of India to incorporate in the measures to take the inaccessibility of data. Thank you.
Thank you very much Senegal, European Union to be followed by Costa Rica.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Like the previous speakers, we would like also to come in support of the proposal made by the US for reasons which have been expressed, ie the risk of abandoning the 24/7 network, which has to be focused on the tasks described, currently. Thank you.
Thank you, European Union, Costa Rica to be followed by Switzerland.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Costa Rica. For the reasons outlined by the United States supports change in amendment in article 41, as the US has proposed, thank you.
Thank you, Costa Rica, Switzerland to be followed by Panama.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We do support scope to be more narrow, just as mentioned by the US Thank you.
Thank you since then, Panama to be followed by Jamaica.
Yes, Panama also supports a proposal of the United States.
Jamaica to be followed by Colombia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. CARICOM supports the proposal made by the US to revert to the original text regarding article 41. Paragraph one. Thank you.
Thank you very much to make her on behalf of CARICOM, Colombia to be followed by Papa New Guinea. Gracias.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation would like to echo the concerns expressed by the United States with regard to article 41. And we support their proposal to return to the previous version of the article. Thank you.
Thank you very much Papua New Guinea to be followed by Central African Republic. Madam
Vice Chair of Papua New Guinea supports the American proposal for the 1.101 you can also suppose the proposal by India and 41.4 Thank you.
Thank you very much Papa New Guinea, Central African Republic to be followed by Peru.
Maxima. Thank you, madam. The delegation of the Central African Republic would also like to join the list of countries to support the proposal the United States Senator article 41
Thank you very much Central African Republic, Peru to be followed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Peru, you have the floor.
Good. Good morning. We support also proposal the United States. And we share the concerns regarding the changes that have been proposed.
Thank you so much, Peru, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation would like to retain this Arctic this paragraph of Article 41 As it is, thank you.
Thank you very much Iran. You I've asked the Secretary to put this proposal up on the screen from the old text so that you can see what we're talking about. It includes square brackets, because I don't want to get into the debate on the article and the question about whether or not we include Article Six to 16, or references to article 17 At this point, so please refrain from commenting on that part of this proposal at this time. But I would like you to see it on the screen. I have chili requesting the floor chili, you have the floor, which I got.
Thank you, madam chair on this topic, our delegation. As as requested by the United States, we'd like to go back to the original text app for the reasons why and by the United States. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chile, Ecuador. You have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, madam. We also would support the US proposal to return to the original version.
Please ignore the version on the screen right now. It is in fact, the wrong version. We are just fixing that. While we are fixing that. We will hear from Mauritania to be followed by the Russian Federation Mauritania, you have the floor? Mauretania whether you like the floor
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everybody. My delegation agrees with going back to the previous formulation of paragraph one of article 41. Thank you.
Thank you very much Mauritania, Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I won't comment on the scope of this paragraph. I just wanted to add that the Russian Federation had earlier proposed not only for the purpose of investigating prosecution, to use a point of contact but also for the purpose of countering or preventing criminal activity and the proposal of India I think, speaks to that. prevention. Prevention definitely must be present in this paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you much. Thank you, Russian Federation. So I take the proposing to add the word prevention into this paragraph as they came in.
That's precisely
Distinguished Delegates, we have had proposals this morning regarding article 41. To revert to the old texts I have heard overwhelming support for that proposal with minimal opposition. I wonder whether those opposing could consider withdrawing that opposition given the overwhelming support for reverting to this article paragraph in the room?
You I have requests for the floor from Kazakhstan and Cameroon Kazakhstan you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support in this proposal in this proposal, the adding the word prevention Thank you.
Thank you very much. Kazakhstan at Cameroon, you have the floor. Merci.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know if at this stage, I can make a comment on Article 37. Is it possible?
Yes, absolutely. If you would like to go to article 37. I hope you are responding to the proposals that I put forward this morning.
For my delegation, there's a problem of coherence between art paragraphs five, six and seven of that article. So my delegation was suggesting in paragraph five, we should say, this convention is the legal basis for a solution in respect of any offices to which article applies. Sis six, somebody shall have to say having said Shall we should say I'm better that it on eBay. And B, we should limit ourselves to saying I want to do the also the bloody conclude treaties and extradition with other states parties to this convention in order to implement this article. So we limit ourselves to that, because when we say above shall, and then this won't be we say, if they do not take this convention. It is linguistically just makes no sense as better to say the state party that makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall conclude, but a b2b got small based on integration in with other data that see No. Otherwise. It might be considered that small five will be included in imperative six. This is just in terms of sequence of concerns along the same lines. My delegation is wondering But the relevance of paragraph seven because a man who says that states parties that do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize offenses to which this article applies as extradition, extraditable offenses between yourselves and well of course, because this convention is establishes a legal framework on the basis of which offenses will be punished in small 11 Paragraph 11 is a terminology that is less troubling. We say the microphone is gonna
i My apologies your microphone has switched off Because of the three minute time limit, but I do want to give you the time to complete your proposal. So if Cameron could be given the floor, thank you. Okay.
That was the last point I wanted to make our paragraph 11 The set of the same word in wars territory and alleged offense, offender is found. If it does not a study that the DA be obliged to submit, be applied such a law that is this is very complicated language in law to be obliged. Notice without undue delay seeking to be how can you be obliged? How can you oblige a state? This is language that legally speaking is unfounded. So my delegation suggests that we remove obliged and say seeking extradition submit the case without undue delay to its competent authorities. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Cameron, for pointing out these issues. I do want to draw your attention to two points here. First of all, these articles drawn verbatim from I believe, UNTOC. So they have been lifted and dropped in here. In relation to untuck. I am not an authority on how untuck works in practice, if there is someone in the room who is who would like to explain how that works in relation to these articles. I welcome that. The other point I will make is that these paragraphs, we agreed at referendum this morning. I wonder whether it's a particularly the points you made regarding paragraphs five and six. So that might be a linguistic issue rather than a legal issue. I note the point you made on paragraph 11 is of difference substance. I would like us to be able to continue to have these articles already agreed at referendum because we have already done that. And the secretariat is sending every paragraph that we agree at referendum directly to Vienna, to be able to be translated so that it can go straight to the consistency group. So as soon as we do that, it flies away and goes and does something else. And if it is a linguistic issue, then that is something that can be addressed in Translation by the consistency group. Cameroon, would you like to I give you the the opportunity to respond to that. You can think for a moment I have two requests for the floor. Belarus and then Azerbaijan Belarus, you have the floor.
Good morning, Chair. And thank you for giving me the floor. I want to return to article 41. I want to set out Belarus's position for the record that we welcome measure prevention measures crime prevention measures. Together with the proposals already made by Russia, India and Kazakhstan, thank you very much.
Thank you very much Belarus, Azerbaijan, you have the floor.
Madam Chair, we propose an amendment to article 39 paragraph one. The current language says offense established in accordance with this convention is insufficient in the face of emerging threats. We propose to change this term to offense committed through a computer system. The current framework, including instruments like ontech primarily addresses organized crime however, the landscape of crime has evolved cyber enabled crimes often perpetrated by individuals or small groups. can have far reaching and devastating effects transcending traditional notions of organized crime. These clients pose unique challenges. jurisdictional conflicts such as pastor personality principle, and issues around Iran personal or territorial jurisdiction, often hindered effective prosecution of these crimes. The proposed amendment aims to mitigate these challenges by defining cyber dependent and cyber enabled crimes committed through a computer system within article 39. We can facilitate the transfer of criminal proceeding in the cases that does not necessarily fit the mold of traditional organized crime. In practice, we have witnessed numerous instances where this legal gap has hindered justice. Take for instance, cases of extortion through social networks by a single perpetrator upgrading across borders through a computer system. Such cases often fall outside the scope of current international legal frameworks for transfer proceedings. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much, John, for that proposal, I invite reactions to that proposal in article 38. Molly, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Molly supports the proposal of including prevention and article 41. Thank you.
Thank you very much Molly. New Zealand to be followed by the United States. New Zealand, do you have the floor?
Thank you, Chair, I'm sorry to turn back to article 41. Because when we intervene before the alternate takes was not on the screen. And I know you have asked us not to address article 17 Because that's ongoing in other rooms. But I do want to be clear about our position here. Because looking at that text, there could be some confusion that Our preference would be to finish the sentence at with in accordance with Article Six to 16 of this convention. So we would not support the reference that says as well as off serious crime and in on from there, I just want to be very clear, in our position. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much New Zealand. Yes, we scrub back at it. The reference to articles extend but have not square bracketed the reference to Serious Crime as that was in the original proposal for article 41. But your position is noted United States, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, just like we'd like to address the other proposals for edits to article 41. First, the United States cannot support India's proposed addition to the duties of the 24/7 network. We believe that this proposal would again overburden the 24/7 network and essentially require law enforcement to open an investigation for every referral for a takedown investigate the referral. This would be essentially exporting the criminal investigation to the 24/7 network of the other country, it could be that the other country may even need to go to court to get a takedown order. We believe that this is not an appropriate function for the 24/7 network. We also believe that this would impair the ability of the 24/7 network to undertake the other important duties set forth in this chapter, particularly preservation of electronic evidence. So therefore, we would oppose this addition. The United States also opposes the Russian proposal to include prevention in the scope of article 41. We believe that this does not comport with the appropriate scope of the international cooperation chapter or the duties of the 24/7 Network. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, United States Rwanda, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, one load right to support the old article 41 para one, but we would write to, for it to end article in accordance with Article Six to 16 of this convention. We would like to see as well as of serious crime to be removed from there and would like to serve to support the war Adding the adding the word of prevention in this article. Thank you Madam Chair
Thank you very much for Lenda Russian Federation, you have the floor
Yeah, thank you. I want to object to the fact that prevention runs counter to the essence of this article. This is because if you look at paragraph three of this, Article Three D also states a task, the provision of information to avert an emergency What is this? If not prevention? What else could we be doing? I have another objection to it concerns the New Zealand proposal, which I oppose, it wanted to remove in para two. After mentioning all the other measures, because for the 2007 network, the one of the main tasks is to collect and preserve electronic evidence if we remove that, then what will happen is that paragraph one will not be fully in keeping with the purposes in paragraph three
is so much Russian Federation. I'm going to ask New Zealand to clarify I read the New Zealand proposal is to delete after the second reference to Article Six to 16. Not the first reference to article 1616. So that it would still include the collection obtaining preservation and sharing of evidence in electronic form. But you're right there is a little bit of confusion there. New Zealand. Can I ask you to clarify New Zealand has the floor?
Thank you Chair. Yes, Your understanding is correct. So we wouldn't, we would end the sentence at the second reference. So we would just remove from as well as of serious crime and the rest of that sentence. So we would include the reference to collection obtaining preservation and sharing that would all remain but simply for the article six to 16. Is that clear?
That is clear to me, Russia. Is that clear to you? I assume that you still would like to retain serious crime. But I am glad that we're all in agreement that the 24/7 network may be able to collect, obtain, preserve and share electronic evidence for something. Yes. Good. All right, Australia, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. We support the proposal to amend the scope of this article two offenses covered by the convention. For the reasons already explained, we do not support any other proposals to amend this article. Turning to and in response to seeking views on previous proposals from last night's informals. If I can go back to article 37. We can agree to the deletion of the maximum deprivation and just leave it in accordance with domestic law. We can also agree to the UK is proposal in paragraph one. Turning out just in response to the purpose. The proposals in relation to paragraphs five, six and seven of article 37 just re reiterating our support for those proposals as already agreed. In relation to Article 37, paragraph 18. We can agree to the addition of were appropriate. This addresses our concerns in relation to paragraph 40. In terms of the paragraph one we can agree to either of those proposals put forward and sorry to take you back to simulation to Article 39 also reiterating our agreement to that article as drafted. And then in relation to Article 40, paragraph 14, we can accept the proposals in relation to that paragraph. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Australia or Russia, you have the floor to be followed by it.
Yes, we understood what New Zealand was referring to, with regard to those crimes. But we want to continue discussing the scope of this point. And we would still like to leave it the way it was. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Russia, Egypt to follow by Iceland, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We are now commenting on Article 37. Right.
If you're commenting on the proposals that we've put forward in order to try and resolve some of the issues last night, yes. Otherwise, we're also talking about article 41. But if you would like to comment on the proposals, I very much welcome your intervention.
Okay, so thank you. So with regards to article 37. In the first paragraph, we would like to delete the part that says by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least one year. And in paragraph four, towards the end of the paragraph, we would like to add a state party whose low, so permit, in case, in case if it uses this convention, as the basis for extradition, shall not consider any of these offenses established in accordance with this convention to be a political offense. This comes from UNCAC article 44. For
Egypt, I'm sorry, I'm going to interrupt you, because we did go through this last night. And we have taken note of those proposals during our time last night, so they're not up on the screen, because the ones up on the screen are the ones coming from me that I think might be able to be considered for agreement. That one is still under consideration. I thank you for that proposal. Everyone heard your proposal and the details for that last night. There were several other proposals for new paragraphs in this article, and in others made last night that I would welcome your consideration of when we return to this paragraph in more detail, the thing that I am keen to understand from you in regards to the the articles that we discussed last night are whether those proposals for compromise, rather than proposals for new text which Egypt made, I think Argentina made a proposal that there were several others, those go away and think about, and we will revisit those. And I'm very keen for you to discuss that proposal with others to make sure that there is broad support for it or to find a way forward in that way. And I do encourage others who have made proposals for new texts to do that as well. In regards to article 37, and I believe 38 and 40. I put forward proposals in regards to at 18 and 38 and 41, giving you three options, two h and 14 F. Those are the ones that I'm keen to hear your thoughts on whether they are good middle ground options to take us forward. We have taken note, Egypt of your proposals made last night in addition to those so I welcome your comments on the proposals put forward by the chair for compromise. And if you have anything new, you'd like to add, that is very, very welcome. But I don't want to go through again this morning, what we went through in detail last night. So Egypt, you have the floor, if you have something new to say or would like to comment on the proposals for compromise. Thank you.
Thank you Chair for the for the explanation. And that was not the intention. So apologies. Apologies for that. And with regards to the new paragraphs, we're looking at them and we'll be coming back in due course. Thank you.
Thank you so much Egypt and I do encourage those of you who may not have been in the room last night to talk to colleagues around what we discussed last night. If you missed it, there were some very interesting proposals put on the table that it's important for you all to consider. Thank you so much Egypt on my list. I have Iceland to be followed by the United Kingdom, India and Argentina. Iceland, do you have the floor?
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, I wanted to come briefly back to the proposals in article 41. The reason being that Iceland might be technologically advanced, but we are a small government employing few people and we have serious capacity concerns. So I wanted to just confirm that our understanding of our support to the US proposal is the same as for New Zealand. So where we where we put the full stop, which will be after the 16th 16th of this convention, in the second time, we see it. And I would have to add that unfortunately, for the same reasons I gave before we would not be able to support proposals for additions on prevention. Thank you.
Thank you, Iceland, United Kingdom you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We also wanted to very quickly reacted to India's proposal on 41 article 41 para three sub Article II, like the US we would not be able to support these proposed additions. To us the risk is that by if we overburden the 24/7 network in this way, it limits the effectiveness that it has to undertake the important role of preservation. A similarly we also cannot support the Russian Federation's proposal to include prevention in article 41 paragraph one. Also an article 41 Paragraph 3d. As we have said, before, we reiterate our support for deletion of this provision, we don't support that the 27 network would be would assist by providing computer data to avert any emergency, we think this could be something for MLA to deal with. So we would support the deletion of 41 3d. And Madam Chair, since I have the floor, I'd also like to go back to the proposed to your proposals from earlier this morning. On article 37, paragraph 18, we can support your way forward on Article 40, paragraph one, we have a preference for option one. But that being said, we are still considering option two and listening to the room. But of course for us both of these are subject to separate discussions on scope, on Article 14, paragraph 14, e, f and f pace, we can support your suggested changes. Thank you.
Thank you very much United Kingdom, India to be followed by Argentina, India, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the countries which feel that including our suggestion for prevention would involve more resources. I would like to say that prevention would always make a better economic sense. Because if the offense is not prevented, and it occurs, you would be needing multiple, multiple times the resources that you saved in the process of evidence collection, prosecution, extradition, and so on. So it's better to prevent a rather than to spend multiple times the same resources that we were trying to save in going through the whole process of Criminal Justice. Thank you.
Thank you very much, India, I have Argentina to be followed by the European Union, Argentina, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding the proposals on Article 41, on the 24/7 network, Arjun, Tina would like to object to the inclusion of D and the proposal of India. And I'd like to reiterate our support for the new paragraph one with the understanding is sharing of concerns some preliminary information beef prior to a request for poorly international legal assistance with without linking it linking it to preservation. We're talking about we're talking about sharing of of some preliminary information. As far as what we were discussing yesterday, I'm grateful to for your proposal of bridging our position in particular to the need for providing reasons for the provision of assistance. Argentina thinks that we understand I mean, we understand the reasons that for the United States explained yesterday regarding from refuge where there's an international provision of specifically referring to that aspect, and we're grateful for the proposal of the chair that kind of brings us closer, however, while we can be flexible, when appropriate, we would like to offer an alternative drafting. And it would be to make this this, this situation of not providing explanations are an exception rather than being the rule. So the language would be.
didn t need your microphone I can see is about to shut off. So I'm going to ask you to press it again. And I'm gonna give you the to have the the equal pass
Unless there is a international legal basis not to do so. Thank you, madam.
Thank you so much Argentina. For that proposal, I invite you all to consider that one. My understanding from from our peers the same as yours. The issue with the obligatory nature of providing reasons is that it may be in conflict with other obligations under international law, including the obligation of non refoulement. So I asked those countries who were calling for deletion of this last phrase, whether the proposal put forward by Argentina, or some other slight tweaking of that wording to make sure we are referring to international legal obligations appropriately, is something that could be considered. I will leave that with you for a moment. And I will give the floor to the European Union to be followed by the Russian Federation, eu you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to article 41. For the reasons we have already expressed, we would like to object to the extension of the scope of the network to prevention, and also to the proposal made by India to expand that that scope. Again, we should not overburden the network. And make sure that it can work efficiently. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, European Union Russian Federation to be followed by Canada Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you for giving me the floor once more. Want to respond to the concept of the overburdening of the network. In essence, we're working on this convention here. We're working on this highly relevant normative document. The reason we're doing that is to mobilize efforts to combat these phenomena, which are so widespread that there's a need to strengthen resources and mobilization. So strengthening the 24/7 network. So we're talking about that in the following paragraphs of this article. So those countries that are telling us that we don't need to burden the 24/7 network and I view we need to burden it. We need to burden it with new tasks that will be in keeping with realities. I have a second point. Concerning that sub para de is proposed to be delete. So this is a 24/7 network needs to work 20 24/7 That's what I wanted to say. Thank you.
Thank you very much Russian Federation, I have candidate to be followed by Georgia, Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We want to thank you for the proposals, and we will comment on them. So on 37, paragraph one, and 18 Canada can support your proposal. And on Article 40, paragraph one, Our preference would be for option two. And we can support your proposal for 14 Paragraph of 40, paragraph 14 E, F and Fs as well as your proposed proposal on paragraph 14. With respect to article 41. We agree with New Zealand that the first paragraph in 41 should be limited to articles six to 16, including the collection and sharing of electronic evidence for those offenses. We do not support the proposal by India for a new paragraph 41.3. And we do not support the proposal to add prevention in article 41. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Canada, Georgia to be followed by Malaysia, Georgia, you have the floor.
Thank you Chair if I can get back to article 37. Last night, we support the deletion of last part of paragraph 18 which concerns the requirements for giving reasons when extradition is refused. We think to distinguished delegates of Argentina, we can work with that proposal, it's specific. And so we can make grounds for giving grounds for refusal as conditional to international law bases, we could also work where appropriate. As regards paragraph one of the same article yesterday we oppose the deletion of minimum penalty threshold and replacement with domestic law bases. We can drop our position as regards article 41. We cannot agree with extension of 24/7 mandate to prevention. As previously stated till we have severe resource constraints, similarly to Iceland and many other countries. And adding prevention would cause floods of hypothetical cases where no specific and concrete steps are taken towards crime. That's from Georgia. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Georgia, and for showing that flexibility. Malaysia you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. In relation to Article 37 sub para one. Malaysia has indicated yesterday and retreats again today that we can agree to delete the maximum deprovision. And we are also in support of the proposal by the UK and by Australia for in accordance with domestic laws. And for subparagraph 18 of article 37. We thank you madam chair for your proposal where appropriate and we can support that proposal. In the spirit of compromise. Malaysia is also agreeable to Argentina's proposal to add unless there's an additional legal basis to do so, we find that it will be a compromise between all member states in relation to Article 40 on ML II, Malaysia states our preference for the original draft, but to end after serious crimes, as we are also aware that Article Six of 16 and 17 is still being considered in the informants. And in relation to paragraph two Haish. We thank you madam chair in your proposal for adding evidence after evidentiary items we are agreeable to that. And in relation to subparagraphs 14 II we are agreeable to Singapore's proposal on nationality. And lastly on 14 F. We are also agreeable to split time period and purpose into two different formulations. Lastly on Article 41, Malaysia is still considering the proposal and we will get back to you on that. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you so much Malaysia for running through those proposals was very helpful. I have on my list Sierra Leone to be followed by the Russian Federation and the United States. Sierra Leone, you have the floor. Thank
you, Madam Chair. Thank you Madam Chair concerning article 41. Sally would like to support the end the tension of the previous edition of the text, but would like it to stop at us at of this convention, as indicated by New Zealand, we will also like to retain by a CD of the same article, as it is currently eating. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Sierra Leone, Russian Federation to be followed by the United States, Russia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, on articles, 37 and 40. We're grateful for these solutions you have offered and we support all of them on both those articles, except for one, which I will explain. As far as our article 40, we suggest moving first paragraph and make it a paragraph number three, with all the shifting all the other paragraphs as well. Now, what we category categorically cannot agree with is the proposed solution on paragraph 18, of article 37. The proposed language as appropriate, doesn't give us anything much it makes obligations non obligatory, which should not be the case. And, of course, in addition to what we said yesterday, it undermines the the the the the the principal, the the fundamental principle of cooperation on criminal on criminal cases, which is enshrined in all global legal instruments. And which, as I said, is an is an inalienable principle and which up to Yes, last night, didn't bother anyone, because it has been reflected for decades in the text of international instruments. The the issue, the point is that the reasons the reasons for the refusal of the requesting state is correspond to the to the grounds for refusal, which are mentioned in the treaties, if we we talk about the fact that we will not provide reasons for the refusal, then why should we have the the institution of providing grounds for refusal? If if the requesting said if we're not if we don't have to provide reasons for the refusal? Why should there be this requirement for providing grounds and the third point, the proposal of Argentina is also unacceptable for us, we don't know any international obligations, which would prevent or be an obstacle to providing the reasons nothing. Nothing prevents, prevents providing reasons, we certainly don't know any such any such grounds that would contradict the the obligation to provide reasons Thank you. Thank you very much.
I'm getting out my notes that tells me where these articles actually come from. Because I think that I want to make sure that I agree with the premise on which you're basing that, that if others who know untuck or uncut CAC better want to come in, please let me know. But I think from what I've heard, the issue is issues like non refoulement, which is an international legal obligation, and we want to make sure that this convention is not in any way in conflict with other international legal obligations. And so that is why potentially Argentina's proposal, which makes sure that we are respecting all international legal obligations, in the way that we're constructing this Convention does seem from here to be a constructive way forward, but I understand that You have an objection to that proposal. And I think it would be helpful if others who know untuck or UNCAC, or other mutual legal assistance, and international cooperation instruments better than I do. If you can advise whether or not this proposal to provide reasons is obligatory in those instruments that would be helpful for us to move forward on this point. Thank you, I give the floor now to the United States.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And perhaps we'll start with the question that you just asked on the changes to article 37 on extradition paragraph 18. There, we would note that this article on extradition does come almost verbatim from untuck and UNCAC. And the untuck and the UNCAC contain no such provision, providing a requirement that there'll be a reason given for a denial of extradition. So, in fact, this provision is would be unprecedented here and a un criminal justice instrument. In terms of the edits that have been proposed for this paragraph, we can support the chairs proposal for the edit of including where appropriate, we can also support Argentina's proposal as as a way forward here, we would note that we do routinely provide as the United States reasons for denial of extradition. However, we do believe that it is important that we include the ability for exceptions here, as you just explained, as well for non refoulement obligations. Moving to the other proposals put forward on Article 37, paragraph one, we can accept both of the changes that have been provided proposed for this paragraph that deletion of by a maximum deprivation of liberty, and also the UK its proposal at the end of the paragraph. And moving to article 40, paragraph 14, the United States can support all of the changes in paragraph e subparagraph, II sub paragraph F and sub paragraph at this. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much United States. Colleagues, we have a little over an hour to make her way through the rest of this chapter. So I am going to move on to article 42. Now because I have no more requests for the floor, but I do still invite responses and reactions to those proposals that have been put forward here. And in particular, those ones that we are trying to solve those naughty issues, because we do need to solve them by the end of the week. So I do urge you to consider compromise, where at all possible. Malaysia, you have asked for the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry for the last minute intervention before we move to article 42. Malaysia would like to go back to article 41. I've just received an update on it. And Malaysia would like to state that we agree to reverting back to the old draft. Yes, we agree to review them better or draft subject to the arguments and deliberations on scope, which is still ongoing. Malaysia also would like to state its support to add the addition of prevention. And, and also the proposal by distinguished delegates from India. We are of the view that adding the additional new paragraph II will widen the application and Malaysia is agreeable to that. And we look forward to assisting in that sense. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. Malaysia, El Salvador, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. Just very briefly, I'd like to return to paragraph of Article 37, paragraph 18. And I'm this, I would like to express the support of my delegation for the proposal of Argentina. And in particular, based on the practice we have in El Salvador, the extradition regime is carried out through bilateral or multilateral instruments that this date signs up to in the free exercise of its sovereignty. Since these are sources of international law, we also consider that the proposal of Argentina allows for a balanced way to respect to the obligation to inform, unless otherwise specified. And under international legal regime. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much El Salvador, I have Nigeria to be followed by Jamaica and Vietnam, Nigeria, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With your permission, Nigeria would like to make comments on Article 38. We could not do that yesterday. So if yes, for article 38, Nigeria would like to express our support for this revised draft, we would like to underscore the conversation that went on during the system session and this delegation strongly felt that we should have the relevant elements of rehabilitation reintegration of France of sentence persons, when they are transfer is being discussed. And we are glad that with the support of many member states, it was actually reflected in the device them text, we would like to also reiterate that this inclusion is actually a provision in article 41 of the Kyoto Declaration on advancing crime prevention, criminal justice and the rule of law towards the achievement of the 2030 agenda. And this was negotiated and agreed by consensus of member states only three years ago. So we felt that when the previous provision in non talk came up during that conversation four years ago, some delegations felt that there should be an improvement because the original proposal was on implementable given various reasons and circumstances and many members that felt there was no need to continue to persist in arrow. And there was consensus following a proposal by distinguished ambassador of United Kingdom. And that commission was chaired by Ambassador of Japan. And we had this very lofty proposal, and we are glad that he's made his way into this draft. So we would like to urge delegations to support this proposal. So it will be agreed. And it is also clear to us that few delegations who appear to be champions of human rights would perhaps to oppose human rights or particular kind of persons in this particular article. So we urge all member states to perhaps consider this proposal as agreed language only three years ago. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Nigeria. I think this is a very good point. And I would like to we have article 38. On the screen, we had some robust discussion on this last night. We have many countries in support of keeping the article as is, and we have quite a few countries also calling for deletion. And for those for clarity, it is of the phrase taking into consideration the rights of sentence persons and issues relating to consent, rehabilitation and re integration in that first sentence. I'm wondering whether this is another place where we might be able to add some flexibility in order to move forward. Is this something where we can play around with the language could we add a permissive nature to this clause rather than an obligatory nature? So that would be inserting where appropriate into this phrase, I would like to ask for any reactions to that proposal as well. And I think there are two places where this phrase might be able to be inserted. It could be step parties may taking into consideration come up where appropriate comma, the rights of sentence persons and issues relating to consent rehabilitation and reintegration. Or the alternative proposal could be state parties may taking into consideration the rights of sentence persons and comma where appropriate issues relating to consent rehabilitation and reintegration. They obviously have to separate and different meanings when they're interpreted as to which part is obligatory and which part is permissive. I would love us to be able to close this issue. And so adding a little bit of flexibility, maybe the way to get forward. So I will We'll add that to the list of things that I invite reactions to. In regards to this chapter on my list I have Jamaica Vietnam Cameroon, eu European Union and a cap of our day. To make it you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. CARICOM wishes to react to the proposal made in respect of article 37. Paragraph one, CARICOM can support the deletion of the words maximum deprivation of liberty. This we note that this the language used here may be inconsistent with the paragraph eight. And for clarity we support the deletion of those words. Terracom also supports the removal of the last part of that paragraph and replacing with according according to domestic law. In respect of article 37 Paragraph 18. CARICOM has looked at this paragraph in comparison to own COC, own COC and own talk, and we know that the requirements for refusal reason for refusal of extradition, it's unprecedented so CARICOM can support the deletion of the last words including any reason for refusal of extradition in this paragraph. In respect of article 40 paragraph one, CARICOM maintains that paragraph one is repetitive of that which is already said in 35, and the reinsertion of the old paragraph one is also redundant. However, madam chair you had asked last night if the there's any significant legal effect with its redundancy and characters position is that there is no legal effect. So CARICOM is committed to reaching a consensus so we can support the insertion of the old paragraph one and paragraph one as in in the revised text for that paragraph want to remain. Additionally, in respect of article 40, paragraph one. Sorry, article 40, paragraph 14 subparagraph II in respect of the amendment to the country of origin for that to be changed to nationality, CARICOM is flexible, and we can support that amendment. In relation to paragraph f, where the time period it was proposed to insert the words were applicable to offer some amount of flexibility to the interpretation and application of that paragraph. CARICOM can't support the insertion of those words. In respect to article 41 paragraph one, CARICOM does not support the insertion of any language in respect of prevention. CARICOM has listened carefully to the views of distinguished delegates, delegates, and the CARICOM is of the view that including any provision in relation to prevention, will overburden the 24/7 network. Additionally, the provision in Article paragraph three subparagraph D, that speaks to an emergency, and we believe that is distinguishable from a general prevention language in relation to general prevention. CARICOM notes that there is an entire chapter dedicated to preventative measures, and any language in relation to prevention should not be included in article 41. In respect of the proposal, Madam Chair made regarding paragraph 30 article 38. CARICOM needs some time to consider, thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much, Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM. I just wanted to clarify, in regards to article 3718. Is there a compromise proposal that you might be able to support you don't have to answer now? I know you're supported deletion of this proposal. This phrase given that it is not found in untuck or UNCAC. Is there a way that you would support But either the Argentinian proposal or the proposal from the chair to try and bridge that divide of must be in or must be out. I add that to the list of things I would love to hear your character's position on. Thank you. I have on my list Vietnam, Cameroon, European Union, Cabo Verde, United Republic of Tanzania and Georgia, Vietnam, you have the floor.
Thank you Chair for giving me the floor. Regarding article 37, paragraph 18. We support the proposal, the chair to add the term weigh appropriate to this paragraph. And regarding article 41, paragraph one, we support to we support the addition or prevention to this paragraph. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you so much Vietnam, Cameroon to be followed by the European Union.
Thank you, madam. As for article 38 my delegation wholeheartedly supports a position in Nigeria on this issue as for the proposal made by the chair of adding if if necessary or if this idea is already reflected in the text due to the presence of the term may may take into consideration the right that this person an issue raising concern to concern reliability rehabilitation, that was good. So I think that what is firmed here are were more like rights, the rest is subject to conditionality due to the presence of May so if we, if we add something else, like if necessary, something that will be redundant. Now as for paragraph 18, my delegation is in favor of leaving the text as it currently stands. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Cameroon at European Union to be followed by a cup of our day.
Thank you, Madam Chair, I would like to come back to article 38. And to the suggestion you made what got her into what the distinguished delegate from Cameroon said the May does not refer in my understanding to taking into consideration the rights of the sometimes person and the issues relating to consent rehabilitation and reintegration but to whether state parties want to enter or not into data maturity or agreements, but if they do it, then they should take into consideration the rights of certain persons on the issues relating to consult rehabilitation and reintegration. So now, let's be clear. The EU and its member states are fine with the first part in fact of the of the sentence we have absolutely no problem to take into consideration the rights of descendants person. So that can stay what we object is the wording and issues relating to consent rehabilitation and reintegration. So that's that would be my kind of alternative proposal to yours Madam Chair, keeping taking into consideration the rights of certain person which is perfectly fine and normal, but then deleting any issues relating to concern rehabilitation and reintegration, because that would I mean, again, parties, state parties should be free to agree on these issues or not. The other option that I would like to submit to the to the room is the will deletion of articles satiate because at the end of the day, this article, Antoine's Rafsanjan person is a May provision and it's interest for the Convention does not seem striking, I would say so that could perhaps be a nice way to solve our divergences. Just delete the article. If we cannot come to an agreement on on the three words, which are today consent, rehabilitation and reintegration. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much European Union for that explanation in regards to article 38, I do think it is. It is a tricky issue on language. What in this article is permissive and what is obligatory? And I asked others to consider the proposal from Canberra and the proposal from the chair and the proposal from the European Union. In relation to this article, I am loathe to suggest deleting articles a whole heartedly in one sweep. At this point in time, I do think that this article has been considered important by many delegations. So if we can fix it, let's try and do that. Before we move on to deleting things. Cap about a to b followed by Panama Kevin data, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We want to support article 37, borrow 18. As draft without any change. On article 38, we support it without any change. deleting it, it's changing the meaning of human rights. We support the article 40 Paragraph 14 sub f f as draft without any change. Thank you.
Thank you, Cabo Verde, Panama to be followed by Kenya, Panama, you have the floor. Yes,
we believe that the in paragraph one of paragraph 37. deprivation of liberty for at least a year. This deletion of this does not affect the text. So we would agree with this. Although we also see that article eight, paragraph eight subjects extradition to national legislation. As far as paragraph 18 of the same article, we also consider the proposal to include as appropriate, good idea, a good idea, but we would also be ready to support the proposal of Argentina if there's consensus around it. So we would be ready to support either one what we cannot accept is to eliminate the possibility of finding out the reasons for the denial as for article 40 Paragraph 14 e we consider nationality is more more accurate. That's a weird except that as well.
Thank you so much Panama, Kenya to be followed by the United Republic of Tanzania Kenya, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to paragraph 17 sub para one. We support the deletion of maximum deprivation of liberty and the addition of in accordance to domestic laws. With regard to para 38, article 38. We support Nigeria's position in article 40 sub para 1414 e. We support the addition of nationality. Same as f we support the where applicable. Article 14 One we don't support the inclusion of prevention. And with regard to the other article 17. We have We reserve our comments as the discussions are ongoing on that. Thank you
Thank you very much Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania to be followed by Namibia.
Thank you Madam Chair, if we may go back to article 38. It turns on I would like to support an eloquent submission made by a distinguished delegate of Nigeria and as well as the submission made yesterday during the and foremost by Cameroon. We understand in the previous session, there was debate around this particular provision, and it received the support of the majority. And Tanzania took into consideration article 41 of the Kyoto Declaration on advancing crime prevention, criminal justice and the rule of law. And we looked at the language in that particular article. And it is in line with the formulation of article 38. We understand this formulation is different from what is contained in Yutaka Newkirk, but again, this declaration came later in 2021. And it is the ongoing jurisprudence not only in the international community, but in almost all domestic laws of member states. And therefore, we would support the current text as proposed by chair we have taken into consideration the proposal, the the compromise proposals that you have made chair but we think it will defeat the whole purpose of the article. So, we will support the original text is currently drafted. Madam Chair, we would make also our submission with regards to paragraph 14 of article 40 in relation to the word nationality. Madam Chair, we in principle we support the alternative word nationality, however, we think we have we have a way to do that, because nationality only attaches to to the person does not attach to the item or accounts. And if you take out the word you take out completely the word country of origin it is in simply use the word nationality, it will not sit well with the remaining items, the remaining words of items and accounts. And we took into consideration the formulation in article in both Yun Kok and Yun talk where it uses the word nationality. But in both you can even talk it only talks of a person and therefore, nationality would sit well with the person but not with the item or accounts and therefore we would propose not using the alternative language of nationality, but
sorry, your microphone has been cut off, can I give you the floor back please to Tanzania Thank you.
Yeah. So to to to to to remove the ambiguity. We would propose not using the alternative word of nationality rather using both country of origin or nationality of any person, item or account so that the remaining components of item or accounts could use the previous qualifier for country of origin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Tanzania. So we have an alternate proposal for this subparagraph to include both nationality and country of origin rather than one or the other. I have no maybe a couple of hours a day and Switzerland, Namibia, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. Now maybe I would like also to take you back or speak on Article 37. I'm at COVID Seven Namibia support the inclusion of the proposal of in accordance with domestic law and then article 38. Now, I would also like to support the draft text is proposed or we would like also to support the Distinguished Delegates from Nigeria. Yes, the element of consent is very important to this convention and on Article 41. Now maybe I would like also to support the proposal by distinguished delegates from India on a I'm free to when they say they want to add a thank you Chair.
Thank you very much Namibia cover validate to be followed by Switzerland.
Thank you. Just support to the Tanzania's proposal on Article 4014 II.
Thank you so much Kevin Valdez, Switzerland to before followed by a Paraguay. Thank
you very much. We would like to come back to article 38. To what the EU suggested and explained, as far as we understand, the EU proposal tries to accommodate different views already, and would therefore want to emphasize our support as we to objective the new additions in this provision. And in article 41, very briefly, we could also not accept extension to prevention, and we want to keep the scope generally restricted as it was mentioned by New Zealand. Thank you.
Thank you, Switzerland, Paraguay to be followed by Japan. Paraguay, you have the floor. Thank you.
As far as article 37, paragraph 18. Paraguay supports the innovative proposal of Argentina to add what Argentinian colleagues suggested. Thank you.
Thank you so much Paraguay, Japan to be followed by Mauritania, Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you, Jer. I'm concerning. Article three to seven. Actually, we're flexible on the deletion of the word by a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least one year. But even if the words remit our word, those words are retained to paragraph. Paragraph one is not incompatible with paragraph eight, because paragraph one only provides for the basic scope of extraditable offenses, and paragraph eight is interpreted as allowing minimum penalties to be determined within the scope of paragraph one. But anyway, we're flexible, and we're happy to support the chairs proposal on Article 37 paragraph one. And going down to paragraph 37. Sorry, article 37, paragraph 18. Our preference would be deleting the last part, including any reason for refusal of extradition. But for the sake of consensus. We can also support your proposal inserting where appropriate. And on Article 40. For subparagraph, H, we're just not quite sure the differences between the evidentiary items and evidence because now I see that some you put those in one paragraph. So we're just wondering the differences between those. So it will be greatly appreciated if you could provide us some explanation about these differences. And going down to article 41. I'd like to add our voice to my previous speakers who did not support inclusion of prevention in this code above the paragraph one for the same for this set, same reason. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Japan. The proposal for replacing evidentiary items with the word evidence was made last night if you'd like to provide the reasons again, you're welcome to do so. The proposal for the chair was to include both in an effort towards consensus on my list I have Mauritania and Mali Mauritania, you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. My remarks concerns, paragraph one of article 37. Paragraph one of article 37. The third line the duration of the deprivation of liberty. In this formulation, it states by a maximum the provision of liberty of at least one year, my mark is concerning the phrase by a maximum, we suggest deleting by a maximum. So the provision of liberty of at least one year we suggest the deletion of by a maximum maximum. So, the texts would read deprivation of liberty of at least one year because combining a maximum and at least it's kind of contradictory. I thank you.
Thank you Mauritania, Mali to be followed by paragraph Molly You have the floor
thank you Madam Chair. Molly proposals keeping article 37 Paragraph a 10 as such and to delete the expression where applicable. Thank you.
Thank you, Molly. paraglide, to be followed by Burkina Faso, Paraguay you have seen
as for article 40, paragraph 14 F 4014. E. Two options are their nationality or country of origin. Paraguay believes that nationality should be eliminated a country of origin should should be kept. This is based on the fact that it is. lately it's been demonstrated in investigations of organized crime that individuals linked to criminal organizations have more than one nationality in order to avoid being being subjected to the Justice Justice system of different nations. And so we believe that it's very important to opt for country of origin and not nationality. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Paraguay, Burkina Faso to be followed by Indonesia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Burkina Faso reiterates its proposal to delete the condition of a maximum sentence of one month in article 37 paragraph one, at least one year whether this should be Burkina Faso also can accept the aversion proposed by the United States in article 41. Provided that there's a deletion of the reference to Article Six to 6G and articles six to 60. And thank you.
Thank you very much Burkina Faso Indonesia to be followed by the Russian Federation. Yeah,
thank you, Madam Chair, in relation to Article 38 in Russia, which is to support the article as drafted Tiki Bar Chair.
Thank you, Indonesia, Russian Federation to be followed by the United States.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We're responding to your proposal once more to explain subparagraph H para to article 40. And, of course, your proposed solution which contains evidentiary items and evidence. These are specific and general. They contain both, but we still support keeping both of those words. That's why we proposed it because evidentiary items and the sense that it's physical materials or real evidence is not sufficient. and especially to exchange electronic evidence in electronic form the preservation of both of these words, but the general one and this specific one would be expedient for another reason. Because evidence can mean simply testimony. And it can mean all types of evidence. That is evidence in the larger sense and not just testimony. Furthermore, I'll take the opportunity of being given the floor to repeat our position on para 18 article 37. The reference to the fact that there's there's no public education to to provide a reason for extradition. So, and there's a reference to the untuck and the UNCAC. Our opinion is well known here that there's no international agreements that has to do with the principle of non reform law, which has a ban on providing the reasons for the refusal. Thank you.
Thank you, Russian Federation, I have United States to be followed by Argentina, United States, you have the floor.
Thank you. And good afternoon, everyone. Regarding article 40, the United States prefers option one for the first paragraph. And now I would like to make a proposal to resolve the conflict regarding article 38. On transfer of sentence persons. It uses all the same language but just moves it around a bit. The proposal is to say states parties may comma taking into consideration the rights of sentence persons. Comma, consider entering into bilateral, etc and finishing the sentence the way it's drafted. And then we would add a second sentence at the end to say state parties may also take into account issues relating to consent, rehabilitation, and reintegration. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. United States, I have Argentina to be followed by Senegal and Nigeria, Argentina, you have the floor.
Thank you, madam. I'm sorry for taking the floor again. And once again, refer to article 41. If you could show it on the screen, thank you very much on this article, and given that the scope of the convention is not yet defined, Argentina would like to put on record the possibility of using this 24/7 network or for the attention of electronic evidence for offenses outside of those established within the convention, on which we would of course reach a consensus and in which it will be possible to obtain electronic evidence. I think to eliminate this possibility to our mind would read would reduce actually eliminate the possibility of effectively cooperating for the purpose of obtaining electronic evidence. We understand delegations who, who have certain apprehensions about on this, but in any case, Argentina is ready to work to cooperate in order to find the language for this article that tries to limit the the the the the actions of this 24/7 network and bearing this in mind. Argentina would reiterate the statements we made earlier on this point. Thank you.
Thank you, Argentina, Senegal to be followed by Nigeria. Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much chair. We have a comment about article 38. On the transfer of sentence persons. We think that the mention of the issue of consent in this article could lead one to believe that the consent of sentence persons is taken into consideration at the moment of the conclusion of the agreement. This doesn't seem to be the case however. Because when takes into account the issue of consent When it comes to the implementation of the agreement, that is has to do with the efficacy of the transfer. This is why we would propose not mentioning in this article, the issues relating to consent that is to say the state parties made taking into consideration the rights of sentenced persons and rehabilitation and reintegration that we will continue the article as is until the end and then we can insert another paragraph which would say that the transfer is subject to the consent of the Senate's person. So, as the consent can be required at the moment of the effective transfer, thank you.
Thank you very much, Senegal, I have two more requests for the floor at this point in time, I just want to consult with the Secretariat on something and plans and then I will give the floor to you one moment please.
Delegates, the time is very limited, and I think this is a really constructive discussion. So I'm just conferring with the Secretariat about how we can move some of these discussions into a informal or informal informals over the rest of the day. So, what I would like to do, I have four requests for the floor. And I assume that is on the discussions that we've been having so far, we're going to look at finding a time and a room to move the discussion on these articles because we are making progress into informal informals. But I do also want to give the opportunity in plenary for us to finish the rest of chapter five, we have not had an opportunity to hear state's opinions on articles 45 243456. And I do want to give you that opportunity in plenary while we're all here together. So, if you have requested the floor to continue the conversation, which I am very grateful for and find very productive on articles 37 to 41. I ask that you unless you're going to be very, very quick or try to be very, very quick. And then I would like to move on to article 42 3456. Do we have more than that? And then so that you will have an opportunity to briefly speak to those articles. So I will ask you to be very, very brief in your interventions. I have Nigeria, the European Union Jamaica kappa Valle de Malaysia and India. And I will be closing the floor on 37 to 41. After India, Nigeria, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This is just to say that Nigeria find the proposal by the United States in respect of article 38 acceptable and it is a proposal that we can leave with, though we would have preferred to return the original formulation as it is but for the sake of consensus, we can live with this language. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much, Nigeria for both showing flexibility and being brief. I do really appreciate it to European Union to be followed by Jamaica.
Thank you Hampshire. I would like also quite briefly to thank the United States for their proposal and for Nigeria for their spirit of compromise and in the same spirit of compromise the EU can accept the proposal made by the US. Thank you Madam Chair.
Jamaica, you have the floor to be followed by capability.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We have listened to the distinguished delegate, CARICOM, I listened to the distinguished delegate from Russia, in respect for the explanation regarding article 40 paragraph two subparagraph H in respect to evidence versus evidentiary items, but CARICOM is interpretation of this paragraph, the entire paragraph two is that it lists lists various forms of evidence, which is a general term in respect to which this paragraph applies. So the taking of evidence collection of real time traffic data, interception of content data, evidentiary items, those are various forms of evidence which are general, each sub sub paragraph is more prescriptive in terms of a type of evidence. So therefore, in relation to subparagraph h, where it says evidentiary items, it's more specific, and that is more appropriate than the general term of evidence. So we support the language as is where it says evidentiary items, because evidence is a broader term which would not be appropriate in this paragraph. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Jamaica cup of our day to be followed by Malaysia.
Thank you, Madam Chair, just support your proposal on Article 4120 C.
Thank you very much cabover de Malaysia to be followed by Indonesia or India. Sorry.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be very brief only on Article 38. Regarding article 38. Upon hearing views from other member states, Malaysia supports a proposal by the chair to insert the phrase where appropriate after reintegration. However, in the spirit of attempting to achieve consensus, we are also flexible to agree to the proposal by United States for clear distinction to be made in one part on the transfer of sentence person and another part for the taking into consideration of the rights of the sentence person. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Malaysia, India, you have the floor. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Article 37. Part Two provides that a state party may grant extradition to a party, but suited to a person even if the criminal offenses established by this convention are not punishable under its own domestic law. This is contrary to the spirit of the convention, as well as paragraphs one and four of the this in extradition matters that dual criminality is a fundamental principle. Moreover, the basic obligation of a state party is to criminalize under its domestic law, the offense is established by this convention. So I'd like to point this out in article 38 would like that in both in paragraph one and paragraph two, we insert the provision of in accordance with domestic law. Thank you.
Thank you very much, India. I closed the floor on these issues after India, but I have two more requests for the floor. I will grant you the floor. But please do be brief because I do want to get we have many articles to get through. So, Russia, you have the floor to be followed by Iran
Thank you, Madam Chair, we need to react very briefly on the interpretation. CARICOM Thank you very much to them for their vision, we have a different vision. The key the the concrete details, that are in paragraph two of article 40 only refers to a very narrow range of electronic evidence which has to do with the interception in real time real time intercept. And this these points on interception in fact, point to the process, they describe the process but not to actually not actually transfer of the, the the the, the the product of the that is evidence electronic evidence that is only contained in sub para H. Furthermore, these initial sub pairs don't say anything at All about stored data. They don't they don't cover that at all. Thank you.
Thank you, Russia for that explanation. Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I know that you're going to wrapping up but but you see that we had we reviewed all of the deliberation made in this meeting, but we were going to have a one new proposal as a paragraph five B's of this article 41. In it is in. in emergency situations, requests may be sent directly by the component by the competent authorities of the state party, to the relevant competent authorities of the requested states state party, or submitted through seven slash 24 network. Their request in electronic form or paper format has equal validity. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Iran, you got in on the buzzer. For a new proposal to add another paragraph to article 41. I'd now like to close the floor on 37 to 41 and open consideration of the remainder of the articles under chapter five. We have quite a few. So let's try and be brief and take them in a few at a time at this point. So if I can ask for comments on articles 4243 and 44. All at the same time the floor is open on those three articles. Noting of course that it's very exciting to see that article 42 already has several paragraphs agreed at referendum from our previous sessions. So I will not be taking any comments if possible on those already agreed paragraphs. Philippines you have requested the floor.
Thank you madam chair on Article 42 Paragraph seven the Philippines would like to express its support Singapore's proposal to change the word shell to me and also supporting EU's recommendation to change not less than 60 days to at least 60 days, which then would read any preservation affected in response to a request made pursuant to paragraph one may be for a period of at least 60 days Thank you.
Thank you very much Philippines. Singapore, you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair for giving me the floor for in regards to article 42 paragraph one on the proposed additions to the paragraph. Unfortunately, we cannot go along with it as the scope of this additions is uncertain and vague. And this could impose obligations for us to ensure preservation. So long as for example, a corporate entity, data service provider or another technology firm controlling or in possession of data is based in the requested country regardless of where the data sought to be preserved is actually located. So for this reason, we do have some concerns with regard to the proposed additional text which is currently highlighted in italics on screen. Thank you. Sorry, and if I could hasten to add as well, this would apply also to article 44, which I think also reprises the same language. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Singapore. This language does appear in 44 and I believe 45 My notes are correct. So, if if there is difference, please let us know but we will take it as all three. And I assume you are asking us to revert to the original of paragraph 101 from ASC six. Thank you I have Russian Federation.
Just to react right away to the comment of Singapore anticipating future statements, including by the EU by European countries, I would like to point out that is difficult to add something to the arguments for for justifying these these insertions that the Secretary mentioned. So, in challenging these insertions, I would suggest turning to that argumentation, I'm in charge of the Department of legal assistance in the central body in charge of that in Russia, and every day. I'm in charge of addressing requests for assistance to foreign countries, 99% of requests for electronic evidence I send to countries. The providers nationality. And all other colleagues who I know in other countries do the same thing. And similar jobs as mine. I do this because I don't know and cannot know where the provider is stores the data where they're currently located, especially in the area of cloud computing. And to be to be frank with it's basically impossible to know that. So I would ask countries that are in favor of deleting these insertions to share with us how they know exactly specifically where the data is located, especially bearing in mind cloud computing. And the second point, if, if there will be proposals from your European countries to exclude these these insertions, I would also suggest, I would also ask how you can explain this given the the latest, the latest innovations of the European Union on orders that were introduced last year, and also all the provisions of the Budapest Memorandum memorandum, which states that the place of international cooperation is irrelevant, the location that I would like to ask my colleagues who who they address their requests to in that situation. Thank you.
Thank you very much Russian Federation for that explanation of this text. I have no more requests for the floor. Brazil, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. Good morning to everyone. I just like to make a point. I know that it's in italic. But we do want to underscore that, in our opinion, article 42. Five, paragraph five, should not replicate the same grounds for refusal as article 40. Again, we've made that point several times throughout our discussions that we cannot equate the grounds for refusal of an MLA to that of a preservation. So we do reserve our opposition on that. And as for paragraph seven, we would strongly prefer to have a shot instead of May as was proposed before Thank you.
Thank you very much, Brazil, India, you have the floor.
You Madam Chair. Oh, this is regarding article 42. We believe that data privacy preservation is a first step to move towards any investigation, if the data is preserved in the latest stage, it may be decided whether the preserved data has to be shared or not. But if it is not preserved at all, then later at a later stage will not be able to solve it, share it. Therefore, what we see that instead of making dual criminality preconditioner in 42, we should preserve the data first share it later. So the question of dual criminality should be addressed at the stage of sharing rather than at the stage of preserving. Therefore we request that this para the power of four of article 42 be deleted. And we add the same to what Three, thank you
thank you very much. Yeah. Do I take it that you are asking for deletion of power? Article 43, paragraph two do and moving it may therefore be given to India. Thank you. We didn't catch that your microphone wasn't on.
It is now moving like to move that paragraph 243.
So, the proposal is to move paragraph four of article 42 into article 43. It's to Yes. Thank you so much. for that clarification. Belarus, you have the floor.
very much. Just as inform us, as we stated, we support the proposal, the Russian Federation of maintaining basic database, the possibility of maintaining databases and receiving at the requests of members of States Parties, including when they are under the control of the operator established or located in in another state party. A database is is is somewhat intangible, of course, it's within the framework of ICTs. And so to to specifically have of course, I mean, providers a virtual services could own these. So we need to ensure the possibility of preserving these databases and the possibility of obtaining themselves the way we understand and by the way, we we supported the same language in articles 44 and 45. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Belarus, United Republic of Tanzania, you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. Tanzania would also like to support the deletion of paragraph five of article 42 For the reasons well articulated by distinguished delegates of Brazil. In similar vein, we will also propose to maintain the word shall is opposed to me in paragraph seven Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Tanzania. I have no further request for the floor at this stage on articles 42, 43 or 44. Jamaica, you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. CARICOM wishes to express its support for the italicized language in article 42. Paragraph one. CARICOM has considered this provision and the nature of data, it's intangible, it's transient. And if it is as articulated by other delegation, delegations, that there is no provision where the state party does not know where the data is stored. This would provide a gap in terms of the efficiency and the utility of international cooperation and preserving data. So if it is that we don't have that provision, there would be a gap but we are listening to how that gap can be closed by other member states and their proposals. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Jamaica, or Thailand you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Thailand support the use of the word shell in paragraph seven in article 42. Thank you.
Thank you very much Thailand, United Kingdom. You have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We in the interest of time, we will quickly want to register our support for those delegations who want to have to delete the additions in articles 42 Paragraph 144 and 45. Thank you.
Thank you very much. United Kingdom, Japan.
Thank you for giving me the floor chair. And we would like to also support the UK proposal. Thank you.
Thank you Japan, Albania you have the floor
like to support the UK proposal Thank you.
Thank you very much Albania.
Delegates, I propose that we add this issue of the additional text on the possession control of service providers the location to the list of things that we should discuss in informal informals. as it appears in 42, 44 and 45. I have heard no requests for amendment to article 42 paragraph three or article 42, paragraph eight. I would like to propose that the ad hoc committee agree. Article 42 paragraph three and article 42 Paragraph eight ad referendum. Egypt you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair and apologies for coming in late. With regards to article 42 Paragraph eight we support the deletion of for not more than 90 additional days. Thank you.
Thank you Egypt. I will amend the proposal to adopt article 42 paragraph three only add referendum
I have no requests for the floor. So agreed.
Regarding power article 43. We have agreed paragraph one already add referendum. I've had no requests for amendment to paragraph two.
But we have had a request for a similar paragraph in article 42 to be deleted by Brazil. So before I put this address, I would like to give you the opportunity to have a look at article 43 paragraph two.
Egypt you have requested the floor.
Thank you madam chair with regards to article 43 Nothing on the substance but on the the title of the article. We would prefer to change it to international cooperation for the purpose of expedited disclosure of preserved traffic data. So that would be international cooperation for the purpose of expedited disclosure of preserve traffic data Thank you.
Thank you very much Egypt, I am assuming that the reason for this title changes because we have another article in chapter four with the exact same title and it's to add clarity to this article being different to that one. Yes, it seems like a sensible proposal to make sure that we don't have two articles in a convention with the same names but I am open to your reaction to that. And I assume that the same proposal will be made for the other article with a same name as procedural measures. So let's put both of those to the group. Brazil you have asked for the for Thank you Brazil.
Thank you chose just to also apply here to 43 to the same suggestion To delete, we think that it's unnecessary burden for this kind of cooperation. Thank you.
Thank you very much Brazil I have heard no requests I have a request for the floor. I'm just going to note that we have had no requests for amendments to article 44. Three. And so I am going to put that to you. After I give the floor to Tanzania to agree at referendum Tanzania you have the floor.
Thank you chair would like to support the proposal just made by a distinguished delegate of Brazil Thank you.
Thank you very much Tanzania Russian Federation you have the floor?
Just a brief comment, Madam Chair, having listened to the statement that was that's aimed at doing it with metallics, and 43, 44 45? Well, what I notice is a lack of justification for that. Especially justification, that would in any way kind of be a reaction to the arguments provided by the Secretariat and the explanations, we would ask for the brief replies No to this would have some kind of explanation or justification given the arguments provided by the Secretary. And also given the realities that the practice that practitioners people and bring that are actually working in this face.
You have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the distinguished delegate from the Russian Federation, we would like to further add that the issue in fact is with the control and possession of data. For example, a technology company that's located or established in Singapore, for example, may have control of certain data. But if that data is housed on a server located outside of Singapore, then we may not have the powers to compel that company to provide that set data. So that is the crux of the concerns that we have. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Singapore, I have the United States be followed by Qatar. We have three minutes left. United States.
I'll be very, very brief Chair. Thank you. The United States opposes the deletion of paragraph two of article 43 concerning grounds for refusal. And we know that we may well have situations where providing that kind of data may may conflict with our own essential interest or sovereignty or security. So we need to have that grounds for refusal. We also oppose deletion of the corresponding paragraph that is in article 42. Thank you.
Thank you United States. Qatar, you have the floor please make it brief.
Thank you, Madam, we support the Egyptian proposal to add international cooperation in the title. Thank you.
Thank you so much for being so brief. In the last few minutes we have because we will be going back I will be handing the podium and the cheering back to my dear friend George Maria from Nigeria this afternoon. As is the program on the website. The Secretariat and I are going to look into times to continue this discussion informally and in informal informals. It is difficult to find rooms but we are going to try please keep an eye out on the website. As soon as we have anything to announce. We will We'll announce it there. And I will also ask my dear friend, George Maria to give you an update this afternoon in plenary. And hopefully we will see you all there. But I do want to thank you all so much for your constructive engagement on these issues today. Thank you. We are closed
