Excellencies ladies and gentlemen, let's kick off our second session of conclusion concluding session of the ad hoc committee to elaborate a comprehensive international convention on countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes. I would record the list of speakers for this afternoon on articles five and 24. I have Iraq, China, the EU, Australia, Syria, Egypt, the Republic of Korea, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Japan, Czechia, the Russian Federation, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Iceland, Albania, Costa Rica, Uganda, Ghana, the Dominican Republic, India, Mexico, Tanzania, Indonesia, South Africa, Norway and Georgia. Iraq, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, my delegation would like to commend your efforts personally and the efforts of those of the team supporting you which have led us to the current draft. We appreciate these efforts that have been made. However, at the same time, we would like to emphasize the need to take into consideration the specific nature of member states in addition to their domestic laws and regulations, traditions and customs when drafting the provisions of the convention. Taking these issues into account will lead us to reach consensus as we all want to, it would not be effective to have any text if there is no consensus. In this regard. My delegation would like to emphasize its support for the comments provided by the delegations of Egypt and Pakistan and Russia and Cuba, particularly in terms of article 24, which has not been agreed upon in the draft text. Bringing on divergent issues related to human rights to be discussed in this session will only lead to not achieving consensus, and will lead to difficulties in achieving our objective which is to draft a comprehensive convention that will limit cyber crimes. My delegation sees that the particle that the article 50 in its current language is comprehensive and covers the human rights aspect without the need to go beyond the main idea of the Convention, which is to limit cyber crimes and to move on to controversial issues related to human rights. Therefore, my delegation will be keen to effectively participate in the formal and informal discussions in order to achieve this common objective of this session. Thank you, Madam Chair.
thank you to Iraq now, please join us.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is our first time to speak. I would like to take this opportunity to highly commend Madam Chair and the Secretariat for the contribution to advancing the negotiation process. In particular, the texts proposed by Madam Chair constitutes an important foundation for the consensus to be achieved at this meeting. We are convinced that under the able leadership of madam chair all parties will be able to properly settle their differences and smoothly complete negotiations. China attaches great importance to international cooperation on combating ICT related crimes, and has always supported concluding through negotiations and authoritative universal and comprehensive international convention, thus providing a legal framework for combating ICT related crimes on a global scale. Regarding articles five and 24, China wishes to reiterate our following position. We endorse the statement made this morning by relevant states. We believe that the main purpose of the convention is to comprehensively combat ICT related crimes, not to comprehensively discuss human rights protection, in view of the fact that this is our last session for negotiations. We hope that all parties will bear in mind Under the spirit of consensus, and reach a balanced concrete and clear cut text on human rights protection, among other important issues. China fully understands that these two articles are important to some countries. But we believe that the convention should try to accommodate the concerns of all parties. Based on the current text, what we need to do is to minimize differences, not to expand differences. Thank you, Madam Chair.
thank you very much China. The European Union
Thank you, Chair. On behalf of the EU and its member states, I would like first to price your faults as chair as well as those of your team and the circuit that you had to guide us towards consensus, you can count on the support of the EU and its member states during those two weeks. Madam Chair, we fail to understand why articles five and 24 pose concerns for some distinguished delegates. This will be a UN Convention on the UN itself as being the original promoter of human rights at a global scale. Through its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the UN General Assembly adopted almost 20 years ago. It is unquestionable that every UN member states as obligations under international international human rights law as article 5 of the draft convention records, article 24 clarifies how these obligations translate into some of the core parts of this future convention, namely the procedural powers it provides and the international cooperation measures that rely on them. When it comes to human rights and safeguards, we are not talking about something nice to have, without which the convention could still be implemented. Human Rights are in fact an essential enabler of international cooperation, not an obstacle. If a state party cannot trust, that the assistance or information it provides to another state party will be used in a way that does not infringe the rights of the persons investigated or prosecuted, that state body is simply unable to provide that assistance or information in accordance with its domestic law.
We underline again that for many states around the world, including the EU member states, human rights are an integral part of the national framework. Accordingly, they set out the limits and conditions of the ability to cooperate with other states, the future convention cannot be fully effective without incorporating them. To respond to some question which were asked in relation with the principle of proportionality, the EU and its member states would like to stress that it is a basic tenet of human rights law. It is already found in article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It provides that such rights and freedoms shall be subject only to such limitations, as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing do recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others, and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society. It is of use, that it is UN member states individually which must ensure respect for this basic principle of unity international human rights law in the exercise of their sovereignty.
Madam Chair, article 24 is indeed inspired from the Budapest convention. But so articles 25 to 30 in the chapter 4 on particular powers, and articles 42 to 46 on the international cooperation chapter, and they are intrinsically linked by that logic. Did you think that Article 24, as proposed by some countries, should then necessarily lead to the deletion of articles 25 to 30 and articles 42 to 46. Deleting article 24 should also lead to narrowing the scope of international cooperation on electronic evidence to cover only crimes defined in the convention. The EU and its member states were initially against the extension of the scope to the exchange of electronic evidence for serious crimes. We accepted this larger scope because we noted how important it was for many delegations. Our acceptance remains conditional on the existence of strong safe grounds, and no additional offences under the criminalization chapter.
Madam Chair, the EU and its member states support the UK proposal to clarify that article 24 also applies to the international cooperation chapter. As this does not seem obvious to all the delegations. We also support an amendment in paragraph one of article 24, which would clarify that domestic law should provide for the protection of human rights and which will therefore read domestic law comma which will provide for the protection of human rights come out consistent with its obligation under international human rights law, and so on. Thank you Madam President,
thank you very much, Australia to be followed by Syria.
Thank you very much chair for giving me the floor. I'd like to start by adding Australia's voice to those who have already commended your work and your stewardship of our process of the last six sessions, and in particular, Australia's appreciation of the significant work that you cheer your team and the support of the secretariat. To that work since our last session, I'll get straight to the point and try to be concise.
Turning to Article Five, Australia agrees with almost every state taking the floor this morning and this afternoon, and throughout our previous sessions, that ensuring compliance with human rights when operationalizing treaties such as this is critical to ensuring the credibility of and confidence in existing international law, including its application in emerging domains such as cyberspace. Australia can support article five as drafted in the revised draft text. We would not support any of the amendments to Article Five that have been proposed this morning, which we are concerned are aimed at weakening this article. And very particularly, we could not support the proposed amendment to change the reference at the end of the article from international human rights law to international human rights conventions. We agree with El Salvador that Article Five would not serve its purpose should it include any reservations or exceptions, such as this proposal to exclude customary international law from its operation.
Turning to article 24, Australia has previously spoken to our concern regarding the narrow scope of this article is currently drafted. As we do not see any principled reason why state should limit the application of conditions and safeguards only to the powers and procedures in chapter four and not to other forms of international cooperation under the convention. It's incumbent upon all of us to make sure that in creating these powers for investigation and prosecution of cybercrime, we're providing clear limitations to these powers that are legitimate and that are justified, and the subsequent sharing of the information collected using these powers through international cooperation is clearly justifiable and expressly compatible with existing international legal obligations. Were very open to different ways of setting out this principle in the text, including the proposal from the United Kingdom to apply article 24 to chapters four and five specifically. And we're very keen to work constructively to ensure article 24 provides a set of agreed guardrails around the procedures this convention will be establishing, just to make sure that we're all agreed as to a common description of how these procedures should be exercised. The distinguished delegate this morning from Egypt asked why the principle of proportionality was included while other principles of international law are not included in his article.
I just want to note that Australia was quite disappointed that the revised draft did not reflect the proposal made by cut to FDA in our sixth session to add the principle of necessity to paragraph one here, and the proposal made by Senegal to also add the principle of legality, both of which received support from a number of member states at our sixth session. There's common understanding that these principles are under international law and and Australia's view ensuring these principles and very particularly the principle of legality, as also proposed by Brazil and Ecuador this morning, that this principle of legality should be incorporated into international crime cooperation to prevent the arbitrary and excessive exercise of power.
Chair, colleagues. today, maybe the beginning of our seventh session, but we are reaching the end of a very long road. Australia is here to work and to find consensus under your guidance chair. And while we're pragmatic about how hard we need to work, if we are going to get there, and we will have I anticipate some very long days ahead of us, I do want to be clear that Australia brings optimism to our concluding session. We're here to work with all states to find solutions and to ensure our convention is practical and effective. Thank you.
Thank you very much Syria, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Allow me adults it to express our appreciation and gratitude for the efforts you have made during the meetings and and informal and formal and inter sessional and plenary meetings leading all the way up to this concluding session. With the aim of achieving an agreement that deals with the concerns of all the states that have participated with regards to the project to the draft text, we emphasize that we align ourselves with the statement of Nicaragua, particularly with regards to the need to have a comprehensive convention that covers a wide range of crimes the mandate of the commission is committed is to achieve this comprehensive convention. And for it to be comprehensive, it needs to cover all the different criminal actions committed to the abuse of ICTs. And especially with regards to serious crimes, and mainly the need to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, and extremism. And also to be more assertive with regards to crimes involving children.
We also we support Iran, Egypt and Cuba and others in their concerns regarding Article Five, an article 24 With regards to Article Five, though, we support not focusing on this in this convention, because it is not the core substance of the convention, because here we are talking about a convention of criminal nature and not a human rights convention, which is covered in other conventions and treaties, including the ICCPR, which covers the concerns that we are talking about in this convention. Also the legal safeguards and judicial safeguards to protect human rights with regards to Criminal Justice entities. And law enforcement entities are covered by the constitutions and domestic laws of the different states. Therefore, it is sufficient to refer to the powers in domestic laws. Therefore, the concerns of those who are requesting that this article remain should not refer to having specific treaties to this. And if we retain this article, then we support what some states have said regarding replacing international human rights law with in accordance with international human rights treaties that are enforced in order to respect state sovereignty, so that no commitments are imposed on them to adhere to treaties that they are not party to.
As for article 24, as some delegations have said, this is ambiguous in its nature and very vague and needs to be reworded, we emphasize the concerns that were presented by the delegation of Egypt and we accept the amended text as proposed by Pakistan to stop at domestic law and delete the remainder of the paragraph. Thank you very much.
Egypt.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I take the floor on behalf of the African group. Allow me to commend you madam chair for successfully convening a concluding session of the other committee. The African group expresses its confidence in your able leadership in bringing the committee to this juncture where we are seeking constructive solutions to crafting an effective instrument that facilitates international cooperation. The African group remains concerned that cybercrime and the misuse of information communication technologies for criminal purposes, pose a persistent and evolving threat. its complexity and transboundary nature have enabled criminals to exploit vulnerabilities across regions and manipulate the variations in law enforcement capabilities across physical borders. Due to the legal nature and technological complexity of the convention, technical assistance and capacity building to developing countries should be unencumbered and free of conditionalities. It should follow the lead of existing legal international instruments such as untuck and Uncock, which offers a model of how the imperativeness of human rights protection should be covered while implementing this these conventions.
Accordingly, the African group does not support redundancy in the text which may impede or undermine the intended objective of effective implementation of this convention. Madam Chair, in this regard, the African group wishes to underscore that technical assistance and capacity building, as well as transfer of technology are central in combating cybercrime and the misuse of information communication technologies for criminal purposes. Accordingly, the African group wishes to support the inclusion of transfer of technology in the following provisions.
In the preamble, the group supports that inclusion of transfer of technology and paragraph six, alongside technical assistance and capacity building, which are all mutually reinforcing in enabling member states to comply with their obligations of this envisaged convention. It is thus pertinent to include transfer of technology in the preamble, which outlines the clear objectives and underscores spirit of the convention. Article One statement of purpose, a group supports the inclusion of transfer of technology and para See, for the reasons previously commended under the preamble. We also lend our support to the inclusion of in particular for the benefit of developing countries in that context.
In Article 54, Chapter Seven technical assistance and capacity building, the African group broadly supports principles of technical assistance and capacity building. Under this chapter, it is of the view that technical assistance should be carried out in an inclusive manner and to the widest measure possible. With regard to paragraph one, the group is pleased to see the inclusion of transfer of technology and cause for the removal of additional caveats of where possible, and on mutually agreed terms to ensure that the provision of technical assistance is unencumbered. The group supports para two as currently formulated, the group can also support the formulation of subparagraphs three C. It can support para paragraphs nine and 10, with the latter two focusing on establishing a voluntary mechanism and providing voluntary contributions to the UN ODC to financially assist developing countries in implementing this convention, through technical assistance and capacity building. It is similar to article 60, paragraph seven of ONCAC and I thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. Republic of Korea please.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor. This is our first intervention about delegation. You'd like to show our deep appreciation of your excellent leadership and hard work of Secretariat. Regarding Article Five and 24. We agreed that these articles are very important in respect that this convention follows the Human Rights obligation provided by international law, read human rights. Republic Korea support is current wording, Article Five cover the whole scope of this convention. And regarding article 24, we can understand this ark is specifically stress the importance of human rights in procedural matter. We keep listening and working to reach consensus in this matter. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Chile, and then Uruguay.
Madam Chair, my delegation would like to express its gratitude to you for your leadership and for the The efforts you have undertaken with the Secretariat in order to work on this convention. This document is not just key in order to address cybercrime around the world, but it's also will lay the foundation for international cooperation in this arena. Generally speaking, our delegation is convinced that such a treaty based on consensus with the necessary safeguards in the area of human rights will be crucial to address growing possible activity in cyberspace. Madam Chair, we firmly believe that international law evolves over time and never regressive. And in that regard, including human rights, and the corresponding safeguards in the text of the convention, is recognition of its inherent nature based on human evolution.
And therefore, with regard to articles, five and 24 Chile would like to reiterate the vital importance of strong safeguards to guarantee protection and recognition of human rights in implementing this convention. We find ourselves in mid negotiations of a universal legally binding instrument and therefore it's necessary to lay the foundation for effective cooperation. We hope that the discussions we'll be having in the next few days will contribute to constructing an equitable and effective Convention against cybercrime. Thank you so much, pretty much Madam Chair.
Thank you, Uruguay.
thank you very much, Madam Chair first, Uruguay would like to recognize and value the work of the chair and her team throughout this process. In our delegations judgment, the revised draft of the convention brings us closer to the key objective of this convention, which is to approve a convention by consensus. As pointed out in the statement made by Paraguay on behalf of the Mercosur countries, which Uruguay belongs to, though paragraphs relating to safeguards and human rights are especially important for my country.
In previous sessions, especially in the sixth session, Uruguay had presented a an alternative proposal to the original drafting of Article Five on human rights. That proposal, which I won't go into in detail at this time, had reflected the support by a number of member states. It also for article 24, or Uruguay had accompanied proposals of language that leaned towards clarifying and strengthening conditions and safeguards things, safeguards to be observed by States Parties in implementing a convention. In that sense, we regret to see that a number of our references that were supported by other member states are not reflected in the current revised text. But we understand it based on the difficult balance that we need to strike that, in order to achieve a consensus based solution, given that Uruguay believes that Article Five and 24, in their current wording, contain the minimum vital elements for the convention. And with that, my delegation would not like to see any weakening of the language in these two provisions.
Finally, we will continue working on these two articles during the informal consultations with the central goal of finding consensus based formula as soon as possible. Thank you.
Thank you, says the chair to Uruguay for the very constructive manner. And that helps us a great deal to progress Argentina and then Japan.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. First, my delegation would like to thank you for the work of the chair. Throughout this negotiations process. We value your leadership, and we wish to reiterate my delegations willingness to collaborate in building consensus. From the beginning of the process, Argentina has been active throughout the negotiations with a view to be able to contribute constructively to the crafting of initiatives such as this one geared to adopting an international instrument, the goal of which is to define criminal activities in digital platforms based on ideal methods to adopt it and provide tools for international cooperation to facilitate criminal investigations relating to this kind of activity. In previous sessions, we were committed to working constructively and to bring the ideas together and to facilitate the work of the chair with a view to bring about consensus and working towards a draft text that would reflect basic conditions set by states. The first step to that is to create a legally binding instrument in this area. In this regard, would like to recall that in the first session, Argentina proposed a structure of a convention, which in the second session, we proposed a draft convention. In the closing session, we will continue working on the draft text of the convention, and welcoming your suggestions with the same constructive spirit which will enable us to adopt a text by consensus. We need to achieve consensus in order to have basic conditions so that we can work on procedures, criteria, and standards which are agreed upon. Moreover, we appreciate the distinguished delegation of Paraguay for having made a statement on behalf of Mercosur and associated members.
With regard to specific articles that are being addressed, we'd like to re iterate the value that we attach in Argentina to human rights, and we think it's indispensable to have Article Five in this convention. In this regard, our country understands that it's necessary for the text of the convention to offer states parties the legal safety and security so that implementation of the text would move forward in our jurisdictions, in keeping with standards of protection, which these jurisdictions are compelled to observe. With regard to the proposed draft of the chair on Article Five, Argentina believes that this wording is satisfactory for our delegation. However, in our country's view, the drafting of Article Five provides us with an opportunity to provide for the necessary protection of human rights which this convention should contemplate. In previous sessions, we had a number of proposals put forth by distinguished delegations present here that sought to find agreement on specific areas relating to human rights. Argentina believes that those proposals, raise issues which are relevant to our country, and should be included in a final drafting of the convention. However, Argentina's priority is to conclude this process with the adoption of a consensus based text that will provide our countries with implementation of an instrument in our jurisdictions in keeping with our various standards of protection of human rights.
For article 24, Argentina believes it's necessary for the essence of this article to be in the convention, so we would like to see it stay. However, in a spirit of consensus, we find the chairs proposal to be satisfactory for article 24. However, we'd like to support the proposal put forth by the distinguished delegation of Brazil, on including in the first paragraph of Article 24, we think it's important to link the principles of proportionality and legality in order to have certainty in implementing 24. We also listened carefully to the distinguished delegation of the United Kingdom. And we agree with some of their observations specifically relating to the notion of safeguards that prevent cooperation rather provide for trust and confidence building. That's why the Argentine delegation is open to working constructively with other delegations. And we note with gratitude, the extension of the safeguards to other parts of the convention, we believe that extending safeguards to for articles for chapters four and five might provide us with language that can enjoy consensus, and including it would avoid repetition in other articles of the convention. Madam Chair, we reiterate our appreciation for your efforts. And we're available to you and two distinguished delegations here today, to work on various options that will therefore enjoy consensus t
Thank you very much to Argentina, Japan, and then Czechia.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. First of all, I would like to join all the distinguished delegates in thanking you, your team, and Secretariat for making preparations for this concluding session, including the revised draft text of the convention. Since this is my first intervention after my nomination as vice chair was approved, please allow me to take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to all member states for their approval. Japan attaches great importance to realizing an inclusive, transparent and fair negotiating process. I will make every effort to ensure such a process and adoption of the text by consensus by providing you with appropriate support, Madam Chair,
Madam Chair with regard to articles five and 24. While we especially support the inclusion of Article Five, as it is in a text, we also fully understand that some member states see difficulty and sensitivity involved in these provisions. Since Japan took on the role of coordinator for these articles at last session, Japan believes to DTC under proposal by the coordinator at the sixth session are a good basis for further discussion, because it tries to bring different perspectives as a package. And we are open to engaging in discussions on all relevant articles, so that we makes sure that this convention as a whole provides the necessary and sufficient safeguards in place that are prerequisite in conducting international cooperation. Japan would like to thank Madam Chair for your efforts again, and we will actively support you in reaching a consensus. Thank you.
Thank you very much Czechia, and then the Russian Federation.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is very nice to see you cheering again. And since this is the first time we are taking the floor, let me first thank you. For all the work you and your team and the Secretariat have done on this convention. We very much appreciate it. I was not able to be here in person last week, but I follow the informants online. And I could hear that many delegations expressed their unhappiness with the convention. But as you mentioned, Madam Chair, this is our collective effort. So we should not blame anyone else. We've had two fruitful discussions during the last years, which gave all of us an idea of what we want and what we don't want. And this is already an achievement that we should be happy about. And although we still have a lot to do these two weeks, hopefully not longer, I think it is important that we all keep a positive approach to the negotiations. And realize, as was said by Pakistan, that we have gone a long way already, so that we can be even happier. And if I may, there is a nice word in Japanese for the pursuit of happiness and finding the meaning of life. It's the word ikegai. And it's also an approach, not just the word. And I think we should all adopt that approach when negotiating this convention, which means to bring value and joy to it, not to focus on the negatives, but on the positives that it will bring. It's not a competition, it is a collaboration. So if we keep that in mind, I'm sure we will be able to reach a result which will make us even happier.
So now to the substance. Madam Chair, the Czech Republic aligns itself with a statement delivered by the European Union and as the following international capacity concerning articles five and 24. We are not going to repeat our positions as you asked for. But we want to reiterate that these articles are both very important in the convention, as explained previously, for example, by Brazil and others. Moreover, we understand that the issue of human rights and safeguards is very much interlinked with the issue of scope. In our view, the current wording relates to the scope of the convention covering Article Six to 16.
We will speak about scope later, but in connection to articles five and 24. We just want to make it clear also at this stage that the safeguards in the convention must be always adequate to its scope. The current version of these articles is already a huge compromise for us, under which we cannot go. And without having at least the minimum standards, we would not be able to ratify the convention, as it was already set by El Salvador, Ecuador, pero, or Uruguay. Also for us, this is the minimum. The safeguards do not prevent cooperation, but rather enable it it was mentioned by the UK in this sense on Article 24. We support the proposal of the EU and para one, as well as the proposal of the UK for the reasons they eloquently explained. And we are also open to other proposals strengthening the language that we heard today, we will be happy to consider them. That's now to this part.
And Madam Chair allowed me to finish by what was one set by Madeleine Albright, former US ambassador to the United Nations and the first woman to serve as the secretary of state in the US. She was born in the Czech Republic, which at the time was Czechoslovakia, and then moved to the US with her family as a child. And she once said, I do believe that in order to be a successful negotiator, that as a diplomat, you have to be able to put yourself into the other person's shoes unless you can understand what is motivating them, you are never going to be able to figure out how to solve a particular problem. And of course, so let's all try to use the time here to put ourselves into the shoes of others now and to try to understand the motivations and concerns not only those of our own but also others, so that we will be able to figure out how to solve everything about this convention during this session. Thank you.
Thank you very much, dear Marta, for all your very kind words for me. I will endeavor to deserve what you said. Thank you, Russian Federation, and then Algeria
Thank you very much chair. Chair. The Russian delegation supports the statement made by Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Analyzing the statements from UN member states, the Russian Federation, is coming ever close to the conclusion that articles five and 24 do not enjoy consensus. In this connection chair. Why could we not consider the possibility during this concluding session of put these articles to a vote? Thank you very much.
I'm sorry. You're asking right now, for us to vote on these articles? Is that what I'm understanding?
These articles do not enjoy consensus. So we would like to consider the possibility of putting them to a vote. Let's discuss that during our meeting today.
You would like to discuss whether or not we should vote. That's what you're asking for. But it's too soon. I think quite honestly, I don't follow you at all on this proposal, but I will let the committee decide. Would anyone like to second the proposal put forth by the Russian Federation to vote on these two articles? I see no one who wishes to support it.
You see, thank you Algeria.
. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Given that this is the first time that my delegation is speaking, we would like to start by most sincerely thanking you. And we wish to convey our recognition to you and the Secretariat for the efforts undertaken since the very beginning of this process of consultations. My delegation trusts that under your skillful leadership, and with exemplary process in place, we will be able to adopt the convention which we so much need in order to ensure international cooperation to combat cyber crime. And to strengthen states capacities that are developing countries to repress these crimes. We are sure and convinced that under your stewardship. Our work will be based on transparency, inclusion, and objectivity as well as neutrality.
We also support the statement made on behalf of the African group with regard now to Article Five. On Human Rights. My delegation supports those delegations, which have supported the initial warning as set forth by the chair for article 24, conditions and safeguards, we also support the wording contained in the draft convention. As long as the word chapter is used, and not convention, because these provisions actually relate to procedure, my delegation is prepared to discuss the provisions of this article and to work with other delegations to find a consensus based wording. We support those. We would encourage delegations to work in a spirit of conciliation, which is key in order to come to a consensus based convention through our consultations, and then adopted rest assured of our full support and cooperation. Thank you
Well, Burkina Faso, and then Iceland says the chair
Thank you chair. Distinguished Delegates, my delegation welcomes the ongoing engagement and commitment that your team and you self have shown throughout the process for elaborating this international, comprehensive enough International Convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. Your high your extreme level of compromise and your hard work, again, in trying times have allowed us to have is very much very appreciated results. This is why bikina Faso would like to extend our admiration to you your exemplary leadership of our work, and we wish to see a favorable outcome of this process. Chair in terms of article five of the draft, Burkina Faso had proposed keeping the original version of Article Five, which was submitted during the sixth session of the ad hoc committee. We'd like to express our satisfaction regarding keeping this wording in the current version that we have before us at the draft convention on Article 24 Now, on conditions and safeguards, Burkina Faso is in favor of the deletion of the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, because even more so given the fact that this list is not an exhaustive one, and could be covered by criminal law of each state. Burkina Faso welcomes that this observation was partially taken into account in the revised draft. We reiterate our proposal to delete the principle of proportionality. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Burkina Faso, Iceland and then Albania.
Thank you very much chair. As this is our first time taking the floor, I want to take the opportunity to thank you Chair, your team and the Secretariat for your work. I would like to express the Icelandic delegations commitment to contributing to a consensus and to a full outcome of the session. And on the two articles that are being discussed here. Article Five and article 24. We would like to raise we would like to emphasize that human rights cannot be considered as a unrelated issue of crime, whether it's cybercrime more, or crime that takes place without the spirit of of cyber. Further, we support what has already been been discussed by a number of other states, as regards the safeguards discussed in article 24. And we support the safeguards that are proposed in that article. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Albania. And then Costa Rica.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As far as first time that I take the floor, the Albanian delegation avails itself for the highest consideration of your greatest job and commitment to come up in this in this moment of concluding. And also, we express our best commitment to come up in consensus. Let's go to substance reference to the Article Five orbignya supports the initial wording is proposed by your chair. reference to the article 24 for the wave support the proposal of Brazil, but also the other states for the principle of legality. Also, we support the proposal of European Union and also the technical wording in the proposal from the United Kingdom. We still commit ourselves to the best consensus solution and ending up of this great job down from all states and we are in the same voice where other distinguished delegations Thank you.
Thank you very much, Albania, Costa Rica, and then Uganda.
First, may I express my delegation support to you in leading our work, and especially support of the development of this session, we would like to thank you and your team. For the work done between the sessions, including presentation of this updated document, we share your goal and your efforts that this session will make it possible for us to arrive at a consensus based document. And in that regard, we offer our work and our availability. Coming now to the articles now being discussed in this section, I would like to reiterate Costa Rica's call for taking advantage of this opportunity offered by this negotiation, so that for the first time, we will have a legally binding instrument, which is universal and nature on cybercrime that would confirm implementation of human rights and processes that relate to human rights. Costa Rica is a country with a tradition of protecting human rights. And that goes hand in hand with that protection that we see. Combat combating cybercrime and protecting those rights.
And that's why we believe that including Article Five in the convention is fundamental. And it's the very minimum that we can accept. Likewise, we agree with the proposed wording for article 24. We reiterate our position, that safeguards should be applied to the entire convention. And in that regard, we support the United Kingdom's proposal that it should be applied at the very least to chapters four and five.
Finally, let me express our support for maintaining the principle of proportionality. Which in our view, is goes with the principle of legality as proposed by the Brazilian delegation. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Uganda, and then Ghana.
Thank you, Chair, Uganda expresses her gratitude to the chair and your team for steering the session this far. Uganda in principle supports Article Five, but would like to suggest rephrasing it as follows. Set parties shall ensure that the implementation of their obligations under this condition convention is consistent with their international human rights obligations. And with respect to article 24, one, Uganda suggests the addition of the word appropriate before conditions and safeguards and that would make the clause read each state party shall ensure that the establishment implementation and application of the powers and procedures provided for in this chapter are subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards provided for under its domestic law. And in addition, Uganda suggests the deletion of words which from and and which shall be encoded in corporate law prints principle of proportionality. However, if the principle of proportionality is to be retained, then the other two principles should be added, that is necessity and legality because the three move hand in hand and work hand in hand. So that means that if law discussions lead to retention of the principle of proportionality, Uganda would suggest that there is need to add, add necessity, and legality as well. Thank you, Chair.
thank you, Ghana and the Dominican Republic.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As God I was taking the floor for the first time.
My delegation would like to take the opportunity to commend Madam Chair for her leadership and the work of your team and the Secretariat on the deliberations of the draft. 10 of the convention so far. I take the floor to comment on the two draft articles, namely articles five and 24. Gaara supports the principle of including elements to ensure the respects for human rights in the convention. Occur accordingly.
My delegation welcomes the provision contained in draft article five of the draft convention on respectful human rights, and forever takes note of the proposed amendments presented by some delegations with a view to further enhancing the paragraph. And addressing the crimes associated with the misuse of ICT. We should not fail to assure the safeguards required for respecting and protecting human rights of all persons, as a country with a strong constitutional practice of respect for the fundamental human rights and freedoms of all persons. gala would engage with the proposed amendments to ensure a final draft that carefully balances this need.
In respect of draft article 24, my delegation welcomes in principle article 24 on conditions and safeguards as it relates to the application of the principle of proportionality in the justice administration system with due regard to existing international obligations. This provision which accords with our domestic legislation, and judicial practices, will help prevent the abuse of powers conferred on the states to prosecute such offenses. In essence, Madam Chair, gala is able to go along with the two drafts after any necessary amendments to Article Five as may enjoy consensus. I thank you, Madam Chair.
thank you very much, the Dominican Republic to be followed by India.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We'd like to start our statement by joining others and recognizing you and your team and the Secretariat for the arduous work you have put in throughout this process. And especially thank you for your leadership throughout the process that is bringing as close to the final goal, Madam Chair. My delegation supports the current drafting of articles five and 24. Although we are appreciative of modification of the first paragraph proposed by Brazil, on the principle of legality. At our time, any measure that includes investigation needs to have the necessary safeguards in national legislation and a minimum guarantee of safeguards in international law, generally speaking, to create confidence between states so that the cooperation can flow easily.
We've heard various delegations say that they don't have anything against respecting human rights. However, they oppose references to it, for example, Article Five and article 24, amongst others under the art, their argument is that this convention is not about human rights. There are other instruments about human rights. However, they still insist on money laundering or any other crime should include terrorism, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, etc. which are also conventions by also covered by other conventions. So that undermines their argument about human rights and other instruments. Madam Chair, in this room, we see two big rooms, groups, practice practitioners and diplomats. What we read there is what we're trying to do here is negotiate an instrument of criminal justice about crime. And so it should be focused on victims reducing impunity, and therefore reducing the commission of crimes. Is it not part of our work in this United Nations to ensure comprehensive action that address all the dimensions of a topic that affect the lives of people that we're supposed to be serving and protecting?
In personal terms to conclude, although recently, I've had to play the role of a diplomat. I am a practitioner of the law. 35 years of service, dedicated most of it in the last 20 years to the topic of investigation of cybercrime and related activities. And that's why I continue to harbor the hope that the sense of practicality will govern our process. And we will therefore get to a consensus as desired by everyone and we will bring about a convention that's useful, clear and simple, and not a mere political declaration. Thank you.
Thank you. Before giving the floor to India, let me Read the list of speakers. So after India we have Mexico, Tanzania, Indonesia, South Africa, Norway, Georgia, Colombia, Thailand, the Netherlands, Vietnam, Paulo, Poland, Paraguay, Israel, Switzerland and Mauritania. India you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like our other esteemed member countries, India would also like to congratulate you and your team for skillfully guiding this ad hoc committee in the drafting of a very comprehensive convention. We also like to reiterate our confidence in your leadership and assure you of India support in your endeavors to finalize the convention during this concluding session.
Now, coming to the two articles regarding Article Five, India would like to reiterate its earlier suggestion for addition of the phrase, to which part to which they are a party within commerce at the end of the article. Further, we endorse Egypt's argument supported also by distinguished delegates of Russia, Belarus and Saudi Arabia, highlighting the redundancy of the usage of the term human rights in other articles. Article Five in our view, is substantial and sufficient, and the repetition is avoidable. We also appreciate United Kingdom's efforts to bring clarity to the application of article 24. The current scope of article 24 is unclear. And we believe that the UK is proposal is commendable. India would further wait for the suggestions from Egypt on Article 24. And we'll reserve its comment for a later intervention if necessary. Thank you.
Thank you, Mexico, then Tanzania
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As this is the first time that the Mexican delegation is taking the floor, we would like to start by extending our support and recognition for you, as leader of our group, and to our gratitude goes to your team and to the Secretariat as well. As we have been highlighting this process is extremely relevant for Mexico by promoting the possible establishment of a universal framework that would make it possible to grapple with the various challenges before us. That's why we advocate for a convention that will effectively address the criminal use of information and communications technologies through effective measures, legal cooperation, and that also safeguard fundamental freedoms and human rights. This new treaty needs to enjoy generalized support and meet the goals for which it was conceived. Specifically, Mexico believes it's vital to maintain articles five and 24 of this draft. In that regard. We have carefully listened to other delegations who spoke before us. And we agree with a proposal put forth by the United Kingdom on Article 24. Also, we support the suggestion put forth by Brazil to include in this provision, a reference to the principle of legality. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Tanzania, to be followed by Indonesia.
Thank you, Madam Chair, says my delegation is taking the floor the first time. Allow me to join other delegations in congratulating you Madam Chair, and your team for the manner in which you have been steering the wake of the huddle committee. The people preparation of the revised draft checks to the convention, and the explanatory notes speaks volume of your abled leadership during the entire elaboration process. My delegation continues to pledge its unwavering support to you in the bureau to ensure the attainment of the intended objectives of the committee. At the outset, my delegation wishes to align itself with a statement delivered by the distinguished delegate of Egypt on behalf of the African group.
Turning to Article Five, Tanzania supports the formulation of Article Five, which contains a compromise position regarding the obligations of state parties and international Human Rights Law. My delegation previously noted that existing United Nations convict criminal conventions do not contain a similar provision. However, given the intrusive procedural measures contained in the revised draft text of the convention, my delegation supports the formulation of the article is currently drafted. reverting to article 24. Tanzania supports the formulation of article 24, paragraph one, which makes necessary difference to the domestic laws of state parties, as well as the obligations under the international human rights law.
However, we add a voice to those calling for the deletion of the phrase, and I quote, and we shall incorporate the principle of proportionality. And of course, at the end of paragraph one of article 24, in line with the statements made by distinguished delegates of Uganda and Burkina Faso. singling out the principle of proportionality would unnecessarily elevated above other equally important principles of legality and necessity. In paragraph two, Tanzania, is of the view that the paragraph six to interfere with an regulate domestic laws of state parties, we take the view that paragraph one sufficiently provides the necessary safeguards, since reference to domestic law and existing obligations of a state party and international human rights law accommodates all safeguards pertaining to the supervision, justification and specific limitation of procedural measures. However, in the spirit of attaining consensus, my delegation is willing to consider and accept paragraph two of article 224. As long as the scope of this article remains within the ambit of the current formulation. In that regard, we will not support the proposed amendments to extend its application to chapter five of the revised draft text of the convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
thank you, Tanzania, Indonesia to be followed by South Africa.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We'd like to join others in thanking you, madam chair for preparing the latest draft of this, of this convention, and conveying our support for your leadership in navigating our discussion in the session. Madam Chair initial support the inclusion of human rights elements in this draft convention, we should be put in a balanced manner.
Regarding Article Five Madam Chair, we would like to convey our support for this article, understanding the views around the room that this is unnecessary, of our overarching provision to sufficiently address human rights in this convention. At the same time, we also support the proposal and the men by by distinguished delegates of Pakistan, which provides a clear reference of to human rights convention to which member state our party on Article 24.
Madam Chair, we fully understand the reasoning behind it. However, we are still unconvinced about its necessity and implementation. Safeguard shall be subject to each state's domestic law, as stipulated in Article 36, paragraph two of the current draft, for example. But we are open to listening to views and proposal from colleagues in the room on Article 24, including on how this can be more clearly formulated without extensive intrusion on domestic legal system, particularly to a proposal from Pakistan in paragraph one of this article. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, South Africa.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As this is our first time taking the floor allow me to take this opportunity to express Africa's profound appreciation to you and your team and steering the work of this ad hoc committee. We appreciate your efforts and fighting convergence on challenging issues and we wish to express South Africa support for your unwavering efforts.
In regards to Article Five, South Africa fully respects the importance attached to the protection of human rights and is in support of the manner in which it has been captured under Article Five of the revised text as an overarching provision and its applicability to the entire convention.
Madam chair under Article 24 South Africa supports this article as drafted in the revised Text. We have continuously advocated for a balanced approach with clearly established, defined procedural powers of law enforcement authorities to prevent encroachment into privacy. We are of the view that this article is designed to operate within the domestic legal framework of each state party to ensure that adequate conditions and safeguards are applied on the policies and procedures established in accordance with chapter four.
Madam Chair, we have listened very carefully to the concerns raised by several delegations, in particular to the reference to the principle of proportionality on paragraph one. After listening to Brazil, Madam Chair, South Africa has the view that the inclusion of the principle of legality alongside proportionality could assist in addressing the concerns raised and we are keen to hear the views of other delegations on this proposal. We do remain ready to actively engage in finding a solution that will address concerns raised by delegations in order to achieve a successful outcome. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Norway, to be followed by Georgia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As others I would like to start by thanking you and your team and Secretariat for all the hard work you do, both in and between the meetings. I hope, we will succeed and we will at least do our utmost to help you do so. Well, it will probably not surprise anyone that Norway's strongly in favor of ensuring that the Convention does have sufficient safeguards, as already had been said by many having sufficient safeguards in the Convention does not hamper the fight against cybercrime or the international cooperation related there to but totally the opposite. It is a requisite for effective fight against cybercrime and international cooperation, that proper safeguards are included. This fosters the necessary trust between states.
We have at the last meeting supported a much broader Article Five. But we understand that that the that this was difficult for many states to accept so we can accept Article Five as it now stands. We can however, not accept any proposals to restrict it further, for example, only to international conventions as this would exclude customary law. Now, article 24, that operate operationalizes the most important human rights safeguards when we're using the very intrusive coercive measures, which are incorporated in the following articles 25 to 30. We therefore support article 24 and sees it as absolutely necessary for for supporting the rest of this chapter.
We would also like to support the UK proposal to include the reference to chapter five, thereby making it clear that the safeguards also apply when we cooperate internationally. We can also support the EU proposal and the proposal by Brazil to add the principle of legality to article 24 paragraph one. Yes, thank you. I think that was what I would like to say.
Thank you very much, Georgia, to be followed by Columbia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to start with thanking you and the Secretariat for your leadership and helpful guidance. Georgia supports retaining articles five and 24 as drafted, we Moreover, support Brazil's proposal letting legality and necessity as the principles along with proportionality, we'd also like to support UK proposals seeking to extend safeguards and article 24. Also to provisions of chapter five. We agree with the UK and some of the delegates. Some forms of assistance as prescribed in chapter five may not be found in chapter ffour.
Madam Chair, several delegations mentioned that these provisions are the absolute minimum to be able to join the treaty. And it is so for Georgia too. Many of the procedural powers under the convention are highly intrusive and can't be compared with those of UNCAC or UNTOC. Therefore Call for proper balance with adequate human rights safeguards.
If I may, I would also like to respond to the distinguished delegates who raised doubts about the principle of proportionality in article 24. proportionality and some of the principles under Article 24 are not limited to regional or domestic law practices, as some delegates argued, but these principles constitute parts of the existing universal instruments. Nor are its margins ambiguous. According to the jurisprudence of UN Human Rights Committee. Article 17 of the ICCPR, which prescribes for the right to privacy, among other principles also encompasses the principle of proportionality in the context of the procedures that this treaty intends to establish.
Similarly to Australia, we do not support limiting scope of Article Five to the treaty law and excluding customary law is one of the delegations this morning as proposed. Lastly, we remain hopeful that the committee will find sufficient degree of diplomacy to reach consensus on these very important provisions. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Georgia, Colombia to be followed by Thailand.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me start by commending you and the Secretariat for your work during this process, commending you on your leadership, which has been crucial to ensuring success at this stage of the negotiation you and the other delegations can continue counting on the Republic of Colombia with regard to seeking and building a consensus around this draft. Now. With regard to the contents of Article Five, my delegation wishes to stress a couple of ideas. Colombia believes that Article Five is vital to success of implementation of this instrument. Also, it is a general provision, which allows for implementation of the Convention that is consistent with states obligations and human rights. In this regard. This is an article that should orient interpretation and application of this instrument. As a result, we think that its drafting should be comprehensible and optimal. And there should be no contradictions between this article and other provisions throughout the text.
Given its importance, both for our delegation, and generally, the topic of gender is also key within the convention. We believe that this article should reflect that concern, indeed, and although we've carefully listened to the concerns of other delegations, what's clear is that the gender approach is fundamental and needs to be analyzed in the context of human rights. But it's also very important in the legal approach, and should orient the principles and rules of interpretation, investigation, and criminalization of activities as set forth in Article Six to 15. Of this draft. Also, the gender approach in the area of criminal justice imposes criminal investigations and prosecutors and judges then have to have the burden of proof without any prejudice or bias, which should be seen as rules of experience, which also provide for access to justice for vulnerable groups in order to provide to make sure that there's not a real victimization of people. The gender approach specifically and generally speaking, the human rights approach also supposes a consistent mandate to verify and look at practices and judgments. As seen in the procedural reality, the process of discrimination or violence created by social differences biological, sex, age, ethnic group, social position, or family role, could all have an impact. But in the public or private sphere, the family, the community, and the place of work, amongst other places. These are all scenarios where criminal conduct and activity might take place. Historically, and culturally, these groups could be disenfranchised. Based on this, we favor the gender wording contained in Article Five, which in our view, has the minimum level for the convention to include it and so that it and other delegations have referred to it in their statements. Also, we have carefully listened to the arguments of those delegations that are opposed to that drafting. We respect their position and we trust that those delegations will they'll be reciprocal. In their consideration visa vie us of the importance for us and other delegations with regard to the importance of gender. With regard to what happened in previous discussions, we believe that it's possible to creatively work towards a formula that would be based on Article Five with gender. And in that regard, we could have a single article that would include and highlight this issue in the text. Although we can include the theme and other articles in the text, we believe that this would be more complicated for negotiations, especially at this stage of the game.
Madam Chair, as we've said in previous sessions, and in the informals of last week, we attach special importance to this issue. We're flexible on the issue of whether or not it's in one way or another in the convention. And also, as other delegations have said, safeguarding is also very important. Without the safeguards, it's impossible to have legal cooperation. And that's why as we've said, my delegation believes it's key to maintain Article Five as a central access to guide implementation of the Convention and respect international law. This interpretation is closely linked with article 24, which will develop the framework set forth in Article Five, and therefore it shouldn't fall into repetition of the content. Rather, it's about implementing the safeguards throughout the convention, specifically for articles for chapters four and five. We also welcome the proposal of Brazil for article 24 paragraph one. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Thailand, Thailand to be followed by Netherlands.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor. Since this is the first time that I have taken the floor. I would like to commend you and your team for the outstanding efforts which have led up to this meeting. My delegation will be concise on this matter. Thailand supports the inclusion of Article Five and article 24 on the protection of human rights. We agree with some of their delegations, that this draft convention shall serve as the basis for international cooperation and should therefore maintain a level of safeguards to ensure trust and confidence among states. We can therefore support article five and 24 contained in the revised draft texts. While we also remain open to amendments, which may facilitate consensus on this matter, Chair, addressing cybercrime as a priority for Thailand, echoing sentiments of Manila delegations. Hence, it is crucial for us to activate flexibility in order to finalize and adopt this draft convention by consensus paving wave to for effective international cooperation in combating cybercrime. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Netherlands, followed by Vietnam.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Since it's the first time the Kingdom of the Netherlands is taking the floor, I would like to add our voices to the room and warmly thank you and your secretariat for the hard work you have done on the ad hoc committee process, we will continue to engage contrast constructively in finding consensus with you. We aligned with a statement made by the European Union, and would like to underline the importance of human rights and safeguards international capacity as well. As was stated previously by the EU and other delegations. This is indeed a criminal treaty that will describe significant new international criminalization ins, powers and criminal law procedures with these powers also come to responsibilities to us as states.
Both articles five and 24 are therefore needed, and serve different functions to ensure effective human rights protections. These are not just notions in the Budapest convention. These are essential principles on the international law and UN standards. They are needed in order to be able to agree on this draft convention. safeguards are not a nice to have, but they are essential elements to this legal instruments. As stated before by the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom, greater safeguards will ensure greater trust, greater trust will ensure us a more effective international cooperation, and we believe this will benefit us all. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Vietnam. Please.
Madam Chair. The delegation of Vietnam is pleased to attend the concluding meeting of the ad hoc committee under your chairmanship and would reiterate our fully support for your leadership with this urgent project of global significance. We also highlight initiate tireless efforts of the chair and Secretariat. Madam Chair, we hope that in the incoming days, our committee will further improve the revised draft text to the remote address thoroughly. This patient characteristics of cybercrime is the current reality of states such as first, to May the convention and effective and efficient tool for national law enforcement agencies to combat cyber crimes and misuses of ICT for criminal purposes, in accordance with principles of international law, enshrined by the UN Charter is second to ensure the balance between the much needed authority and measures for law enforcement agencies and human rights protection or data protection in accordance with international commitment of each member states. Third, effective a technical assistance provisions as well as a greater role of when ODC in delivering technical assistance as a sanction for developing countries to implement the future convention.
Last but not least, to encourage private sectors, including technology companies, to cooperate cooperate with law enforcement agencies in conducting appropriate preventive measures, as well as in the vacation of preeminent offenses regarding the cluster of Article Five and 24 hour delegation is over the view that while it is necessary for all member states, to reiterate their support for the principles that the same rights that people have offline, must also be protected online. The belief that these articles should not create, as many delegations have pointed out any additional human rights obligations that states have assumed duly under prospective international legal instruments. Accordingly, our legacy delegation looks forward to further discussion at the committee in the coming days and help to achieve consensus on these two articles along that understanding. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you, Poland.
Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to take the floor. Poland associates with all statements delivered by the representative of the European Union. I would like to add in my national capacity the following the committee's very advanced in its works on the text to the convention. We hope to close this session with an agreement or an effective international instrument which would allow the states to closely cooperate the to counter cybercrime. We shall therefore remain pragmatic in our approach to the negotiations and bear in mind that the Convention agreed and referendum will be verified by our governmental unico and legislative national institutions against the principles guiding our domestic legal systems. The effective protection of human rights and the necessary safeguards granted to the procedures will play a fundamental role in this verifications. equally effective cooperation among the states will depend on the human rights protection, every negotiations required willingness to compromise. And while we are aware that some principles cannot be negotiations, we shall be guided by a certain level of flexibility, which would allow adopting and convention by consensus, as later is a value per se. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Poland, Paraguay.
Yes, first, I apologize for speaking a second time. Thank you to you, Madam Chair. Paraguay supports the current drafting of Article Five. Human rights cannot be considered redundant in a convention on criminal law with regard to article 24. We support the proposal by Brazil to include the principle of legality and the United Kingdom's proposal to mention chapters four and five. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Israel.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's the first time we take the floor today, as many other delegation have expressed is or wants to join as well, and wish its appreciation and presented appreciation and gratitude for your efforts and leadership. And if I may, on a personal level, as well as I've been privileged to be in this process. Since its inception, to thank you wholeheartedly for bringing us to this point that the seventh round of our negotiations, hopefully the last round, and to thank you and your hard working team and the Secretariat for presenting us revised text of the convention. Madam Chair, as for Article Five, we join many others, fully supporting the inclusion of the very important human rights guarantees and safeguards, as they are presented in this article, guarding the fundamental rights under this convention, and we'd like the retention of the text as it currently is in this revised draft. As for paragraph 24, we can support the UK proposal and we'd like to see the retention of all the rest of the articles. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Switzerland.
Madam chair as this is the first time that we take the floor, we too would like to commend you, Madam Chair, for your tireless efforts in this process, as well as your team and the secretariat. Under revised draft, there are many aspects that we can support, and others that still need to be further addressed in this concluding HC session. We continue to support your approach and are ready to work constructively with all the allegations on the revised text. And from the beginning of the HC process, Switzerland has been very clear about the need to have strong safeguards in this convention. There they are necessary requirements for us to be able to present a future convention to our national parliament. But also inclusion of safeguards such as human rights provisions, is an essential enabler of international cooperation and law enforcement, and are therefore an indispensable part of the same coin. In practice, especially international cooperation will only be possible if certain shared minimum standards can be assured across borders. We are negotiating a convention in an area that will largely determine how the phenomenon of digital crime is dealt with in the future. Any cooperation on an access to data, some of which is and will remain sensitive for our citizens needs to be treated carefully and responsibly. In our view, the current revised draft text provides for a minimum of safeguards, including human rights safeguards that are grossly disproportionate to the very broad scope of the convention. As currently outlined by the revised draft.
We are therefore not able to support any further weakening of the language in articles five and 24, but rather support language that aims at the strengthening of both articles. Like other delegations in the last session, we also supported the proposal that article 24 be applied to the whole convention rather than just chapter four. Chapter Five includes significant and potentially intrusive, procedural measures that must be covered by article 24. To ensure this, an explicit reference to this is required. Failure to include this could make international cooperation very difficult, especially as domestic standards and laws might vary considerably. We therefore support a specification that was suggested by the UK in article 24, paragraphs one and three, to replace the word chapter with chapters five, and four and five. Finally, we do support inclusion of the term legality as it was raised by Brazil this morning. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mauritania. And that will be followed by Panama.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the first time that we take the floor. So I would like to take this opportunity to add my voice to all the other delegations that congratulated you personally and congratulated your supporting team and the Secretariat for the valuable efforts that have been made for us to achieve this revised text of the convention and working on reaching consensus. You have the full support of my delegation in these endeavors. With regards to Article Five, my delegation supports the statement delivered by the ARB Republic of Egypt on behalf of the African group. We also express our support for the statement of the Republic of Pakistan regarding a reference to other international treaties. As for article 24, we support what some delegations have expressed in terms of calling for deleting the principle of proportionality. We do not see that adding, or including legit, legality. We'll meet the concerns that have been expressed so far. And thank you,
Thank you, my brother. Panama and then France
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Panama, would like to acknowledge your excellent work and efforts geared to bring about an effective international instrument to combat cybercrime, or delegation supports the current drafting of Article Five. We believe that it provides the minimum in the area of human rights and on Article 24. Like other countries, such as Brazil, Ecuador, Costa Rica, we believe that it's helpful to include the principle of legality. We think it's an important contribution to the content of this norm, and will be important for achieving a consensus.
Thank you, says the chair. France.
chair, France would first of all, let's take the floor to thank you, as well as the Secretariat for the work done to prepare for this session. We hope that work over this week will still be inspired by the spirit of good cooperation to we can achieve a text at the end of it particularly on articles five and 24. France aligns itself with a statement made by the European Union and would like to add the following international capacity. So this morning, we have listened very carefully to the different delegates.
And so far, we can see that a vast majority of the state of states of undercoat underscore the importance of maintaining articles five and 24 and the convention and we've said this before for France, these two articles are essential in order to guarantee trust, and to ensure that effective international cooperation can take place in the fight against cybercrime. We've also heard proposals made by some delegations to improve the drafting of these two articles. But we would record like Australia, Australia has that we can't accept any drafting that tries to mitigate the scope of these articles. Thank you very much.
Thank you. says the chair, Cameroon, to be followed by Canada and then Sweden, Cameroon, you have the floor.
Thank you Chair for giving my delegation the floor to have its to make its contribution to this debate on articles five and 24. First of all, I would like to actually echo those are the delegations who have extended their congratulations to you on the exemplary way in which you've led the work of this committee and also your tireless efforts that you've undertaken to with your team, team and Secretariat. My delegation would like to insist on Article 24, having heard listened very carefully to several delegations. Cameroon, notes that as soon as it's seems accepted that the obligations of states will be complied with on the basis of international humanitarian law, then, once that's been happened, if that's the case, then the rest goes without saying some people think that we need to add the principles of legality.
Others believe that we should delete the principle of proportionality, but my delegation since says that, if we simply under if we are indeed underpinned by international humanitarian law and therefore this implies that the other principles which are in place which is simply the modalities of international law, so why can't we find some kind of wording that is more that covers more of this and will comprehensive. So rather than just touching on the principle of proportionality, we could say that takes into account the principles as needed, were applicable. And so that means that it's, we could perhaps strike a balance between those people who wish to add the principle of legality to it, and those who want to say that we should add all the other principles of international law too.
So I think that if the trend at the moment is more heading towards compliance with obligations of states with international humanitarian law, and if to IHL is made up of all of the principles that we're quoting, including the prince proportionality. Well, in that case, we could come up with wording that highlights the applicability of these principles, when needed. So that would allow us to find some common ground on this. Thank you very much Chair.
Thank you, Canada to be followed by Sweden.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Canada would also like to thank you and the Secretariat, for all your hard work over the last two and a half years in relation to human rights and safeguards, specifically, articles five and 24. Canada can generally support your text, and can also support some of the improvements articulated today. Because these provisions seem to be constantly questioned by some delegations. I would like to express our perspective on the importance of these provisions, and why their retention is needed. I believe we have in the past described them as the grease that lubricates the gears of international cooperation. If we establish standard baselines, we are able to build a community of trust so that we can increase efficiencies in international cooperation. Without these baseline safeguards, I am afraid we have fallen far short of our original goal.
Let me be clear, Canada wishes to support international cooperation in the fight against cybercrime. This means that we wish to be able to respond positively to requests for MLA and other forms of international cooperation made under the treaty. If I may analogize for a minute, we started this process with a variety of use and what we needed to comprehensively address this issue. We all set out to build If I may, and international cooperation clubhouse, a place where we can efficiently and effectively address some of the world's most pressing problems. We did not however, have the same conception of that clubhouse. Some of us conceived of this clubhouse as a tidy clubhouse with a half dozen useful rooms. This so called clubhouse would have all the amenities that you would expect in such a clubhouse, air conditioning, furnace, windows, patios, etc. In other words, a comprehensive clubhouse. This clubhouse is neat, well defined and cost effective, while others of us envisioned a very different type of clubhouse, a clubhouse which had 100+ rooms, because it too, is comprehensive. In fact, it is open ended in its comprehensiveness and the back portion of that clubhouse would remain perpetually under construction, just in case a state identified a new issue upon which it wanted to cooperate in the clubhouses safeguards act as keys. In other words, when a treaty contains strong and numerous safeguards, a variety of keys, members of that clubhouse can actually trust each other on issues of vital importance. In the other clubhouse, the one without those safeguards, anyone can do whatever they want in that clubhouse. And in their interactions, individual members will have to prove themselves trustworthy to each other on an ad hoc basis. This is in fact what we currently have without a treaty. If this analogy has missed its mark and does not aptly describe where we are in this process, I can simply simply summarize our own country's position, which is we not only want to respect human rights from a principle global perspective, because we think it is our obligation as a UN member state. But from a practical operational perspective, we have to respect those human rights every time we use investigative powers domestically. In other words, we're not asking more of our partners than we need for our own domestic processes.
Finally, I would like to add that Canada supports the statements of others including Australia, Argentina, You know, would agree, and El Salvador, but to name a few on Article 24. We also support the UK proposal. It is only logical that under the treaty that is setting up a procedural powers that allow international cooperation to take place that these safeguards equally apply across the process to those aspects that relate solely to international cooperation. Madam Chair, as in previous sessions, we will be supportive of other proposals to further meaningfully strengthen articles five and 24.
Thank you, Canada. I now give the floor to the last speaker on my list, Sweden.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We want to commend your and your teams and the Secretariat hard work with the revised draft text of the convention and steering these negotiations. We are glad that we start our discussions during this negotiating session with this part of the convention. Without a clear and common understanding on the importance of human rights and safeguards, we cannot move on to agreeing on other parts of the convention. As one of the 27 member states of the European Union, we align ourselves with the statement of the European Union and the text proposals expressed in that statement. We are carefully listening to proposals that can strengthen the text of both our articles discussed now as this would be helpful in moving forward in trying to reach consensus on the whole convention and the need to balance different interests. We would like to thank Colombia for the very clear explanations on the importance of mainstreaming a gender perspective within the field of criminal justice, including in this convention. We stand ready to work on looking at ways to incorporate incorporate this important concept into the convention. We still believe that we can reach consensus and we'll join you in the wish to work towards that goal. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you. We have two other countries that have put themselves on the list Namibia and then Austria. Namibia.
Madam Chair, let me take this opportunity to commend you and your team for the able leadership of steering this process. Namibia welcomes the draft text of this convention. As we have been engaging throughout the process Namibia remains committed to supporting you Madam Chair. In the concluding session of the ad hoc committee, please continue to count on my delegations cooperation, to find consensus on the draft text and fulfilling the ad hoc committees mandate as elaborated in resolution 24. 74 Slash 247 and 75 slash 282
Madam Chair. My delegation further supports the statement delivered by a Nicaragua chair on the articles and a discussion at the moment, namely five and 24. Namibia is in support of the above articles in the draft text of the convention. In this regard, my delegation would like to support the proposals made by the distinguished delegates of CARICOM, Cuba, and Pakistan on Article Five in particular.
Specifically, on Article Five, we are in support of the insertion of the reference to the word relevant and further applicable. And then at the end, where it references international human rights law. We would like it to be changed to convention or treaty. Madam chair on Article 24 Para one, Namibia has noted with concern the omission of the principle of legality and necessity from this para. The lack of these foundational principles may afford states excessive latitude, potentially leading to measures that might not adhere to broader international law. The principles of necessity and legality are more than just tenants of international In the law, they function as a pivotal safeguards against abuse and misuse of power in the context of this chapter. In particular, the principle of legality is a fundamental aspect of international human rights instruments and the rule of law in general, and an essential guarantee against the state's arbitrary exercise of its powers. Further, in addition to article 24, subparagraph, two, Namibia would like to propose the insertion of a right to an effective remedy for parties whose rights have been unlawfully infringed upon. Madam chair this would follow after the reference of grants justifying application. I so submit Chair, Thank you.
Thank you, Austria, and then Vanuatu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also like to thank you very much for all the hard work that you are doing yourself, but also your team and the Secretariat, so that our work will come to a successful conclusion of the session. For the next 10 days, we see that when we read reports, etc, the challenges of cybercrime that we need to work very hard that the challenge is very big that we do have a UN Convention, which enjoys universal support, and the deal is also universally ratified. Some of the powers that are included in the draft convention are very intrusive. And as outlined in the EU statement, we can only support the convention with such intrusive provisions only if there are clear provisions on human rights and safeguards.
So therefore, article 20, Article Five and article 24, of critical importance. And it's important that particularly to also impose provisions, we do not create new human rights obligations for states. But the provisions should stress that states should implement the convention and the powers the in full compliance with their existing human rights obligations, not only in treaties, but also under customary international law, just a reference was made to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Finally, this morning, the Russian delegation raised the issue of visas to the sessions both in New York and in Vienna, just to clarify that all these requests by the Russian delegations were met so the success rate was 100%. Just want to clarify this also. So a lot of which everyone here a lot of success, we will achieve our result only if we work very hard, and constructively work on a good outcomes. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Vanuatu, and then Italy.
Madam Chair Vanuatu, like other distinguished delegation, delegations wishes to premis its remarks by commending you for your exemplary religious leadership over the spirit of negotiation of the ad hoc committee, and your efforts in ensuring that the participation of all delegations and the reporting are both fair and inclusive, towards the goal of building consensus in this negotiations. In this connection, we entirely agree with a pragmatic approach eloquently articulated by the distinguished delegate of the Czech Republic. One want to also commence the work of the group of experts on the Euro Abel leadership in developing the latest revised texts of the negotiating document. Turning to the articles to the two articles that are presently the subject of our discussion, one way to support the present acts of articles five and 24. Recognizing the role each has within the convention, and the confidence it will give to the process of international cooperation, subject Areva to a few proposed reservations that one or two will now turn to one word to commence the retention of Article Five in its present formulation. We believe it was designed to be an overarching provision that will guide is a necessary minimum standard, the implementation of the terms of this convention further one or two supports Australia's proposal that the expression international law be preferred over the suggestion that a be replaced by the expression International Convention. The replacement may only serve to weaken the effect of Article Five in relation to paragraph 24 article one one what to say supports the call, the calls to retained retained the term proportionality, and the inclusion of the term legality for the reasons articulated by several distinguished delegations. In addition, Vanuatu supports the United Kingdom's formulation to insert reference to chapters four and five, in article 24, in order to bring greater clarity to the safeguards within this convention, something that can only provide greater confidence to the process of international cooperation. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
thank you very much, Italy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, let me express its deep appreciation for your efforts, your hard work and your ability in guiding us during this difficult negotiations. As for the issues of human rights, protection and safeguards, namely articles five and 44. Italy aligns itself to the position expressed by European Union and would like to add in its national capacity only a few words. We listened very carefully to the concerns expressed by some member states at this regard. But frankly, we do not see how the need for respect for human rights and guarantees and safeguards in the exercise of even very, very intrusive powers can somehow weaken the fight against cybercrime. As well explained by other delegations before us, and notably by the UK, UK delegation and the EU itself. Respect for such principles can only increase mutual trust between states and thus facilitate cooperation.
From a practical point of view, we would like to mention that the issue about human rights protection, including protection of personal data, has very serious implications, apart from impacting on fundamental rights per se, which is needed. Needless to say, of major important importance, it may also severely affect the possibility of legal use of the data and therefore directly impact on the effectiveness and usefulness of criminal investigations and international cooperation in the field of cybercrime. It is clear in fact, that if the human rights laws, the rule of law, and fair trial standards laid down in domestic or international framework for the acquisition and use of personal data are not met, those data cannot be used in a state courtroom. In this respect, for instance, we have faced and are still facing examples, even within the European Union, are very successful data driven investigations that nevertheless, have raised many questions before the courts about the legal admissibility of the collected collected material in criminal proceedings. And this is precisely because these types of operations are referring new phenomenon. And it can happen that some specific legal safeguards are often not yet in place. That is why it is absolutely necessary to precisely clarify and share the basic principles and conditions for the use of powers that an effective fight against crime requires. Bearing in mind that a convention that does not allow for the fruitful use of international cooperation would be a useless convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
So we're at the end of the list of speakers on articles five and 24. Is that the case? Any further requests for the floor? No. Very well. We will continue our discussions, Ah Yemen, I see Yemen.
Thank you, Chair. I wish to reiterate our thanks to you for your efforts on this draft on articles five and 24. I think that the article on human rights don't need comment because we've already shared our thoughts on that. There are international conventions that govern this aspect.
Now on Article 24. How it's currently worded. It reflects the need for consistency between international law and national law. If these two aren't consistent, then member states must coordinate and submit to international law hence the problem of if there's a problem of conflict of different laws. However, in terms of Article Five human rights are enshrined in many international instruments, whereas article 24, there is a distinction to be made between specific agreements that, of course, must be respected. But national regimes can be different, which one something that's deemed to be a crime in one state could not be in another one. Therefore, we need to reach consensus on the provisions on contentious provision provisions. If we comply with the minimum and leave contentious as to this to one side, that would be a positive thing. Thank you very much.
thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to thank you and your team for your hard work. Regarding Article Five and article 24. Human rights under scope of this convention, we align ourselves with statement made by the European Union. Furthermore, we would like to stress the need for strong human rights provisions and strong safeguards in this convention. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I think this time, that's it for request for the floor. As I was saying, we're going to continue our discussions on these articles informally. I think that we will be able to achieve something honestly, after the discussions that we've had today, we've had four hours of debate on this with around more than 60 countries have expressed their views. I also listened to perhaps the multi-stakeholders on the issue, but no one's asked for the floor from that side. I've checked with the secretariat. So perhaps later, we'll be able to hear from them.
So for the time being, we'll stop there on this topic, I would warmly encourage you to try to work on the various ideas that have been put forward today. Particularly the questions of principles of law legality proposed by Brazil, with proportionality and necessity. Cameroon had also put forward the idea that perhaps we could avoid listing the different principles, given that the general chapeau for human rights covers all these principles. So I would encourage you strongly to discuss this between yourselves and try to find some wording, which could enjoy support from everyone.
Now, we're coming up to articles 335 and 17. I said to this morning that we will look at them together in the plenary but as we've spent quite a while already, we will look at them informally tomorrow morning at 10 In CR 11 room. As you know CR 11 is for all informal meetings. So tomorrow at 10 o'clock in CR 11. We will look over articles 335 and 17.
I would also for tomorrow morning, I'd like to look at the scope and safeguards for human rights. So to this end, I would invite with to check the website because the Secretariat has published a list of guiding questions which have been elaborated by my colleague in order to facilitate the debate for tomorrow morning in informals. So take a Look at the website. And there you'll find a list of guiding questions, which will help us to structure tomorrow morning's discussions on articles 335 and 17. Once again, informal meeting in room CR 11 Tomorrow morning at 10.
Without further ado then, we will make the most of the remaining time to start discussions on the preamble because it's quite a chunky section, so we need to run through it. As you'll remember, perhaps during our sixth session, the committee discussed the views on the preamble but no modification has been made to the text. The preamble is based on proposals made by Member States during the drafting process.
During our informal consultations, the pre session period last week, from the 24th to the 26th of January, we've already had a first round of discussions on the preamble as contained in the revised draft text of the convention. I would like to thank member states who participated to for sharing their views which helped me to draft the preamble revised text of the preamble which is on the screen now. I've kept the general balance of the preamble while making limited modifications which are visible in the track changes on the screen. There on the screen, it's what's in red on the screen.
The first modification is to paragraph three. Here, I'd like to clarify that these are modifications that come from the debate that took place last week from May 24 to the 26th of January. And so these are proposals from member states. It's not just something that the chair or the Secretariat has come up with the first proposed change paragraph three six makes a general reference to transnational organized crime. Quoting in non exhaustive ly, some of those crimes, there's also replacing the word common with global because there isn't a common criminal policy on an international level. And that's in paragraph four. In paragraph nine, the change seeks to underscore the primary responsibility of states in preventing and combating cyber crime with the support and participation of other stakeholders. This modification was inspired by a similar provision in UNCAC. The last change then is paragraph 11 seeks to clarify further, the language as has been proposed was proposed during the informal discussions.
Before opening the floor, I would like to explain the approach that I took to this topic in terms of reference to the resolution 74, slash 247 and resolution 75 282. I simply followed the approach that was adopted by UNCAC, where there's a reference to resolutions was made in the resolution in which the GA adopted the Convention. As you know, as I said, this morning, we are going to adopt a resolution which will put Zen to introduce the convention to the General Assembly. And it's in this resolution that we will put the references to resolution 74 Slash 247 and resolution 75 slash 282. From my point of view, then it'd be better to put make the preamble generally at high level in general. So this is just if I believe, practical considerations, which is to facilitate consensus. Now I'd like to invite delegations to share their views on this revised preamble and to make targeted and specific comments on the question and making proposal that proposals that could guide us towards consensus. So the floor is open. I hope that you will be able to tell me if you are now ready to adopt this preamble. or if you have any more amendments to propose.
are you ready to discuss this preamble now? Or would you like a few minutes perhaps, to read through the text? If you wish we can always go section by section part by part, if you wish.
I can see from your faces that you need some more time.
It looks like it. But at the same time, we haven't got a lot of time. So I don't know.
We've only got nine days left. And for information, because some delegations are talking about perhaps we'll be able to envisage an extension etc. I'd like to warn you that I'm gonna I'm retiring in 10 days exactly. So I won't be here. I'm not ready, ready to continue. So if you want to continue, you're free to do so. But you'll be without me. And I really would like to end my career with the adoption of this convention. I won't hide that from you, quite honestly. Okay, let's go back to the preamble.
if the multi-stakeholders are ready, then we can mix it up and we can start with the multi stakeholders, then perhaps they'll give us some inspiration. Or perhaps that means that you're ready to adopt it either? Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me start by commending you and your effort in in drafting the preamble the way it is right now, which includes too many principles that needs to be highlighted there. We have slight proposals to make it balanced. Especially that Egypt has repeatedly asked for a list of the articles that relates to human rights in the text to make sure that there is no redundancy. But having having heard the arguments today when it comes to article 24. And the proposal by the UK to hold international cooperation, hostage to grounds justifying application and to legal reviews and to the elements mentioned in article 24. It makes me more alert and more inclined to propose to have a balance. In the preamble. If we are going to have reference to human rights in the preamble, we need to have a reference to sovereignty and respect of sovereignty and non intervention in the internal affairs of states.
Also the element of transfer of technology. We think that PP nine should include a reference to transfer of technology after referring to technical assistance and capacity building. Madam Chair, stakeholders are important partners, but the role has to be very well identified in the text. There is the main responsibility the primary responsibility of implementation of the mandates in this texts rely on states states are the one who ratify this convention and other one who obligate themselves. to implement it. So the role of the state holders is to support states in implementing the mandates in that text. So we have proposed language related to that, and I think you have included so we thank you on that. And we call on states to support that language that language is very similar to the language used in ONCAC. We have actually quoted it from ONCAC, but its role is to make sure that we have good division of labor between those states who have responsibilities, liabilities and accountability when it comes to the implementation of the mandates in this text, and the stakeholders whose role is to support and assist states in implementing it.
Having said that, Madam Chair, we've heard too many references to gender. We have three or four references in the gender to gender in this text. Let me tell you, madam chair that none of the human rights legal industry international human rights legal instrument, mentioned the word gender. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not have the word gender. The two covenants have several political rights and civil and political rights and economic and social rights. Do not have the word gender, and CEDAW to protect women does not have the word gender. So we need to know the source upon which because we're not creating a new law here. We're dependent on what we have subscribe to in international human rights law. So we will we were ready to discuss these elements with other states taking into consideration that we're not inventing a new law in other disciplines apart from combating cybercrime are combating use of ICT for criminal purposes, and we have to be bound by the parameters. We have already accepted in other international legal instruments related to other disciplines. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Egypt for opening the discussion. We have a few ideas put forward by Egypt now.
Just for national sovereignty, etc. On my side, I think that Article One, when we talk about the references to principles of the UN Charter, it didn't. So I see it. And I hope it's also the case for you from the time from point where there was an explicit reference to the principles of the UN Charter. For me that covers all the principles. It's a bit it's a similar thought of I and Cameron had on articles five and 24. When we start listing, things, we forget some of the principles along the way. So when there's all of these principles in the charter, a reference to the charter means that all principles are then covered, including national sovereignty, non interference in states affairs, territorial integrity, etc. So that was just a brief explanation. But of course, the committee is sovereign to decide what to put in the preamble. We have Iran than the European Union, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair regarding the preamble, my delegation is of the view that the preamble should consist key elements and principles, which pave the way in our process of implementation of the Convention convention. And so, in this context, my delegation would like to fully support what our distinguished colleagues from Egyptian delegation mentioned. And regarding for the transfer of technology should be coded. And mentioned in this preamble, and as well as if we want to avoid redundancy regarding for the Human Rights men matters and as well as the gender issues. We need to make a one balance between the preamble and as well with the text.
On the other hand, Madam Chair, my delegation believe it that we need to in our professionality line to prove to refer the General Assembly resolution 74 slash 27. To seven for regard for the establishment of this ad hoc committee would be very useful for the our, the history of this court this convention. Madam Chair, the final point that, as you mentioned that international organ cooperations for implementation of this convention, the future convention is very significant factor. And so, my delegation in previous meetings of this ad hoc committee proposed some warnings regarding for the avoiding of some impediments and obstacles such as unilateral, coercive measures made by the some certain countries against the others, which are fully unlawful, fully for illegal measures. And so, my delegation again reiterates to insert the recognizing of significance of international cooperation among the states and the need to remove any impediments and obstacles in this phase, such as unilateral coercive measures, in particular regard for the developing countries, that international cooperation would be and should be very important key in fighting the use of information and communication technology for criminal purposes. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Thank you very much. So on the list, we have the EU, Canada, the Russian Federation, then Pakistan, the EU.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The preamble at the informal session last week, we already indicated that the preamble was broadly acceptable to us even if we had some few proposals on the basis of the text as revised by you, we would maintain this assessment that preamble remains broadly acceptable to us I wanted more specifically to react to what to distinguish that I get off Egypt said about gender. In fact, I'm sorry to conduct contradict him. But I think we can find a reference to gender in untuck. For instance, Article Six I have for ice. Each state party shall take into account in applying the provisions of this article the age, gender, and special needs of victims of trafficking in persons in special in particular the special needs of children, including appropriate housing, education and care, and also stealing and talk in article 10. Paragraph two. The training should also take into account the need to consider human rights and child and gender sensitive issues.
Thank you, Canada.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before I begin Canada's comments, excuse me on the preamble, and respecting your methodology to discuss scope directly in the informals. Excuse me, is important for Canada, just to note in this plenary, that that we have a proposal on the AHC website on Article 3.3, related to scope that is currently supported by 56 countries in this committee, we would ask that others go to the website under this session and look at that proposal. please be in touch with Canada if you'd like to discuss it. And we can go from there. Thank you Madam Chair and I'll move on to the preamble and save the rest of that discussion for the informals.
Madam Chair similar to the European Union, we indicated last week that we can broadly accept the preamble as it appears in the current text. There are things in the preamble that we have expressed opposition to throughout these negotiations as We believe they are well beyond the mandate of this committee, not least some of the conduct listed in PP three, that were issues that discussed at length and did not garner consensus. However, we are trying to be understanding and flexible for those issues that are important for others to see reflected in the preamble. And so we would hope that the same understanding could be exercised in return.
Madam Chair, just a few points on a few of the paragraphs in the preamble, first of all on stakeholders, we saw the initial text as completely appropriate, as it recognized the need for cooperation between states and relevant stakeholders. That text did not dictate any mode of cooperation. It did not raise stakeholders to beyond the level of states or some inappropriate level. It just signaled the need to engage in whatever cooperation is relevant and useful in achieving the objectives of the treaty. We have said it before. And I'll say it again, we cannot have a useful treaty. Without the meaningful engagement and collaboration of stakeholders, those most intimately engaged in cyberspace in their many capacities.
That said, we will take a look at the language that you've proposed here, understanding that it comes from the UNCAC and we will consider it further. Madam Chair, we've already heard comments on gender, and I'm sure we're going to hear more in this discussion. As Canada's said in Vienna, as we said last week, and I'll probably say many times, there is significant empirical evidence illustrating the differential impacts of certain cyber crimes on women, men, girls and boys. We held many side events on this, and others did as well. And we heard from experts who educated us on this issue. We learned, for example, that there are 10s of 1000s of new instances of child sexual exploitation and abuse materials that appear on the Internet every single day and are by far and large the majority of young girls. That being the case, how could we not have a reference to the importance of gender in the treaty, or that other crimes may affect men or boys differentially and need to be addressed through that lens?
Madam Chair gender belongs in the preamble it belongs clearly in the operative text of this treaty. I will also note that the most recent UN treaty negotiated in 2023, Biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, references gender in the operative text of the convention, and the world did not end.
Madam chair on human rights, we can only repeat how intrinsic human rights are in the criminal domain in our country, they are inseparable from the criminal law. While we are speaking on the preamble, I just want to make clear that Canada can not accept a treaty that facilitates or leaves open the possibility of it becoming a vehicle for the violation of human rights. Thank you, Madam Chair. Merci beaucoup.
Thank you, the Russian Federation.
Suppose you will thank you Chair. We support what was said by the representative of Egypt, particularly regarding the deletion of the gender aspect and defining the role of stakeholders. We support Iran regarding the inclusion of a reference to the resolution in the preamble of the text, the Russian delegation would advocate for a short preamble a text, which should reflect all provisions that return pertain to the development of the universal convention.
We have looked at this new text and send some significant changes. Unfortunately, we've noticed we haven't seen a reference to the resolution that gave life to this ad hoc committee, we would insist on the reflection in this and have a reference to resolution seven to four to four, seven and 75 to 80. At the beginning of the preamble, we believe that paragraph three of the parameter is very important, we would call for it to be retained. And we'd express our disappointment that the threats linked listed there are only reflected in this part of the draft convention.
We would echo those delegations who are in favor of a reference to technology transfer in para six of the preamble, because it is not possible to how to effectively tackle the criminal use of ice Seat tees and coordinate in this field without the relevant knowledge and technology. The word equipment does not cover the methods knowledge, skills, experience, etc that are required. The Russian Federation currently is carrying out activities for training and exchange of experience in this field. For example, we also agree with the idea reflected in p. p nine of the preamble, the new tax text looks better and we think should be added to the obligations of stakeholders to comply with legislation of those countries in which they are working, that should be added. We are deeply concerned by para 10 of the preamble, we would repeat that all people are equal before the law. We recognize the worrying statistics regarding some specific crimes, mainly violence against girls and women, which happens more often than against men. However, rather than imposing unclear terminology, it would be more effective to provide our law enforcement with all the necessary tools that to protect both men and women. Whatever their gender and protect them from ICT crimes. In this connection, we would advocate for the deletion of this paragraph.
We apply the same logic to part 11 of the preamble in GA resolution 74 Slash 247 and 75 to 82. No mention is made of human rights. Now we're getting the impression that we are forgetting this and we are referring to these resolutions. But being distracted by human rights issues of course human rights is crucial. However, this question should be discussed at the relevant for in the context of work on a universal convention. This comprehensive universal convention is best to have human rights rather than human... the best protection of human rights is preventing crimes or not allowing crimes to damage individuals society and we would therefore oppose deletion of this paragraph. Thank you very much chair.
Thank you, says the chair, Pakistan and then Mauritania.
Thank you very much Madam Chair. As we dwelve into the preamble, we have the following journal observation for the preamble. First, the formulation of ad hoc committee does not recognize its general practice background and acknowledgement, including a reference to resolution 74 Slash 257 and 75. Slash 282. The preamble while addressing offenses related to other international instruments exclude crucial elements proposed by Pakistan in article 16 base such as incitement to violence, and protection of religious values and sanctities. The commitment in the preamble to prosecute crimes, whenever they occur may raise concerns related to this principle of sovereignty. Despite emphasizing the need for technical assistance and capacity building, the preamble overlooks the challenge of incorporating transfer of technology and ensuring an equitable distribution of resources and expertise essential for achieving technological equality and neutrality. The preamble also neglects the crucial goal of establishing an open, stable and peaceful cyberspace for all which is vital for creating a safe environment for the use of ICT and countering cybersecurity threats. Despite one of the convention main objective being the facilitation of flow of electronic evidence, the preamble fails to acknowledge this significance of this important issue. While recognizing the need for protection of victims is positive, addressing the needs of individual in vulnerable situations seems out of place to us in the preamble. Although gender mainstreaming is highlighted in prevention, it is important to note that the definition of gender goes beyond identification of binary limits, and it is absent in other Criminal Justice convention. This also raises questions of reaching consensus and comprehensive understanding.
Now, Madam Chair, we will give the textual amendments of the proposed preamble as proposed by you. We would like to introduce PP one best, which would state that recalling its resolution 74 Slash 257 of 27 December 2019, which established an open ended ad hoc Intergovernmental Committee of Experts, representatives of all region and invited relevant stakeholders for participation and recalling, resolution 75 slash two a two of 26 May 2011, in which it was decided that the ad hoc committee to elaborate a comprehensive convention on countering the use of information and communication technologies for criminal purposes would convene at least six sessions of 10 days each in New York and Vienna respectively, commencing in January 2022, in order to provide a draft convention to the General Assembly X 878 session with regard to PP three, other than the terminologies in line two, when we say can have a considerable impact, we have already noticed and that is the same reason we are formulating a convention, we would like to replace it had impacted to realize what has actually happened. And towards the end of the same paragraph, we noticed that the elements of our proposed article based on speed, scope and spread to which it has affected the humankind globally should be included. So after cultural property, we would like to propose the following edits, as well as incitement to violence comma discrimination, and desertification of religious karma values, religious values and symbols. With regard to next paragraph, instead of fostering, we would replace it with strengthening. And in the next line when it says combat such activities instead of activities, we would like to use the term crime and towards the end. After levels, we would like to introduce the following, while fully respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state parties. We would like to introduce PP five bass, which would read as committed to promoting open commerce secure, comma stable and peaceful cyberspace for all and ensuring that law enforcement agencies have the resources effective to effectively counter the threats posed by misuse of information and communication technologies.
In PP 6, we already proposed addition of transfer of technology but in the textual edit, after capacity building, we would like to add and transfer of technology. We would also introduce PP six bass, which would read as emphasizing the need to pursue as a matter of priority, expedited collection and sharing of electronic evidence to ensure that investigation and prosecution against the use of information and communication technologies for criminal purposes, are conducted in a timely and effective manner, comma, inter alia, comma by adopting appropriate legislation and fostering international cooperation.
In PP seven, we would end the paragraph when it talks about obtaining justice for those victims as already mentioned in our general observation, the element of persons in vulnerable situation is a misfit and cannot be equal and to the victims which has already defined highlighted in this PP.
Madam Chair, a PP nine as drafted by you in the amended version is is acceptable, and it's a good starting point. So we would like to endorse it for pp 10 As already highlighted and mentioned by others, dates before me, we cannot support that and we would call for H deletion for tp 11. We would talk about the international instrument and strike out and regional from this BP in the last line. And these are our amendments, Madam Chair, we will also share these amendments with the Secretariat through email. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, actually, as you presented a number of substantive amendments. And since we're in our last session, the concluding session, I fear that we won't have very much time to discuss the amendment. So I propose the following to you. And that would be that you take responsibility for the negotiations on your amendments. In other words, you would contact member states to see if your proposals enjoy enough support to be presented in plenary because your proposals completely replace mine. And I don't want to prejudice your rights, nor do I want to impose double efforts on the committee. So I would be most grateful to you. If you could discuss your proposals with all the delegations to try to achieve a consensus on your proposals and then submit them again to plenary, once you have the agreement of the other delegations. Thank you. Mauritania, Mexico, Paraguay, Japan, Cameroon, and Iran, Mauritania.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Concerning paragraph three of the preamble, we had wished for this paragraph to limit these offenses to criminal offenses, without attempting to limit the scope of the such offenses by a numerating them. Such an enumeration in paragraph three fails to refer to some major crimes, electronic fraud, for example, which is a major of criminal activity that has made many victims and vast fortunes. They in turn led to the creation of very serious and dangerous criminal gangs. enumeration, de facto means that there will be a no mention of some offenses, and the distinguished representative of Pakistan did comment on this, I should like to draw your attention, especially to this paragraph and the way we deal with this. My delegation supports the proposals made by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Thank you, Madam. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. For Mexico. It's vital to maintain the gender dimension. While at the beginning of the negotiating process, my delegation suggested a specific provision. On this we've been sensitive to and attentive to the stances presented here and therefore we value the reference being left in the preamble, which upholds not just the spirit, but also application of it throughout the document. This is an opportunity to create an applicable legal framework for the 21st century. And that's why it's consistent with and meets the needs of the most vulnerable groups, the needs of those that are grappling with the crimes contained in this convention. Thank you.
Thank you, says the chair Paraguay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just quickly, to say that there was an original pair Graph five proposal from Paraguay in the fifth session. It was based on paragraph nine of the preamble of the UN Convention against transnational organized crime. The original proposal contained a final part which highlighted promoting international cooperation. We just like to insist on this original proposal. We believe that international cooperation is key to the goals mentioned in paragraph five. That's all Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Japan.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the giving me the floor. Japan house supportive chairs the reasonable proposal, which we believe is well balanced, we nevertheless welcome the revised text that it retains paragraphs, on stakeholders, gender mainstreaming, and human rights. And we broadly support the revised text. We hope that a consensus will be made based on the text, especially around the formulation of the paragraph on the role of stakeholders, which was modified from the original text, which would already be a compromise for us. We would however, likely to like to listen to other Member States and are open to further discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Cameroon, and then Iran.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may. Thank you for allowing us to speak on this issue. Cameroon, would like to highlight under item two. At the end of the sentence, my delegation believes the end of this paragraph. Too Much detail could kill the detail. From the point of view of my delegation. When we talk about the state and the impact on the state and the well being of individuals and society as a whole. Then it's specific enough to cover enterprises and all the other considerations. Because if we get down to quoting the state enterprises, etc, then one has to wonder is the enterprise not part of the state well being of society is that exclusive, exclusive enterprises do they not participate in that? From my delegations point of view, too much specificity might be redundant. And so my delegation would suggest that we speak about the Speaker of the state, the well being of individuals, and society as a whole. And that's it. Now, turning to paragraph three, I hear my delegation commends adding transnational organized crime. However, we have some reservations with regard to listing and quoting afterwards. If we're going to list everything, then we'll get the impression that we don't it's not not exhaustive enough of a list, we won't get to the end of the nomenclature. Transnational Organized Crime is not just made up by elements that are posted here. There are many elements that go into that crime. And they might be more interesting. And perhaps we don't want to be limited to the comprehensive approach which just talks about transnational organized crime that might be better, some now turning to 10, paragraph 10 on gender. And that consideration, my delegation would like to hear reiterate that our work is to craft a convention about criminalizing illicit use of ICTs. Why then do we need to put gender in criminalization? It's fine to talk about it. comprehensively to address the issue in a comprehensive, overarching manner, crimes are crimes for everyone. Because when we start talking about gender, sex and so forth in crime, then they're we're running the risk of either not saying enough or saying too much. So my delegation would suggest that we either remove this concept. Or if we absolutely want to keep it, then we need to add to it and add other considerations in keeping with the domestic legislation of every state, because we also need to avoid a situation where we're adding and that opens the door and opens up Pandora's box really, because of a concern or a special concern that we have, and then we get involved in all these others. So just to sum up, on this paragraph, we have some reservations about this concept of gender, and associating it with crime at this level. But in order to accommodate all delegations, if we need to keep the idea of gender, then we need to do so in a way that is in keeping with the domestic legislation of every state. Because Cameron's concept of gender might not be the same as the concept of delegation X, Y, or Z. Thank you,
Thank you. So as the chair, dear colleague, I just at this stage of our work. And as I said before, I always try to be as honest as possible if that word still has any meaning in current diplomatic situations. But so having said that, the reference to gender in subparagraph 10 of the preamble is the result of a compromise. You'll remember met perhaps, that during our work, a number of countries had asked for the reference to gender to be an Article Five next to human rights. And then after a number of informal discussions, multilateral, bilateral and other discussions and discussions in plenary, and given the very significant number of delegations that were insisting on a reference to gender, given that situation, I found that what might be helpful is to including the reference to gender in the preamble, that way, it would cover things in a comprehensive way for the convention, and then we wouldn't be forced to introduce this reference at it every article or paragraph or almost. And that's why I put the reference to gender at the preambular level. Now, of course, as usual, you are sovereign. So I would be asking if the committee needs to decide about whether to delete this paragraph, I would do as you wish, but having said that, I would invite you to reflect on Cameroon's proposal, which I think is a good compromise, add the reference to domestic legislation, that would be a way of avoiding multiple interpretations and harmful to the convention. I also would prefer to add something a couple of delegations said something about that, in other de conventions on crime, there is no reference to human rights, generally speaking, and nor nor specifically to gender. And just on that, I'd like to say, I'd like to share my personal memories with you. I was here in New York in 1990, when we adopted, negotiated and adopted the Convention on the rights of migrant workers and members of their families. And at that moment, now, this is a 1990. We retained the rights of female workers. Now this is a convention on labor migration, of course, but still, even at that time, we had already started little by little to include references to this specific problems of women that pertain to them more particularly. So I just come from Geneva where we talk about this every day. In Vienna, same thing. So all multilateral fora, we talk about women and gender all the time. And the delegate of Cuba told us this morning at that at the Third Committee, there was a great deal of discussion of human rights and gender issues, etc. So I would invite issue to truly reflect on the possibility of retaining the reference to gender, and then maybe add the proposal of Cameroon.
We are now at six o'clock. So I will stop the list of speakers here. There was still Iran, Indonesia, Costa Rica and El Salvador. I would like to report to you that as you know, we have a nice session from seven to 10pm. Tonight, and as I said, before, we'll be talking about the articles that I mentioned earlier today. Thank you very much.
I will see you later. It's room 11. This evening. I'm sorry, no, it's here says the chair, My apologies. The meeting is here, but there will be no interpretation. So it will be an informal format. And at the end of our work, we will talk about it again in plenary all the articles that we will have discussed this evening. So from seven to 10pm in the same room, thank you. The session is adjourned.
