Good afternoon excellencies distinguished representatives, ladies and gentleman. We will now continue with consideration of Agenda Item three, entitled revised draft text of the convention. I will be guiding our discussion of the chapter on procedural measures. Colleagues, could I ask for some quiet in the room please?
We only have a couple of weeks, so we want to take advantage of every minute, if possible. This afternoon, we are continuing with consideration of Agenda Item three revised draft text of the convention. I'll be guiding our discussion on the chapter on procedural measures and law enforcement and also the chapter on international cooperation. As the Chair mentioned yesterday, and also this morning, this is the final session of our ad hoc committee and as a result, we need to make the best use of the time that we have available. Upon consultation with the Bureau The chair has proposed to begin using a speech timer, which will be set to three minutes. During the consideration of Agenda Item three delegations will therefore have three minutes to speak each time. How this works will be that when you are given the floor, you will be given three minutes to speak. Once you have one minute left, the microphone will start to blink. And when your time is up, when the three minutes are up, your microphone will be silenced automatically. We don't have a button up here it happens automatically. As we have only a limited number of meetings to reach agreement at referendum on the two chapters under consideration this afternoon, procedural measures and international cooperation. I would also like to recall the chairs appeal for all delegations to show flexibility and to help us move in the direction of consensus. I would call and encourage all delegations to please only make proposals that your delegation believes that absolutely necessary to improve the text and to offer alternate language that enjoys broad support. I'd also invite and encourage you to be concise and to be specific when you are proposing amendments. We will start with Chapter Four on procedural measures and law enforcement, which contains provisions that are mainly based on UNCAC, UNTOC, and the Budapest convention in article 23. The only change made to the draft text that we examined at the sixth session of this ad hoc committee was the addition of the word specific, which is not included in article 14 of the Budapest convention or which this provision is best articles 25 to 30 correspond with article 16 to 21 of the Budapest convention, the only substantive change that has been made in relation to these provisions was in article 25. Where the terms content data and subscriber information were added as an example excellencies Distinguished Delegates given that very few amendments were proposed to this group of articles during the sixth session, I hope that we can reach agreement quickly and are open the floor on these articles.
if there are no requests for the floor on articles 23 and 25 to 30. May I take it for the ad hoc committee agrees with articles 23 and articles 25 to 30 as contained in the revised draft text, I am getting some calls for the floor. Wonderful. Thank you. On my list, I have Singapore to be followed by the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Singapore, you have the floor.
Good afternoon. Thank you Madam Chair for giving me the floor. For article 23. We would like to propose we would like to propose two amendments. First. We propose to limit the scope of paragraph two of article 23 Two offenses established in accordance with this convention in order to be consistent with the rest of the convention. And also to review Is the burden on our law enforcement agencies, as per mentioned before, in my earlier interventions, therefore, we propose to delete paragraph two Subsection B in its entirety, and amend Subsection C, to replace any criminal offense with offenses established in accordance with Article 6 to 16 of this convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Singapore for that proposal. I welcome responses from the floor to this proposal. But now turn to the United States, United States, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair and Good afternoon colleagues? Well, yes, we largely agree with article 23. As it's written, we just have two comments. One is that we need to reserve on the scope of this procedures article until the scope of the convention is resolved. It's very much an open issue, as we all know, from this morning, and secondly, regarding the stab into a offenses established in accordance with this convention, we also need to reserve on that because we may need to add articles six to 16 there because we don't yet know the fate of article 17. And those are our comments on Article 23. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, United States, Islamic Republic of Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation regarding for the article 23. We don't have any objection, this mother. This article, but although in Xcelerator note of the Madam Chair of the security and Secretary aid, there is a little bit explanation regarding the words of specific before the criminal investigations. And so, I would be very grateful, madam chair to be clarified regarding the, you know, the exact meaning of the specific criminal investigation, as well as eras. And as long as I knew regarding to know before in previous meetings of the ad hoc to inserting of the specific, we have some reservation about this matter. We are flexible, but I would be very grateful if you give me a clarification regarding for this word. Thank you.
Thank you, Iran, Japan to be followed by New Zealand.
Thank you Chair for giving me the floor. And good afternoon everyone. Japan supports the tariffs proposal proposal without into reference to articles six to 16 in paragraph two A. So it reads the criminal offense there is established in accordance with Article Six to 16 of this convention. This is for clarifications sake. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Japan, New Zealand. Do you have the floor?
Thank you chair. We've mentioned our concerns with the scope of the convention at length during the informals. And I don't want to repeat those marks remarks here given the time limits. So just in short, we can support Singapore's proposal to limit article 23 to the offenses in this convention. And we think having a laser focus on the event on the offenses in the convention would provide more clarity as to its purpose and further would ensure we are marshaling our finite resources to respond to that primary purpose which should be combating cybercrime. We would also support Japan's additional clarification that they just mentioned now Thank you.
Thank you very much New Zealand on my list, I have Pakistan, Pakistan has the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair for giving me the floor. My delegation has already expressed his concerns during the informal so I will just quickly repeat a few. We believe that the scope of procedural procedural measures is quite broad, and the element of serious offence is not included. Article 24 raises concerns due to its exceptionally strong language and repetative nature in describing human rights and its application in chapter five international cooperation. elements such as the principle of proportionality, and rights of third parties are deemed weak and subjective, making them unsuitable as guidance for formulating national laws, their reflection in the convention is not supported. Article 25 Only obligates the preservation of data to a person. While it is suggested that service providers and organizations holding the data should also be included. Thank you.
Thank you very much Pakistan. As you mentioned, I remind delegates that article 24 is not currently under discussion, this plenary but in the informal, so any comments on Article 24? I encourage you to join the chair tomorrow morning in conference room 11. Pakistan, please.
I know I just wanted to say thank you. And we'll repeat our concerns here as well.
Oh, I can see one more request for the floor and I'm about to give the floor to Norway. We have had a couple of proposals already this afternoon for amendments to article 23. I would very much like to hear responses or reactions to those proposals to see whether there is a way for us to agree add referendum to article 23. In the following meetings on my list, I have Norway to be followed by Malaysia no way you have the floor. Thank you.
Well, Norway can actually agree to all the proposals that have been put forward to limit the scope. If that is acceptable, we would definitely not oppose it. I think we could also be able to live with a broader scope, but we would definitely need the word specific in the first paragraph. And that is to ensure that there actually has to be a crime that you are investigating and not just a general wish to use these very intrusive measures. But I do want to say however, is that we are not discussing article 24 here but if article 24 is not satisfactory with with the necessary safeguards, we will have to reserve our position to articles 35 To 25 to 30 as these are interestingly linked. So our support for these articles will depend on Article 24 Being satisfactory. Thank you.
Thank you very much. No way. Malaysia you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. Malaysia would like to state his support for Singapore's proposal to delete subparagraph A to be Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Malaysia Liechtenstein you have the floor.
Thank you very much Madam Chair. We would also like to support Singapore's proposal in call for the deletion of Article F paragraph two B and article 23 Thank you
Chile, you have the floor
would also like to support the Singapore proposal in deleting paragraph 3.2 Thank you
Thank you Chile on my list. I have Iceland to be fired by Mauritania Iceland you have the floor.
Thank you very much chair. Iceland joins the ranks of those who prefer a clear and focused scope of this agreement. And therefore we support the proposal put forward by Singapore just now. Keeping in mind also that as fellow small state capacity concerns are on the top of our mind these days thank you
thank you Iceland Mauritania you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. We also express our support for the proposal biasing Singapore regarding deletion of to be under Article 23. And the reason for this is because retaining this paragraph I would make the scope of the procedural measures wider than the scope of the convention itself and therefore we support this suggestion this proposal. Thank you.
Thank you, Mauritania. I'm honored to have the Russian Federation rush you have the floor.
Good afternoon, colleagues. On article 23, the Russian Federation would like to add, and the paragraph one important measure which law enforcement bodies could use to counter offenses in the sphere of information, communication technologies. So word for for the purpose of prevention of crimes after for the purpose of prevention of crimes, what what kind of offenses will be covered? Under that is mentioned in except, there's 2 a and 2 B in this in this article we are against, we're against deletion of 2 B, B in paragraph two, because it would not be a good idea to limit law enforcement bodies for from taking the necessary measures at the national level to combat to combat offenses using ICTs. We do not think that law enforcement bodies at the national level, we don't believe that they shouldn't have the opportunity to use all possible authority and measures to prevent and counter this kind of these kinds of offenses. It's also worth taking into account that different countries have different legal systems. And in a number of countries, you have a stage that precedes starting a criminal case and official criminal investigation, which involves prevention. And so the adding this word of prevention in the first paragraph of this article will provide an added value compared to the existing international treaties and will will also reflect the purpose and the title of the convention. Also in this article, we believe it's important to the to delete the word specific, rather specific criminal investigations, the word specific criminal proceedings or investigations or proceedings to drop the word person specific because in that case, we would have to define what we mean by that word, or we will create legal uncertainty and we won't understand what specific offenses are meant to be investigated in the country.
Thank you Russia. On my list. I have Jamaica to be followed by Georgia and kappa Valle de jamaica, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. CARICOM is generally supportive of the chapter on procedural measures and law enforcement. In Article 23 paragraph one, CARICOM supports the inclusion of the word specific, the procedural measures covered in this chapter should not apply to all criminal investigations. Given the intrusive nature of these measures. The insertion of the word specific ensures that these measures are applicable to instances which exhibit characteristics of paragraph two, and this is a safeguard against the excesses of law enforcement. CARICOM notes the removal of the reference to Article Six through 16, in part in article 23, paragraph two subparagraph a and at various places throughout the text. CARICOM supports the deletion of Article Six to 16, provided that article 17 is removed from the chapter on criminalization and placed elsewhere in the text. CARICOM supports this article as drafted with respect to article 23, paragraph two subparagraph two be kind CARICOM supports the inclusion of this article, as it captures offenses, which are not established within the convention, but are committed by the use of computer systems or ICT devices. This is an important provision as the convention is unlikely to include an exhaustive list of traditional crimes, which may be committed by the use of a computer system or ICT. Article 23 subparagraph two C. CARICOM supports the inclusion of article 23. To see this captures offenses which do not fall within the categories in article 23 subparagraph, two B or 23 subparagraph. Two C. This will capture offenses where the computer system or ICT is incidental to the commission of the crime. In these circumstances, the electronic evidence may serve to aid in providing the commission of the crime. albeit it wasn't used to commit the crime, and the crime is not one created by this convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Jamaica. On behalf of CARICOM, I have Georgia to be followed by kappa Valle de Japan and Argentina, Georgia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. Georgia generally supports article 23. We strongly support wording, specific criminal investigations and proceedings because it's an important safeguard against the abusive use of these very intrusive, procedural measures that this commission is intended to establish. We are supportive of Singapore's proposal deleting subparagraph two B and adding articles six to 16 to subparagraph, two a if article 17 remains an inclination. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Georgia. Cabo Verde, you have the floor.
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. We want to support the test draft on Article 23, number one, and number two, we support the irritation of the paragraph b. Or number two.
Thank you, Kevin, about a Japan to be followed by Argentina, Nicaragua, Iran, Vanuatu and Egypt, Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. Japan supported the chairs proposal as drafted. But we can also accept that Singapore's proposal to delete para 2 b And when it comes to the retention of the word specific in paragraph one, we support Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Japan. And on this point of including the reference to Article Six to 16. I understand that the point is whether or not article 17 is included in the convention. So those who are supporting deletion of the reference to article 6 to 16 that is on the proviso that article 17 is on the convention as was mentioned by Jamaica, is that correct? Jamaica, you have the floor and then Japan.
Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. The reference was for article 17 to be removed from the chapter on criminalization not totally removed from the convention.
Thank you so much, Jamaica for the clarification on Japan. Would you like to take the floor?
Thank you, Chair. On the matter of excluding article 17. From the criminalization chapter, we would like to consider it internally. For the time moment, we would like to support we would like to retain our proposal to to insert Article Six to 16 of this convention in Article Two, paragraph two a thank you.
Thank you so much. Japan and Jamaica for those clarifications on Melissa have Argentina Argentine you have the floor.
Thank you, madam. Regarding the first paragraph, my delegation supports the idea of maintaining the term specific, in the text. Given that this is a kind of safeguard functions as a safeguard, as was explained by some previous speakers, we also are grateful for the proposal of Singapore and other delegations. Regarding article 23. However, we believe that the amendments to this article should be linked to what the delegations present here eventually decide regarding the scope of application of the convention. Consequently, we believe that it will be a good idea to await the decision that we take on articles three and 35, to make any to move ahead on any amendments to this article. 23. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Argentina, for that intervention. It resonates with a couple of others who have said this morning that article 23, very much depends on other things in the Convention, which I believe unless otherwise, is what I'm hearing from the room. Let's take it on notice that everything in article 23 is dependent on on that. If I do have a list of speakers that I want to give everyone a chance to speak on Article 23, in particular. But I am also open to moving these discussions particularly to an informal setting, given that it is quite complicated and does react relate to a lot of other parts of the convention, as I think Argentina and the United States and a few others have said. I put that proposal to you. And on my list. I have Nicaragua to be followed by Iran. Nicaragua, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation just want to oppose to the deletion of article 23. Super to be thinking Madam Chair.
Thank you, Nicaragua, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding subparagraph, two B, my they my delegation would like to in favor of the retain of this subparagraph in this takes as chair submitted. Thank you.
Thank you, Iran. We have Vanuatu Vanuatu, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Vanuatu is wholly supportive of the language of paragraph 23 in the revisor texts of the negotiating document, in relation to paragraph one, one while two supports credit coms. proposal to insert reference to specific expression services specific in the paragraph in relation to paragraph two a 102 is also is supportive of the proposal made by the distinguished delegate delegate from Japan is supported by New Zealand in relation to adding words. Article 6 to 16. But wary of the fact that this hasn't been settled is brought to our attention by by you, madam and also the United States, but also wish to make a remark that if that were the case, then there might be a possible tension between paragraph B and paragraph C. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, to our panelists is to have Egypt to be followed by El Salvador, India, China and Eritrea, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you very much chair. I think the floor to seek the attention of the paragraph as submitted by the chair in this draft text, and I think I have in front of me here, the draft text of the of the six committee of the sixth session, and we are repeating ourselves exactly what this Same proposals and motions. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you, Egypt, El Salvador, you have the floor, which are
Thank you. And like to greet the madam chair regarding the chapter on procedural measures in law enforcement and specifically article 23. We agree that we think that criminal offences should be explicitly linked to those established in Article Six and 16. We are in favor of a convention that addresses cybercrime under the principle of technological neutrality, which underscores the need of a direct connection between this article and those in the chapter under on criminalization. The the, the lack of of changes in this article 23 could be counterproductive in the fight against cybercrime. Because an absence of a specific definition of offenses would raise challenges for prosecution. With this in mind, we would be in favor of the deletion of to be of article 23 as was proposed by Singapore Furthermore, and to conclude, we agree with what was said by the delegation of Argentina because in formal discussions of the on the links between this article and due to the links between this article and the chapter on criminalization Thank you.
Thank you, El Salvador, India, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, India support the original text in the article 23. Thank you.
Thank you, India, China, you have the floor to be followed by Eritrea.
Thank you, Madam Chair. China supports the current draft of article 23. We believe that this is a balanced representation of concerns of different parties, as mentioned by the colleague from Jamaica, that to be too many countries is very important. And we agreed the colleague from Egypt we agree with his opinion. We have to avoid repetitive discussion of controversial topics. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, China, Eritrea, you have the floor to be followed by Yemen, Eritrea.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation support the retention of subparagraph two B of article 23 on scope of procedural measures. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you Eritrea, Yemen, you have the floor to be followed by Bahrain.
Thank you, Chair. Yemen supports article 23 be the criminal the criminal offenses committed there we asked for wording to show the different offenses committed in the context of ICTs. We need to arrive at a comprehensive text for whether it's for new technologies or otherwise, and we prefer the text as initially proposed. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Yemen, Bahrain has the floor to be followed by European Union Bahrain, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. To reach consensus. My delegation supports article 23 As presented and proposed by the chair with no amendment made Thank you.
Thank you, Bahrain, European Union to be followed by Mexico.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The European Union and its member states would be favorable to the leading paragraph to be in line with the amendment proposed by Singapore and other distinguished delegates. We believe that you will contribute to the clarification and we fail to see the purpose that it may serve in this convention. Thank you.
Thank you for your opinion, Max. okay to be followed by South Africa.
Thank you, madam. For Mexico, article 23 should be limited to offenses included in the chapter on criminalization in order to avoid uncertainty and prevent any erroneous interpretation. Furthermore, we agree with CARICOM The need for article 16 to be relocated another place in the text and specifically should be transferred. Before the chapter on criminalization Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mexico. We have South Africa to be followed by the Syrian Arab Republic, South Africa, you have the floor. Thank you
chair. South Africa supports the retention of article 23 as drafted by the Chair, thank you
thank you, South Africa, Syria, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. We support in turn the retention of the wording proposed by the chair and we propose retention paragraph to be this wording takes into consideration the aspects of the chapter on criminalization Thank you.
Thank you, Syrian Arab Republic. I have Albania to be followed by Senegal, Albania. You have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. Also Albania supports retention of the original text it was suggested by the Chair Thank you.
Thank you, Albania, Senegal, you have the floor.
Thank you very much chair. We simply want to support the this version of article 23. And its current state, and we simply want to make a proposal. I think there's a delegation that made the same proposal as well in paragraph two to air. Instead of the criminal offences established in accordance with the convention, we can say the criminal offense was established in accordance with Article Six to 16. Thank you.
Thank you, Senegal. I have Algeria to be fired by Canada, Algeria, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Turning to article 23, we have a specific proposal for the first paragraph as for proposals, paragraphs, two and three, we also support the provisions of these paragraphs. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Algeria, Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just quickly, we support the proposal as put forward by Singapore. We also support the statement made by Norway. Our support for these provisions is conditional on what happens in the article 24 discussion. So we reserve our right to review our support for this proposal at a later time. Thank you.
Thank you, Canada, we have the United Republic of Tanzania to be followed by Israel, Tanzania, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation supports the formulation of article 23 is currently drafted. And specifically, we support the inclusion of the word specific in paragraph one, which seeks to limit the obvious intrusive, procedural measures established under this convention only to specific criminal investigations. In paragraph two B, we strongly oppose the proposal of deleting the paragraph. And we also welcome the the flexibility to for member states to limit the application of procedural procedural measures in respect of intrusive investigative measures of real time collection of traffic data. In paragraph three, thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Israel. You have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We'd like to express our support to the Singapore En proposal and in addition, express our acknowledgement of the Norwegian suggestion to expressing the relationship between retention of article 17. And the need to add the scope limitation to articles six to 16. Thank you
Thank you, Israel, I have the European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair and apologies for taking the floor again. As he's just been mentioned by Israel and other distinguished delegates, we will also support having a split and explicit reference in paragraph two, a two criminal offense established in accordance with Article Six to 16 of this convention, since we still lack of clarity on the final scope of this convention. Thank you.
Thank you very much European Union, I might take this opportunity, as there are no further requests for the floor at this stage. So of course, it remains open. To summarize a little bit what I'm hearing from the podium, we have quite a few different ideas in regards to article 23. We have several states supporting the text as it is currently drafted in the revised text. We have some states making specific proposals for amendments, including the deletion of the word specific, we also have many states calling for the retention of that word in article 23. I think it's one one, we have a request to include a reference to Article Six to 16. In 23, two A we have requests to delete 23 to be and we've also heard some opposition from any states to this proposal to delete article 23. To be we are at a point in our negotiations where scope is still remains a difficult issue. But these proposals have may have value to our ongoing negotiations, I would suggest that those who are putting forward these proposals, discuss it amongst yourselves. Try to find a way forward on this proposal. And on this article. I am here to guide and navigate this, but I cannot make you or force you to agree to anything that is not the role of the chair. The role of everyone in the room here is to try and find something that has broad support. So I encourage those who have made proposals to make changes to this article to discuss those and see whether there is something that can be put forward that may garner broad support. I have no more requests for the floor and article 23. So I might suggest that we move on now to articles 25 to 31 requests for the floor on Article 23. After that, and anyone else who still wants to come in on Article 23. I welcome you to press your buttons now. And then we might move on to articles 25 to 30 as Switzerland, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And we will be very brief. We to support the retention of the terms specific in paragraph one of article 23. And we'll be in favor of the leading article 23 party B as proposed by Singapore. And in paragraph two a we would like to also see the reference to Article Six to 16 Depending on where discussions go in relation to Article 17. But we are aware that you just mentioned that this is all still debated. And yeah, thank you for giving us the floor.
Thank you so much Switzerland and you have given me the chance to look back, sorry, through the notes that I've made. And I realized that when I was making a summary there was one additional proposal from one member state to add the word prevention into article 23 as well. So that is also something open for discussion. I would now like to move the discussion on to a articles 25 to 30, which as I said before correspond with article 16 to 21 of the Budapest convention. And the only substantive change made to these articles since our discussions at our sixth session in August, has been made in relation to Article 25, including the terms content data and subscriber information. I open the floor on these articles. Given the few amendments that were proposed, I hope that we can go through these articles quickly with the intention of agreeing these add referendum in plenary.
Russian Federation you have the floor.
Thank you chair. Distinguished colleagues on Article 25 pero. One. Here we have a proposal. After the word subscriber information, content data and subscriber information after stored by it should be should be stored in accordance with the legislation member states in information form. We think that the lack of requirements or lack of this information could lead to requests being useless under this article because not all states store the data in this way, the timelines for the storage of data data should be determined by the states independently. We have another proposal thinking again about the timeline for maintaining information requested by law enforcement agencies. So efficient, there should be official procedures for maintaining information this procedures can be very long. So that's why and paragraph two of article 25, we think states should take necessary information to preserve the data for the requisite timeframe, but no less than 90 days. And right now it says up to a maximum of 90 days. Furthermore, we saw in informal consultations that some states have voiced similar proposals that is instead of up to a maximum of 90 days, we can say no fewer than 90 days, or for a longer period pursuant to the national legislation of the member, the state's participants to allow for the competent authorities to investigate these data.
Now on Article 28. The in the previous version of paragraph one, it was indicated that every state party should take such measures as may be necessary to empower its competent authorities to search or similarly access on their territory. And then later on Kim sub paragraphs A and B and this current version of the draft we see something different. We see that the words on the territory of that state have been moved after subparagraph B and we would propose doing moving it backward. Moving it back to where it was. What I mean is to power its competent authorities to search or similarly access only sites on the territory of that state party this because
(microphone has been cut off.)
Thank you Russian Federation for those proposals. I have no requests for the floor yet. And I do have a list of potential questions I can ask about proposals that have been made and I do have one in regards to the proposal you made on Article 25. Just for clarity, it would be very helpful if you could explain the legal bearing of the proposed change from maximum of 90 days to no less than 90 days. Given that article 25 Two then goes on to say that a state party may provide for such an order to be subsequently renewed. What is the different legal bearing between a renewal of the order versus a minimum number of days. If you could explain why that is different, I would be very, very grateful. If you could take that on notice and come back to it and press your button when you're ready. Egypt, you have requested the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My comments is very similar to the Russian comments on Article 29. B in its territory, and an article 30 B. And its territory, we would like to return the language that has been there and retain the the mention of the specific territory in the two articles, also in article 34. paragraph four speaks of assistance to victims of offenses. And it refers in cooperation with relevant stakeholders as appropriate. I'm not sure that this convention will be signed by any stakeholder. And we should put any mandate in terms of providing assistance to victims to stakeholders, stakeholders do that on their own when they are not a party to this text. So I'm afraid that it would be very difficult to give mandates in this 3d to parties who are not who are not going to subscribe for it. And also the following paragraph five in article 34, we call for deletion as it speaks to issues, such as the needs of children without definition of what are the needs of children. That state party shall take account of the age, gender and particular circumstances of victims. And we do not understand what does this provision imply in terms of providing assistance by states to victims of cyber crime, and we reserve our position in the following articles. We'll come back to them later. Thank you.
Thank you very much Egypt. I actually have a clarifying question for you as well. You said you wanted to return to previous language regarding territories in articles 29 and 30. Can you tell us exactly what that is because I have a tracked changes version here and it doesn't have any track changes in those articles.
Thank you very much chair. It's article 29. B. compel a service provider in its territory within its existing technical capabilities. And in article 30 B, compel a service provider in its territory within its existing technical capability. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Egypt for that clarification.
I have no other request for the floor on these articles at this stage. I now have some requests to the floor. I will have Iran be followed by India, the European Union and the Russian Federation again. Iran you have the floor.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair regarding to the article 27. We propose and we reiterate to to have the same wording before the editing regarding article parcel paragraph one to keep in the territory of the estate party. And as well as in subparagraph B in the territory of that state party should be you know, retain the original text and regarding to article 29. We support the proposal made by the delegation of Egypt. Thank you
Thank you, Iran India, you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. We remain concerned with the word person in para 25 separate or two. We are not sure if this word person would include legal persons. I know that many of us here believed that person would also mean legal persons. However to bring in clarity, India's repeating its proposal to add the words including legal persons, after the word person in 25 sub para to on the same logic, India would like to propose adding the same verse that is including legal person in article 27.
Thank you, India, European Union, you have the floor.
For Thank you, Madam Chair. The EU and its member states would just like to remind that regarding article 29, and article 30, we had objected to the inclusion of those articles. And, in view of the importance of those articles for many countries in the room, we showed some flexibility to accept the inclusion. But it was strictly conditional upon the fact that the corresponding article in in the international cooperation chapter would be a main provision instead of short provision, and that that would be appropriate safeguards. ie the safeguards that we have supported in the draft, and I don't want to repeat again, the same list of safeguards, but just to make it clear, I thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, European Union, I have the Russian Federation to be followed by Iran, Russia, you have the floor?
Yes, I just wanted to respond to your question regarding the legal consequences, and legal importance of the change for maximum to replace maximum to no less than or not exceeding 90 days. We don't see the logic of maintaining the word maximum for maximum because then a state can hasn't has an opportunity to extend the the timeframe of such a procedure. So why not why limited to a maximum initially on the country, we should establish that the state should should store the information for no less than 90 days, because according to the current language, the state can store it for two days or for 10 days, but no more than 90 days. As you can understand. That number of days, let's say if the state will maintain it will restore the information in 10 days or 20 days. Another state which may submit an official request to obtain the the data through the channel mutual legal assistance will then have the time to send that request and and receive the requested information or data. So we suggest that this provision as far as the timeframe should state net for no less than 90 days so that law enforcement bodies have enough time to obtain the data they need. I also want to explain, once again, our doubts regarding article 28. Because at the last session, some states suggested moving the words on the territory of that state party on measures on search and seizure to move it to the end of a pair of B. We insist that these measures should both an a and n b should should be mentioned there. So we should we suggest the words on the territory of that state party to to move it into the chapeau of pair one after the words access. Thank you.
Thank you, Russia. I have Iran to be followed by Mauritania and Malaysia, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair. Thank thanks again for giving the floor to mean, in article 25 sub paragraph two, my delegation would like to propose after 90 days, this wording or in Confirmative with domestic law of state parties. And in article 27, again, thank you very much for your indulgence in 27th article 27 subparagraph B, after the information, traffic data and content data relating to such this wording, traffic data and content data in subparagraph B of 20 article 27 should be added that would be the other Thank you.
Thank you, Iran. We have Mauritania, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. We support the proposals made by the representative of Egypt for the same reasons he cited on articles under consideration. Thank you.
Thank you very much Mauritania, Malaysia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Malaysia would like to state that for articles 29 and 30. Previously, Malaysia had stated that we are not able to comply with the obligations imposed by both those articles. However, in the spirit of compromise, Malaysia has changed his position now. And we are agreeable to the proposal by the European Union. That 29 and 30 can be accepted. As long as the words shell stated in both continental T is replaced with me. And this is to also to be consistently applied into articles 45 and 46. On mutual legal systems, international cooperation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Malaysia for that spirit of compromise.
I have no other requests for the floor at this point in time. And now have requests from China and Namibia and Japan, China, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. With regards to article 25. Paragraph two, it mentions the maximum timeframe of the preservation of data should be no more than 90 days. You raise the question just now. That is the legal bearing or implication of this ordering. Since the order can be renewed afterwards subsequently, in accordance with Chinese laws, the preservation of data can be up to 180 days. Therefore, if this paragraph is included in the convention, we'll have to amend our national laws. I don't think this only applies to China. That is our rationale I think and Madam Chairperson.
Thank you for that explanation. China, Namibia, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. I would like also to join the other delegates were calling to replace the word maximum with a minimum of 90 days as when it comes to the law enforcement. We should not limit the law enforcement. Jobs as we know that when it comes to regard mutual assistance, it's almost take time and always take times and with these type of crimes with cybercrime. And it's a new norm to most of the countries. We don't need to limit them. That's why we are calling the minimum of 90 days instead of maximum. Thank you.
Thank you Namibia have Japan to be followed by Burkina Faso and 10 Danya Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you chair on this question of article 25. Two, which is about the date period of time, for the reservation preservation of data, we do understand that the, we need to make sure we need to ensure a sufficient time period for a competent authority to take legal steps, including the seizure investigation, the issue of warrant order. But we also need to consider, we also need to give due consideration to the persons that have been requested to preserve the data. So from this perspective, we think that the current formulation as drafted is proper for the respect of the due consideration of those that have been requested. But at the same time, we also consider that the it is getting clear to the room that the different jurisdictions have different systems, domestic systems, and they're still they're already in operation as existing frameworks. In the context of Japan, we are in line with the current formulation. But we do understand that there are other jurisdictions who have other formulations frameworks of the domestic legal system. So we would like to engage in discussions with other member states as well. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Japan, I have Burkina Faso.
Thank you chair, Burkina Faso following a number of states that have made the request for article 25 period to about the limitation. We think that we should also have it be keep the information for a minimum of 90 days. Thank you.
Thank you very much United Republic of Tanzania to be followed by Tunisia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. So we, my delegation would like to restate our position, which we made in the sixth session. And in that regard, we would like to echo the proposal made by distinguished delegates of Iran by referring the period of preservation to the domestic laws of state parties, and we are making this proposal because currently, each state has its own specific time within which data is to be preserved. So with the spirit of making sure that we do not necessarily incur difficulties during ratification, we propose to defer the period of time to in accordance with the domestic laws of state parties. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. Tanzania, I am also recall this debate being quite long and extensive, and HC six, and I think five and for that, I will continue to hear those who want to take the floor to Knizia. You have the floor.
Thank you chair. My delegation has the same reservations that that were voiced by several delegations. Those considering paragraph two article 25, about the limit for the preservation of stored information. Given the specifics of the jurisdictions and various countries, in this regard, we would also propose that the term maximum be replaced by the term a minimum of 90 days Thank you.
Thank you very much Tunisia, Republic of Korea, you have the floor.
Think about that. Think about that chair for giving me the floor. If you allow me to return to article 23. We would like to address our position on this article. We then object refer Article Six today. Seven and 16 in Pero tu A. But regarding para to be we prefer to maintain the original text proposed by a chair, considering parents to see which is broader scope of procedural matter. And regarding article 25 to turn to article 30, we support the original text proposed by a chair. Thank you.
Thank you very much Republic of Korea, Switzerland, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, we will be very brief. But Switzerland to was on the list that was in favor of the deletion of articles 29 and 30. For us, these articles strongly depend on how the safeguards will look like just as was it was also mentioned by Malaysia and by the EU and other delegations. And therefore for us, it is very important that this inherent connection of these intrusive measures is kept in mind on our way forward that these are very much linked to the safeguards and how they will appear in the eventual convention. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Switzerland. Mexico, you have the floor.
Thank you. Mexico supports the proposal just made by Switzerland do do articles 29 and 30. We would do request additional safeguards regarding 25 paragraph, the second paragraph, we will also will be in favor of at least 90 days rather than maximum Thank you.
Egypt you've asked for the floor.
Very much chair. I apologize for taking the floor again. But just to voice support to Namibia's proposal supported by many other countries on a changing maximum to minimum of 90 days in paragraph two, article 25. Thank you.
Thank you, everyone, for your proposals and discussion this morning and also for keeping things quite brief. Before I summarize, I will give the floor to Jamaica.
Thank you Madam Chair. With respect to article 25 paragraph two, CARICOM considers a time period of up to 90 days a reasonable time for competent competent authorities to pursue the production of the data, which is required for the criminal investigations, because the preservation of the data would be in relation to the production of that data. So and CARICOM also considers the capacity for small developing states to preserve this data for an indefinite time period where the provision would read minimum have a minimum period instead of a maximum period, where it is required for that data to be preserved for a longer period. The convention allows for this extension. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much to make on behalf of CARICOM on my list to have paraglide to be followed by Uganda Paraguay, you have the floor. I believe that with regard to article 25, paragraph two, it should be as a minimum of 90 days we support that proposal. Thank you.
Thank you very much Paraguay. I give the floor to Uganda.
Thank you very much chair. It Go 25 to Uganda suggest the use of the word minimum, because the practicality of receiving mutual legal assistance, for example, cannot be achieved when the mean the maximum is it at 90 days. And that's why, in the context of that article and looking at the condition as a whole, it would be prudent to put it at a time which is reasonably achievable. So you can suggest the use of the word minimum, instead of maximum, thank you.
Thank you, Uganda. Norway, you have the floor.
Thank you, just to add our voice to those who would like to keep 25 to as it is saying also a maximum of 90 days. Now, if it is difficult to, for the law enforcement authorities in the requesting state to be able to issue an MLA within these 90 days, it is possible to extend this time limit by saying a minimum of 90 days, this leaves it totally open to how long a state has to preserve data, which we think is both on useful and unacceptable. Just to add our voice, I mean, we Norway has also been are wanting to actually delete article 29 and 30, which will be which would be our preferred choice. We do understand that there's a big but there is very much support for having them here. We had some quite some interest in the proposal to to change shall to may. But an extent as I've already said earlier, all these articles 25 to 30 are dependent on 20 for having the sufficient safeguards. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Norway. Next, I have Austria to be followed, followed by the Syrian Arab Republic, Austria, you have the floor?
Yes, thanks a lot. I'll try and be helpful again, and hopefully, can bring some clarity and more confusion to this issue of timeframes. Colleagues, the way I would read the provisions, the procedural provisions is that we are agreeing on certain minimum standards here. So we're harmonizing minimum standards. And the minimum standard is that you would have to provide by law that your law enforcement authorities can preserve data for at least 90 days, up to a maximum of 90 days. And that's your in your that's the powers your law enforcement authorities need to have. And in the provision on mutual legal assistance, which is article 42. We have a minimum period of 60 days. So whatever you think is a problem with mutual legal assistance, please take a look at the respective article where we already have a minimum of 60 days which can be renewed. It's Paris, seventh, and eighth. So this is the one thing I wanted to say on the relationship between national procedural powers and mutual legal assistance. The other thing I wanted to say is when we agree on minimum standards in article 25. Then you're not prevented from having higher period for preservation at in your national capacity. At least I would read it in that way. So in respect of what the distinguished delegate from China said, I think if we assess the implementation of Article 25 and T Have a preservation period of 180 days, you're totally compliant with the standards of the convention. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much Austria, Syrian Arab Republic, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. In brief, for the same reasons that have been mentioned by some of the countries, we also support, that the period should be a minimum of 90 days, especially as some national legislation have already adopted a period that is close to this limit. Thank you.
Thank you very much Syrian Arab Republic.
I have no other requests for the floor at this stage regarding articles 25 to 30. I'm going to do a little bit of a summary if I can. Some of which is. Good, and some of which requires more work, perhaps, in article 25, what I've heard is that we still have some contention around article 25, paragraph two. In regards to the word maximum of 90 days, I've had two proposals from the floor with some support, one to change this to minimum. I know, this is an opposite, which is interesting, and another to rely rather on domestic legal frameworks rather than to specify in this paragraph. A specific maximum. I would suggest that this remains an issue of contention. And I would strongly urge those who want to make changes to this paragraph to convince everyone to make changes. The other issue in article 25, as raised by two or three delegations is in regards to paragraph three, in relation to the term custodian or other person and the question of whether this includes legal persons. I invite any responses to that proposal. I am hesitantly delighted, that there seems to be no comment in regards to article 26. Aside, of course, from the general reservation, that has been made by several delegations, that everything in this chapter will of course, be contingent on the results of discussions on articles 23 and 24. So I would open the floor or suggest that perhaps article 26 Is something noting that caveat, perhaps this group could agree to earlier rather than later on Article 27, we have received a proposal in regards to the words in the territory of the state party. Whichever delegations to consider. We've also had some conversation on Article 28. We have had a proposal to move back to the previous draft that we had at HC six. This would be moving the phrase in the territory of that state party from the end of Article One back up to the chapeau of Article One. This seems to be a stylistic change. I would welcome comments on others, whether this is a stylistic change, whether you agree or whether this does have a legal bearing on the interpretation of the article. In regards to articles, 29 and 30. We have had proposals for textural changes in one be to include the words in its territory. And otherwise we have heard that those countries who were once opposed to include None of these articles may in fact, be open to including them dependent on the content of articles 45 and 46 in the international cooperation chapter. So on this basis, I would like to propose that with the caveat that this does always depend upon articles 23 and 24 that this committee consider adopting article 26 ad referendum.
Austria, you have the floor?
Thank you so much. Sorry, madam chair. But you explicitly asked about legal bearings regarding the move moving off in the territory, that there were several proposals. One was, I think, in article 28. And in there, I would really have problems or see problems. Because if you say that the competent authorities should search or similarly access in the territory of that state party. That means that the access is going to take place in the territory of the state party, but the data or the computer system might be anywhere else in the world. And I was wondering, those delegations who are very much, who holds sovereignty aspects very dearly, whether they would want to live with this effect that access is going to take part in Austria, for example, but the data or the computer system would be in Russia or in China. I don't think we want to have that effect. Right. I hope we can all agree to that. So that's why we were very hesitant to move in the territory to another place in article 21, 28. Sorry, Para one.
Thank you very much, Austria for that explanation. I wonder Russia given that explanation. Are you willing to withdraw your proposal to amend article 28? Package.
For the time being, we're going to think about what Austria just said. We saw in this danger that the data maintained on the territory of another state would be subjected to measures without any link to the territory of the state party. But we're going to be thinking about what Austria just said.
Thank you very much. I encourage lots of thinking. Azerbaijan, you have the floor.
Madame Chair, we want to just give correlated our view regarding the article 30, article 35 and Article Two, which is about the definition issue the serious criminal offense or serious crimes, as far as we understood, in its current form. The convention not with Article Two H defines the serious crimes as offenses, representing a maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years that this term is similarly referenced in article 30 and 35. Paragraph one, as well as this term, however, presents a significant significant challenge. For example, the criminal legislation of many countries categorizes serious crimes as those murdering sentences of more than seven years. Such disparities in legal definitions could lead to conflict and inconsistency when applying the convention across various legal systems. In light of this, we have proposed that the member states deliberate on replacing serious crimes with a more universal applicable term. This term can be replaced for example by the crimes punishable by imprisonment, and which is the correct definition of the serious crime in Article Two age and the current definition can be retained as is, without any change the same as the four years of minimum deprivation of liberty. We think that this change is crucial for ensuring the commission is harmonious and effective tool for international cooperation, adaptable to the legal framework of signatories. Thanks for the consideration.
Thank you very much Azerbaijan, you've taken us forward to article 30, I believe and talking about those ones, which I do want to turn to. So thank you for starting that conversation. I do want to ask you all to consider very carefully whether article 26 given no one has made any interventions on this is something that we can report progress on. Before moving on. I will leave that with you now.
And we'll turn to examination of articles 31 to 34. Article 31, on the freezing seizure and confiscation of assets, which reproduces article 31 of UNCAC and article 32 on the establishment of criminal record, which reproduces article 22 of UNTOC, an article 41 of UNCAC retained as in the original draft we discussed at our sixth session. Article 33 on protection of witnesses in relation to this new reference to domestic law has been included to align with article 32 of UNCAC. And article 34, now incorporates a more generalized proposal to the assistance and protection of victims. The original draft provision that was discussed at AHC 6 was based on Article 25 of UNTOC. Its protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children, supplementing untuck and proposals made by Member States. Distinguished Delegates, we have only found agreement at referendum on a few provisions in article 31. As most of the other articles reflect the same language used in UNCAC and UNTOC, I encourage you to only propose alternative language if your delegation otherwise cannot accept those certain provisions. And I encourage you to offer alternate language that enjoys broad support in relation to these articles. And therefore, now open the floor on articles 31 to 34 Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you chair on Article 31. We do hope that convention will facilitate international cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime. But at the same time, the scope of application of this convention needs to be clear and appropriate. Unlike UNTOC and UNCAC. This convention does not necessarily criminalized only serious crimes offenses or offenses that generate proceeds of crime. We therefore believe that appropriate limitations need to be placed on the offences subject to confiscation the proceeds of crime and our mutual legal assistance thereof. We regret that the proposal that we made during the sixth session to insert a phrase limiting the offenses subject to confiscation to serious crimes did not receive support from the floor. We engaged in active consultations with many member states since then, during and after the session. Based on outcomes from such discussion that we had, we now propose the following language as paragraph one, which allows a certain degree of discretion to each state party with regard to the scope of offenses subjected to the confiscation. The proposal reads, state party may require a certain degree of seriousness and the respect of the offenses described in this paragraph. Japan also supports the retention of references to articles six to 16 in paragraphs one A and B depending on the outcome. have discussions on scope. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Japan, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you very much chair on Article 34. Egypt proposals in paragraph four, Egypt proposes the deletion of in cooperation with relevant stakeholders as appropriate, as the proposed definition of stakeholders does not apply in this provision. In paragraph five, Egypt proposes the deletion of paragraph five. And the rationale for that is that the declaration of basic principles of justice for victims of crime and abuse of power adopted by the UNGA, resolution 40 Slash 34 of 29th November 1985. included a broader scope of those rights with regards to access to justice, fair treatment and restitution, compensation and assistance. And these provisions apply to everyone without discrimination of any kind, such as race, color, sex, age, language, religion, nationality, political or other opinion, cultural beliefs or practices, property, birth or family status, ethnic or social origin, and disability. Therefore, there is no need to add this provision to the draft agreement. Finally, Madam Chair, Egypt supports the retention of paragraph six of article 34. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Egypt, I have Argentina
Thank you, Madam Chair. Argentina considers it important to maintain the current language of article 31. As far as article 34 Our delegation suggests a slight amendment in paragraph two in June, to provide the normative consistency to all of article 34. We think it's important in paragraph two, after each state party shall to add the word subject to its domestic law. This suggestion is based on the wording already used in this article, same article in paragraphs three and four. I think it would add clarity to the effective implementation of compensation of victims of crimes covered under this section. Madam Chair, we don't believe that this added language could really be rejected by the room. So, given it is very important for Argentina, so this is what our suggestion is. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Argentina, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding article 34. assistance to the to and protection of the victims, my delegation would like to propose regarding article part subparagraph four of this article. You see, madam chair that now we are discussing in informal consultations regarding the definition of the stakeholder. And so we believe that we it's better to retain the original text, you come back to the original text, and with you know, to remove the stakeholder as appropriate, but we keep the international organization and government organization and other elements of the civil society. And then, regarding Article, paragraph six, my delegation would like to propose to delete the take steps in second sentence. And then the rest of this paragraph the end of this paragraph in article 13 to 15, would be replaced with 10 to 15. Meanwhile, my delegation would like to make this reservation regarding for the article is sub paragraph five. So only for the reservation made by our colleague from Egyptian delegation Thank you.
Thank you very much Iran, I have Canada.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor. It's very nice to see you in the chair. Thank you for your efforts to bring us closer to consensus. Madam Chair particularly on Article 34. Canada is a very firm view that the mention of gender and other aspects in subparagraph five is actually extremely important. I'd like to remind all of the Distinguished Delegates where we started in this process, invite them to look at the ad hoc committee 1, ad hoc committee 2. documents and to see the multiple and detailed references to gender throughout that document, reflecting the preferences of many delegations, for a thoroughly gender inclusive text, which in our view, would increase the effectiveness of our efforts to bring in and combat cybercrime. We've came down to ad hoc committee six, and a proposal to put gender in Article Five, championed by Uruguay and supported by a very, very large number of member states was unfortunately not retained. And at that time, in support of the chair, and I would say, out of sensitivity for some delegations, sensitivity to the term gender, we decided to work on the basis of the chairs text. But Canada made clear that time now then, and I'll reiterate now that we've reached the floor, and we can't go lower than this. Lest we produce a cybercrime instrument that is not fit for purpose, that is gender blind. And that ignores and is insensitive to the particular needs of certain victims, And that would blunt the overall effectiveness of the instrument. And so on Article, the subparagraph, five here, I think, when looking at victims of cybercrime, only the most insensitive among us, I would say that we should not take into account the gender age, and particular circumstances of the victims be a callous approach, indeed, to people who have suffered tremendous and life in some cases, lifelong trauma, from the acts of cyber violence that occurs online in a different way against men and women, boys and boys and girls. I think Article Two subparagraph six is very important in this regard. And quite frankly, a state asking the wrong set of stakeholders to assist with victims or in prevention is wrong. There's civil society organizations, there's volunteer organizations, who exists to help victims and the recovery. Some of them like to work with the state others don't. And they certainly don't exist only to serve the state. So we respectfully requested article fours and five remain as is. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Canada, El Salvador, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam.Chair for giving us the floor again. Also, El Salvador considers as a top priority in the text of this convention that we ensure that we have the necessary measures for the protection of victims and, and witnesses as well as their compensation given the intersectional approach to the to human subjects. Given that in mind, we can support the text of articles 31 to 34, and in particular, paragraph five of 30 of arc article 34 refers to the specific particular circumstances and needs of victims including the particular circumstances and the needs of children. Thank you very much, Madam.
Thank you very much. El Salvador, Russian Federation, you have the floor. Down look at the elbow, boys need to?
Yes, a word of explanation on Article 34. We have a proposal. In paragraph four of this article, we propose limiting ourselves to a reference to articles 13 and 14 which are on children, deleting the mention of article 15, which concerns adults. As for minors, they are automatically protected and And adults they should make the requisite motions in order for states to take their interests into account and ensure those interests in this regard, in paragraph six of this article when requests are granted to delete or make inaccessible materials, described in articles 13 and 15. Here we propose removing the article that has to do with children because children their images you mentioned in these articles should be automatically deleted by states because their circulation is unlawful, insofar as the circulation is unlawful, so for adults under this paragraph, they need to make a motion to have that material deleted, and then the requisite actions need to be taken to ensure its deletion. That's because incidents could arise in which adults do not want for whatever reason for these material this material to be deleted, thank you.
Thank you very much Russia. I have no further requests for the floor at this time. So I'd like to go back and re examine some of the proposals that have been put forward regarding these articles 31 to 34. We've had a proposal from Japan to add additional language to 31. Around the certain degree of seriousness, I haven't heard any support yet for that article or that proposal nor any opposition to it. So I invite comments or reactions to that proposal. We also have had a proposal to reinsert the references to Article Six to 16. Throughout this article again, I have not heard any reactions to that yet. So I invite reactions to those proposals in article 31.
We have heard some countries ascertain article 31 as it is drafted. I have not heard any comments on Article 32. Which again, I'm taking as perhaps optimistically, something that we can consider in this group, agreeing ad referendum, noting the caveats as before, so I will put that on the table for you to consider now and please let me know if that's something that we can take forward. Similarly with article 33. I have not heard any proposed amendments to that article. So I would suggest that this group could consider adopting that by referendum. We've heard a lot of different comments on Article 34. I do recall from this article is the subject of many different compromises. A lot of different proposals have gone into the creation of this article by the chair. So changes to this article. I do ask countries to really think carefully about how how that whether that is something that is going to garner broad support given how carefully constructed article 34 is at the stage of our negotiations. But to summarize, we have had a proposal to amend article 34 to to also include a subject to its domestic law. We've had several proposals to delete article 34 For or to revert to the text that was previously put forward in the original draft for AHC 6. We've also had proposals to delete paragraph five and to amend paragraphs four and six, in relation to the articles which they refer, currently referring to articles 13 to 15. Again, the subject of considerable debate and compromise over several months. I now have a list of speakers. So I hope I have prompted you to respond to some of these questions, including whether articles 32 and 33 are in fact satisfactory. My list includes United Kingdom, the United States, Burkina Faso, the European Union, Singapore, New Zealand and Colombia, United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On article 31, subparagraph, one, A and B, we would support Japan's proposal to retain the reference to Article Six to 16 depending on the outcome of the ongoing scope discussions, in terms of articles 34, four and 34. Five, we will support them as they're currently drafted, for the reasons outlined very clearly by Canada. Thank you.
Thank you very much United Kingdom, United States you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, regarding articles 31, 32 and 33. Those are satisfactory to the United States. Given the caveat that the resolution of article 17 may affect our the way we'd like to see it phrase concerning either inserting articles six to 16, or in accordance with the convention. So the same caveat we've put on other articles exists there regarding article 34. First of all, regarding paragraphs one and two of 34. We think it should read that the offenses established in accordance with Article 6 to 16 of the convention instead of covered by the convention, because covered by would include, for example, could include any serious crime for which electronic evidence is needed. And this, I think, would put this assistance and protection of victims article on a very different level, if it included all kinds of other serious crimes. So we would favor saying and established in accordance with the convention, assuming article 17 exits the criminalization chapter. And for we think the two should also be limited in that way to established in accordance with the convention. Regarding paragraph five, we support the Canadian comments that you heard, and retaining relevant stakeholders. Of course, in our country relevant NGOs provide a great deal of services to victims of crime, everything from housing to food support and other things they don't all come from the government NGOs are vital to that effort to protect victims and provide assistance to victims. Regarding let's see, that was as a reference to relevant stakeholders was paragraph for the Canadian comments. I wanted to support a we're actually in paragraph five regarding gender. We want to certainly support that. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. United States, Burkina Faso you have the floor.
Thank you chair. The at the last session of our committee, Burkina Faso made a proposal you concerned persons to be protected. In addition to witnesses, one could add those who are whistleblowers or experts. They could also benefit from the same protection that is afforded to witnesses. We would therefore reiterate here, this proposal to add these two components that is whistleblowers and experts. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Burkina Faso. I invite comments on that proposal and give the floor to the European Union.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On article 31 para one letter A and B. The EU and its member states would like to see the reference to Article Six to 16 be reestablished pending. Of course, the conclusion of the discussion on the scope same thing for article 32. And for article 33, for article 34, the EU and its member states would support the position expressed by the distinguished they get something us regarding the challenge of offences covered by this convention into funds is established in accordance with Article Six to 16 of this convention. And that would be the same for paragraph two. In paragraph two, do you would like also to add after to provide access to compensation and restitution available under its domestic law, so there will be an addition available under its domestic law. And finally, in paragraph five, we would suggest to say to add after in applying the provisions of paragraph two to four, each state party shall take into account where we learnt the age, gender and the particular circumstances and neither victims and the EU and its member states would like to retain the gender in that paragraph which is particularly relevant in the framework of this article on the assistance to and protection of victims. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much European Union. I cannot help but note that your proposal just then to article 34, paragraph two resembles but not as it is not entirely the same as the proposal from Argentina. So, can I ask you to meet and discuss that and see if you can come to an agreed language that you both support. Turning now to Singapore, Singapore, you have the floor.
We would like to join other delegations also in support of paragraph I should say, article 31, paragraph one subparagraph, A and B on the reinsertion of the reference to Article Six through 16 as per what has been suggested by our distinguished colleague from Japan, and I would hasten to add also the similar reference to 6 to 16 in articles 32 and 33. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Singapore. I have not had any one oppose the proposal to put back the reference to Article Six to 16 in articles 3132 and 33. I think that this is something that sounds like it has broad support. So I would like you to consider that. As we go forward. I can see people waving at you on the list. My list is New Zealand, Colombia, Georgia, Russian Federation, Mauritania, Nigeria, Australia. The United Republic of Tanzania and Paraguay, New Zealand. Do you have the floor?
Thank you Chair I can I can be brief because we're raising the same caveats that others have. So we're the references to articles 16 to 16 have been deleted. We have exactly the same caveat that others have mentioned for articles 31, 32 and 33. A lot depends on what happens with article 17. Whether or not those references would need to be reintroduced on Article 34. We would also support the US proposal on paragraphs one and two to insert. to reinsert articles six to 16 to make it clear what we are covering in those articles for the remainder of article 34. We wish to see the paragraphs retained including the reference to gender for all of the reasons others have explained before us. Thank you.
Thank you very much New Zealand, Colombia. You have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As for article 34, paragraph four and especially paragraph five delegates delegation. I would like to stress that for us this this article which is well drafted is really vital. This is why as we have had an opportunity to To state and previous occasions for Colombia, the inclusion of the issue of gender is an essential aspect within the convention. And its cross cutting to all its articles. This is why we believe that this article 34, in particular, must definitely reflect this concern, indeed, the inclusion of the term gender and paragraph five forces investigators, prosecutors that are the duty not to not to fall into stereotypes that could lead to re-victimization. In other words, without this aspect, this article loses a lot of its relevance. This is why we are in favor of the term gender to be as it is, in its current language and Article Five. And this is this content is an absolute minimum that has to be in an article on the production of victims, especially when there's regard to the reference to other interested parties. This reference is essential the work in our experience, the work of NGOs and supportive victims is essential. Furthermore, in response to your question, regarding article 31, 32, and 33, we think it's important to maintain them as they are, once again a chapter on victims. It makes no sense with that article, such as everything that we have stated, of course, is linked to the resolution that will that will arrive at an article 17, which is why we reserve Our position pending on Article 17. And of course, we'll come back to that too, once we resolve that other issue. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Colombia, Georgia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair regarding article 31. Georgia supports Japanese proposal that would allow member states to require a certain degree of seriousness for offenses to invoke Article 31 procedural powers we have similar limitations on under domestic law, and I'm sure many member states would. We would also we also support insertion article reference to Article Six to 16, subject to these scoping developments regarding scoping provisions. And we also support current wording of article 34. Having regard to Canadian and US comments, thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Giorgio, I have the Russian Federation to be followed by Mauritania rush, do you have the floor?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry to take it to return to article 28. I just want to react to what Austria said and to your question. In this case, we have thought it over and we probably need to introduce some clarity. And we suggest that on the territory on the territory of state of the state party should be mentioned in both sub paragraphs of this article. One A and B. So in a at the end on the territory of the state party and in one beat also on the territory of the state party in the church was to have that state party sorry. So for both those sub parents that's on that article.
as for the articles that we're discussing now 32, 33 and 34 we object to referring to 6 and 16 in those articles. And if if we are going to refer to these articles then we also suggest that within the scope of this conventions should also be mentioned in these articles.
Thank you very much Russia, Mauritania you have the floor to be followed by Nigeria.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support the proposal I have the representative of Burkina Faso. As far as the addition of whistleblowers and experts. This is in line with the other conventions. There are four categories that are protected whistleblowers, experts, witnesses and victims. As far as the purpose language of article 33 and 34. That says we're talking about the protection of victims, we do suggest adding the two other categories, whistleblowers and experts because their specific situation requires a similar protection to that provided to victims. Thank you. And witnesses for?
Thank you very much Mauritania, Nigeria to be followed by Australia, Nigeria, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Nigeria would like to return the articles 31 to 33 as presently couched by the chair. We also believe that the reference to Article Six to 16 are still premature. You know, at this point in our conversation for several reasons that we have given unless and until we are able to exhaust the criminalization chapter, it's still premature to argue whether we should make reference to six to 16. Similarly, Nigeria is paying very close attention to the reference to gender in article 34 paragraph four, I understand that different jurisdiction have different understanding of gender, especially in this context. For Nigeria, gender in this context means sex, and if perhaps, it cannot any other meaning other than what is defined in domestic legislation. Perhaps it may be important to further clarify that as we we make progress. Furthermore, I did, I would like to support the proposal by Burkina Faso to include the reference to whistleblowers in the list of those to be protected under the Articles under consideration. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much, Nigeria, I have Australia to be followed by the United Republic of Tanzania, Australia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair for giving me the floor. I'll try and keep this brief. In terms of article 33, we would propose to delete the text in good faith. In the first paragraph, we think that that change would actually enhance the flexibility for a range of different domestic legal systems, noting that not all states will require good faith considerations when protecting witnesses in a criminal justice context. If I may also go back to article 30. With your indulgence, we've listened to the proposal to connect this article to Serious Crime definition to provide clarity. We view article 30 is allowing for domestic law of a state to appropriately set out the kinds of serious offenses where interception would apply. This is essential flexibility, including for Australia, given the intrusiveness of interception powers, and any threshold should be left to the domestic law of the party. As such, we would prefer to retain the original wording. If it is a question that there may be confusion between Article Two definition of serious crime and the reference to serious criminal offenses. In the first paragraph, we think that the full reference to a range of serious criminal offenses to be determined by domestic law would resolve that concern. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Australia, Tanzania, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, my delegation supports the supports article 31 and 32 is currently drafted. We have two proposals in article 33. First in paragraph one of article 33 is We indicated in the previous session, we think the proper reference in paragraph one should be domestic legal system and not, not domestic law. And just to clarify a bit, if you if you go to paragraph two, paragraph a of paragraph two, it goes beyond the context of domestic law as opposed to paragraph two, which is purely a matter of the rules of procedure under the Criminal Procedure of respective countries. But if you look to two a, it goes beyond set of rules, which would refer to domestic law. Therefore, we will propose to change the reference from domestic law to domestic legal system, so as to accommodate some of those measures contemplated under paragraph two a which goes beyond rules. And we would also make the second proposal and the same paragraph by by adding the word prosecutive after the word investigative. And the reason behind is, in some jurisdictions, including Tanzania, some of these measures contemplated under this part of fall under the mandate of the prosecution authorities, and not investigative or judicial, judicial body. So I would propose adding the word prosecutive after the word investigative, my delegation would retain its right to come and make its remarks in relation to Article 34. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Tanzania, Paraguay to be followed by Vanuatu, China, Iceland, of the European Union, Paraguay, you have the floor?
Well, with regard to article 31, 32, and 34. We support the position of the United States and Canada with regard to referring to mentioning a mention of Article Six to 16. As far as what Tanzania just said, we also consider we'd like to see reformulation of articles 30 and 33. There guard to the national justice systems and also add prosecutor to the text. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Paraguay, Vanuatu, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair will be very brief with intervention, perhaps consistent with a nearly a statement. And if only to be only to Ghana support, or sorry, to Ghana consensus. Vanuatu supports the proposal made by several delegations in relation to articles 31,32 and 33 with reference to Article Six to 16. One want to also support the proposal made by the United United States in relation to the same point in article 34. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Vanuatu. Have China, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support the article 31st as presently drafted. We are positively considering constructive proposals by other delegations. We agree with you Madam Chair. In your general view on chapter four, for chapter four, the procedural standards are closely related to criminalization in chapter two. They need to be considered together. We agree with the statement by the representative of Nigeria, currently, adding reference to Article Six to 16 is still premature. We need to avoid repetitive revisions and amendments. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much China have Iceland to be followed by the European Union. I said you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll try to be as brief as possible. We support Japan's proposal in 31. We support a reference to Article Six to 16. And article 31. and elsewhere, as has been mentioned, keeping in mind this relates to the scope in general. And Iceland wants the scope of this convention to be clear and focused. Madam Chair, I listened to you attentively even you reminded us that a lot of work has gone into article 34. Thank you for that reminder. Seeing that there is a compromise in place we support simply retaining paragraphs four and five, of article 34. And, of course, we need to keep the reference to stakeholders just to highlight that specifically, they serve an important role in our domestic system. And I think my colleague from Colombia did a perfectly good job of explaining. And my colleague from Iceland yesterday, why keeping the reference to gender aspects is important. Thank you very much.
Thank you, I sent I have the European Union to be followed by Germany, Russian Federation and South Africa, European Union, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. And I'm sorry to take the floor again. But wanted to add to that the EU and its member states would support Japan proposal regarding article 31. And also, the proposal made by Australia in relation to Article 33 para one. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, European Union, Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Madam Chair, on Article 31. I just wanted to say that we would join China. And we'd like to keep this article in its current form. And, in fact,we don't understand what doubts countries can have the country the reference to to specific articles rather than the scope of the current convention. We're talking about the current convention. We're not talking about any other thing else. We're not talking about any other types of offenses, and those that we're discussing now. So we strongly support that this version of of the this article, thank you very much.
Thank you, Russia, South Africa to be followed by Iran, South Africa, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We will be brief. We support articles 31 234, as currently drafted. And in particular, we request the retention of paragraph five of article 34, as drafted, thank you.
Thank you, South Africa, Iran to be followed by the Republic of Korea, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly, that the Iranian delegation would like to support article 31 As it is, thank you.
Thank you, Iran. I have the Republic of Korea to be followed by Sweden.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor. Our intervention would be brief regarding article 31 to 33. We support Japan's proposal reporting article 6 to 16. And regarding article 34, paragraph four, we support the current text proposed by Chair Thank you.
Thank you, Republic of Korea on my list. I have Sweden Ecuador, Mexico, Costa Rica and Canada, Sweden. You have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We fully alone align ourselves to the statement of the European Union. But I would just add in our national compassionate capacity that we are especially interested in the proposal of Japan in article 31 on limiting its scope to A predicative predicate offenses have a certain degree of seriousness. Thank you.
Thank you, Sweden, Ecuador, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Delegation of Ecuador would like to support the Japan's proposal that when was proposed by Japan and other delegations to include an article 31 reference to Article Six to 16. Furthermore, we'd like to support what was said by Colombia, regarding the importance of including the term gender, and paragraph five of article 34. Because as we all know, there is a differentiated impact of cyber crime on women and girls. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ecuador, Mexico to be followed by Costa Rica and Mexico you have.
Thank you. For Mexico, it's very important to stress the need to maintain in article 34, in paragraph five, as have already been explained by various delegations, including Canada and Colombia. This is the minimum standard as required to move forward. So for us the language in paragraph five is essential. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mexico, Costa Rica, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair very briefly. We are completely in agreement with the proposal of the chair. However, we also consider that the proposal of Japan is one that we should examine, and is part of the consensus we're seeking we should produce a convention that in this area is limited to the articles of the criminalization that is from six to 16. The other issue that we wanted to mention is that Costa Rica, as we mentioned this morning is certainly in favor of having gender, the cross cutting mat issue for the entire convention, especially in this case, where we're speaking of victims, and we completely support the argument that candidate Colombia have exposed to this plenary. Thank you.
Thank you, Costa Rica, Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, we know that we've got a live issue in terms of the criminalization chapter, and that the fate of article 17 Doesn't look promising. But until it's confirmed, we would add our voice to that of Japan and others in reinserting, the reference to Article Six to 16. More or less, wherever was taken out in this in this chapter. We would also like to support a Burkina Faso's suggestion to include additional protections for whistleblowers etc. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you, Canada.
Switzerland, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving us the floor. As other delegations, we generally support the reference to article 6 to 16 to draft the convention, and therefore also in the provisions at hand. In Article 31. We could support Japan's proposal that limits the predicate offense, as it was also mentioned by other delegations, thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you Switzerland. I have Panama on my list and I am going to call for any other final comments on it. calls 31 to 35. Before I propose a way forward, Panama you have the floor.
Thank you chair. Our delegation believes that as other states have said, it's very relevant in article 34 to maintain the mention of gender in paragraph five. Indeed, this is a crucial factor when we're talking about applying all of the assistance and protection measures for victims. As for articles 31 to 34, we agree with the content of these articles. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Panama on my list, I have Albania United States Norway and Tanzania, Albania, you have the floor.
Also, Albania delegation supports the proposal of Japan, Japan on Article 31. Paragraph one A B for limiting offenses to refer to the article six to 16. Also, we support the maintenance of the retain of the word gender, the article 34, paragraph five. Thank you.
Thank you, Albania, United States.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We've heard the proposals in article 31 Regarding adding new language regarding the seriousness of the offence for this provision. And we had a question for those delegations supporting that we noticed paragraph 10 of this article, as drafted states that nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the measures to which this article refers shall be defined and implemented in accordance with the provisions of the domestic law of a state party. To us, this seems like this perhaps would take care of the concerns of delegations that have raised adding additional language here. And we would be curious to know the response as to whether this language could indeed take care of that concern. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, United States, Norway to be followed by Tanzania No way, you have the floor.
Thank you. And just to add my voice to those who would like a focused scope, also these articles and would like to insert the reference to 6 to 16. And depending on what happens to 17, of course, also, what we do find important is that we do leave article 34, four and five as they are drafted. Now, I would especially like to say which has also been set by Canada, but this is actually Article Five is actually already been discussed long and it's a compromise already as it is, we were we have supported at the last session more inclusive language in Article Five, we did agree to delete the language there, but that was really that was really because we saw that it was included other in other places. So deleting it also here would would not be acceptable. Thank you.
Thank you, Norway, Tanzania, you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. On article 34. Madam Chair, Tanzania, I would like to indicate that in the previous session in the sixth session, we had called for deletion the deletion of both paragraphs four and five. However, we have noted that under paragraph four, there has been additional words subject to its domestic law. These words were missing in the previous version. And then therefore our concern in relation to to the role of stakeholders where we addressed because, in our view, each state has its own way of involving stakeholders in in dealing with the rights and protection of victims. And in that regard, in paragraph five, we would propose the similar addition of the words subject to its domestic law after the word state party, and in that regard, we would we would withdraw our our proposal to delete the reference As to the agenda. And I think in that regard, it would address the concerns raised by a number of delegations, including Tanzania. So we would propose retention of part of five, as long as we make reference to, to domestic law, similar to way to the way our concerns were addressed in the previous session. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Tanzania for that incredibly constructive proposal. I urge countries to think about that. And also urge everyone to think about proposals that do bring us closer together, and are innovative. On my list. I have Eritrea to be followed by Yemen. Eritrea, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, in reference to articles 31 to 34. My delegation doesn't support the reference to articles 6 to 16, as we haven't yet finished the chapter on criminalization. So I don't support we need to wait. Thank you.
Thank you, Eritrea, Yemen, you have the floor
Thank you very much, Madam, there is a problem. Whether we have to do a total with the applicability of the convention, there are so many differences here. And if it was a matter of the applicability, we would have resolved many of the problems in many articles. We are now discussing offenses that had to do with information, and if they are serious, and they develop from day to day, and there are new crimes that appear every day. And we are looking here at an expanding in applicability, especially that the crimes referenced from six to 16 are not are not all of the crimes in ICT. So therefore, we were for expanding the applicability and the scope of application in procedural and content as long as the purpose here is to promote cooperation in fighting cyber crimes. So therefore, we believe that combating it, combating these crimes would would include all crimes electronic or content, even at any level or at the minimum level, as we say, and because we discover new crimes and these crimes develop and they they reappear and therefore, if we were to resolve the scope of applicability, I think we will be able to address many of the differences on other in other fields.
Thank you very much, Yemen.
Excellencies Distinguished Delegates, we are coming up on the end of our afternoon, and I do want to give you all time to refresh yourselves before this evening. Thank you for engaging constructively in the discussions we've had this afternoon. I think we have heard some issues that have been discussed many times but still are not resolved. And I really do encourage delegations that have those outstanding issues to talk to each other and see if there is something that can garner broader support. In particular, from what I've heard, I think article 23 remains something that needs further work. I've heard a divergence of views across that article, and in particular, how it relates to other articles. We've heard had several proposals to make amendments across a lot of the articles in the procedural measures chapter. And I've heard some level of support for many of those. So the proponents of those articles, they would all those amendments, I would suggest that you go and discuss and do try to find a way forward. In particular, the proposal and articles 25. I think 26 seems to be something that we are close to agreeing, which is heartening. And I would suggest that we do try to look at how those articles can be agreed, we do have informals on this topic again, tomorrow night, in the chairs methodology, I would like to turn to the international cooperation Chapter At that informal, and hear from you all, then, which gives me a little bit of time to do more work on this chapter. For all of you, and for me, as well. I am keen to understand better where we can find a way to move forward on some of these divergent issues. And I do encourage delegations to really think about whether the things that have been proposed today are something that are technical edits, things that are nice to have, or things that are absolutely essential for your delegation. And to really go through and prioritize the proposals that have been made, we are getting to the end of our time. And we do need to be quite strict in what we do, where we are making changes to the revised draft.
So on that note, unless there are any proposals, or any comments on the proposed way forward, I suggest that we close this discussion for now. We will continue the international cooperation chapter chapter five, tomorrow evening, in informal at 7pm. And we will revisit relevant provisions and those provisions that still remain contentious after we've gone through that international cooperation chapter. And I do urge you all to think about those proposed those provisions that we have very few proposals for changes on and whether we can come back into this room when we come back into plenary on this chapter to agree those proposals at referendum. I believe the informal session tonight, and we'll go back to discussing those chapters that were discussed in plenary this morning. So on that note, I will give you all a few minutes extra, please rest and be ready to come back with my lovely friend the dustinguished delegate and vice chair of Nigeria to continue discussing criminalization and other chapters tonight. Thank you, everyone.
