It's truly a pleasure to see how pleased you are to see one another. It's my hope that this will positively influence our work.
We can begin. Excellencies ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 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, established as you know, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 74, slash 247. I now declare the concluding session of the ad hoc committee open excellencies. Ladies and gentlemen, before we begin our work, I would like to share with you my personal assessment of the prevailing situation, as we meet to finalize and approve the draft text of the convention for submission to the General Assembly for adoption at its 70th session, in line with General Assembly resolute resolution 75, slash 282, and the roadmap and mode of work approved by the committee at its first session. I would like to commence by thanking all of you, the member states, non member observer states and all stakeholders for your active participation in this process. As of now, we have held six two week formal sessions in which technical views were exchanged, and the various respectable positions of delegations were made known. I would also like to thank you for the constructive atmosphere that you created throughout the entire process. Our strong commitment and joint efforts have moved this important elaboration process forward and pave the way for the committee to now have the opportunity to fulfill its mandate within the set timeframe. At this stage, it is useful to remind ourselves of these successive milestones. The committee held its organizational session on the 10th to the 12th of May 2021. And at that session, it elected its officers and exchanged views on the outline and modalities for its further activities. It held a session on organizational matters on the 24th of February 2022, at which it adopted a list of other relevant nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions, and the private sector to be invited to participate in the ad hoc committee in line with paragraph nine of resolution 75 Slash 282 of the General Assembly. The session also approved the modalities of participation in the work of the committee by multi stakeholders.
At its first session, held from the 28th of February to the 11th of March 2022, the ad hoc committee approved by consensus the structure of the convention, as well as the roadmap and mode of work for the committee, all of which have guided the elaboration process. At its second and third sessions in accordance with the roadmap and motive work, the ad hoc committee undertook a first reading of all chapters, that is general provisions, criminalization, procedural measures and law enforcement, international cooperation, preventive measures, technical assistance and information exchange, the mechanism of implementation, the final provisions and the preamble and exchange views on the basis of the written submissions of member states. You may recall that 24 submissions on behalf of 26 member states were received for the second session, and 23 submissions on behalf of 73 member states were received for the third session. Furthermore, at its fourth and fifth sessions held in January and April of 2023, the ad hoc committee conducted the second reading of the above mentioned chapters on the basis of a consolidated niggle Sharing document prepared by the chair with the assistance of the secretariat. Finally, at its sixth session, the ad hoc committee undertook a reading of the draft text of the convention. Document symbol a slash a C dot 291 slash 22. Also prepared by the chair with the assistance of the Secretariat, on the basis of the outcomes of the second reading during the fourth and fifth sessions. This long process has led us to this concluding section session in line with the roadmap and work road and mode of work to examine the revised draft text of the convention, containing the provisions agreed upon add referendum at the sixth session, as well as compromise proposals on pending provisions. These proposals are based on number one, the written submissions number two, the debates number three, with the amendments submitted to the plenary during this six session for the outcomes of the CO facilitated informal negotiations, five the open ended informal meetings and six informal consultations as well as seven bilateral and multilateral consultations. So you can see that this is a particularly inclusive process. That is why I cannot accept an altered version of the facts. I believe that I process respected the conditions and principles that must guide this type of diplomatic exercise. I am proud to have respected the principles of neutrality and transparency, inclusion, and equal treatment of all of the member states, which must guide any diplomat and trusted by the international community to lead a negotiation process of this importance. I thank you all for having respected this approach, which has enabled if not total trust between the Member States, at least a sufficiently constructive dialogue. And this, I need to emphasize that point. in an international context that is particularly conflictual.
As a result, we now have a revised draft text on the table that I believe is very close to consensus. The provisions on which opinions seem to diverge the most are shown in italics. For these provisions, I preferred not to present a new compromise proposal at this stage in order to allow for the continuation of bilateral and open ended informal discussions. These specific provisions that set in italics are kept as contained in the draft text of the convention presented at the sixth session. This approach is the result of the unwavering efforts of my team and the result of my own continued effort to bridge the gaps among members of member states. On some of the main elements of the future convention, I remain reasonably optimistic about the possibility of a compromise being reached that will allow the convention to be adopted by consensus at the concluding session, in line with the roadmap and mode of work, the Committee will also consider a draft resolution to which the text of the draft convention will be annexed. for consideration and submission for adoption by the General Assembly at its 70th session excellencies ladies and gentlemen, you can see as I can. You can see as I can that our agenda is very heavy and the available time is very limited. I therefore call upon all delegations to work towards consensus. Until the end, I will remain committed and determined to succeed with you in this mandate we have been given to adopt the first global and universal international convention to fight cybercrime together. In order to do this, there is only one senior quite unknown condition, political will if one or more countries do not want to or do not yet wish to achieve this objective, then there is still time to say so clearly and save ourselves unnecessary effort and are ever diminishing finance resources. And this respect, I would like to thank sincerely all of the countries that have made extra budgetary contributions and donations to allow us to complete our work. And I think as well those that have financed the participation of representatives from developing countries in order to ensure the widest possible participation.
Furthermore, it is our collective responsibility and of critical importance of this stage of the process to maintain the positive and constructive negotiating environment that we have built together, and to focus our best efforts to deliver to the international community on time, a much needed universal, comprehensive and practical convention. I am also convinced that our process cannot achieve successful and practical outcomes. Without the views and experience and expertise of intergovernmental organizations, civil society, academia and the private sector. Our sessions and intersessional consultations to date have proved at this point. Therefore, while respecting the inter governmental nature of this process, I would like to thank multi stakeholders for their engagement. I thank them as well for the quality contributions they've provided throughout the process, including intersessional, consultations, and formal sessions. And I thank them for the written submissions and participation in this session. I also wish to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the Secretariat team for their commitment and professionalism. And my dear colleague to higher than one smile I thank for his dedication to the multilateral cause. Furthermore, I would like to thank all of you for your help and cooperation. I now declare Agenda Item one closed, and we will move on to agenda item two. We will now turn to agenda item two and titled organizational matters. for its consideration of this agenda item the ad hoc committee has before it the annotated provisional agenda contained in document a slash a see that 291 slash 24. With your agreement, we will swap the order of consideration of item two a and titled adoption of the agenda and organization of work and item to be entitled election of the vice chair, as the arrangements for chairing the meeting during the session will be based on the election.
May I take it that the committee wishes to adopt the annotated provisional agenda as orally amended by myself? I see no objection. It is so decided.
Let us now proceed with the item to a entitled election of a vice chair. As you may recall on the 21st of September 2023, the permanent mission of Malaysia as chair of the Asia Pacific Group in Vienna, and formed the Secretariat via a note verbal that Mr. Yamada, Tetsuya, vice chair of the Ad Hoc Committee concluded his term of duty as director of the International Safety and Security Cooperation division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and is therefore not in a position to retain his role of Vice Chair. Meanwhile, Mr. Worisawa, Koichi, the newly appointed director of the International Safety and Security Cooperation division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has been nominated for the vacant position of vice chair of the committee. The corresponding note verbal was circulated among the member states on the 22nd of September 2023. I would also like to inform the ad hoc committee of a new development in relation to the officers of the Committee on the 26th of January 2020 for the permanent mission of Nepal, as chair of the Asia Pacific Group in Vienna, and formed the Secretariat via a note verbal, the Mr. Haiwan Wu, Vice Chair of the ad hoc committee has concluded his term of duty in the department of treaty and law at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China and is therefore not in a position to retain his role of Vice Chair. Meanwhile, Mr. Xin Xiang, counselor in the department of treaty and law at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China has been nominated for that vacant position of Vice Chair of the Committee The corresponding note for Ball was circulated among the member states on the 26th of January 2024. With this new vacancy and nomination, I would therefore therefore propose that the new agenda item 2(a be amended to read election of vice chairs. This concerns the English text in particular, this agenda item for Vice election of vice chair will be amended to read election of vice chairs. May I take it that the committee wishes to adopt the annotated provisional agenda as orally amended?
I see no objection. It is so decided.
Allow me first to thank Mr. Haiwan Wu and Mr. Yama that sue for their invaluable contribution and do the work of the committee in their capacities vice chairs the ad hoc committee will now consider the election of vice chairs from the Asia Pacific Group. There are two vacant seats and there are two candidates from this regional group no ballot has been requested. May I take it the the ad hoc committee wishes to elect Mr. Xin Xiang of China and Mr. Waresawa Koichi of Japan by acclamation to the position of Vice Chairs of the ad hoc committee?
It is so decided, I congratulate Mr. Zhang, Xin Xiang and Mr. Waresawa Koichi for their election, which will now continue with the agenda and to be entitled adoption of the agenda and organization of the work.
I would first like to inform the committee that General Assembly resolution 78 Slash 245 F 22 December 2023, established the Lunar New Year as a floating holiday and encouraged meeting bodies to consider avoiding meetings on floating holidays. The floating holiday of the lunar new year will be observed on the last day of our session ninth of February, and the ad hoc committee may decide whether to observe this holiday or not. As the meeting schedule of the session was decided far earlier than the General Assembly Resolution, establishing this floating holiday and considering the very limited time left to us to fulfill the mandate. With your approval and the approval of the Bureau, I would propose that we maintain the meetings on the ninth of February.
Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the meeting format of the session as communicated to member states earlier the plenary meetings of the session will be purely an in person format, which will be webcast on the website of UN web TV in all official languages of the UN. The open ended informal meetings held during daytime, the case the consistency group meetings as well as the bureau meetings will be held with an online component. I would like to underscore that in order to ensure that the committee fulfills its mandate within the given time frame. The ad hoc committee will be expected to consider the rough draft of the convention in its entirety during the first week of the session to allow for further action during the second week, including discussion of a draft resolution through which the text of the draft convention will be annexed for consideration and adoption by the general assembly added 78 session. With this goal in mind, it is foreseen that the plenary will hold for night meetings on the first week concluding session beginning today 29th of January 2024.
As the Secretariat to has to date not been able to confirm the availability of interpretation services these night sessions will be held in an informal settings setting in English and in person only in the same room conference room three. Therefore, the ad hoc committee will not make decisions during these nine sessions, but will bring any developments after 6pm to the plenary. Thirdly, I would also like to recall that the report of the concluding session of the ad hoc committee will be a procedural report as purged General Assembly practice. The parts of the draft report corresponding to each agenda item will be prepared by the reporter of the ad hoc committee with the assistance of the secretariat. And part of the report corresponding to the last meeting will be drafted by the reporter with the assistance of the secretary post session. The report will be ready for adoption in the afternoon effect Friday ninth of February. I'm convinced that all delegations will do their utmost for our final report to contain a draft resolution to which the draft convention is annexed for action by the General Assembly.
Fourthly, I would like to bring your attention to your attention in consideration of the draft convention. In line with the methodology of the concluding session, agreed by the ad hoc committee. At its sixth session, I prepared with the support of the secretary the revised draft text of the convention. On the basis of the discussions held during the sixth session, the document entitled revised draft texts at the convention contained in document a slash ac dot 291 slash 25, is available in the six official languages of the United Nations. It will serve as a basis for discussion for this session. I would like to emphasize that the expected outcome by the end of this week would be to consider the whole convention while trying to adopt ad referendum as many articles as possible. Over the weekend, I will prepare with the support of the Secretariat, a second revised version of the draft text, which will be circulated for your final consideration by Monday, fifth of February to 2024. This version with a revised version will be submitted to the conference management service for translation, and the ad hoc committee will begin its consideration of the draft resolution to which the text of the draft convention will be annexed for for consideration and adoption by the General Assembly at its 70th session, we expect that the committee will be able to adopt the draft text of the convention as well as the draft resolution all six official languages of the United Nations.
At the last meeting of this session, pursuant to the proposed methodology for conducting the work by the ad hoc committee at its concluding session, which was circulated to member states on 15th of January 2020, for the examination of the draft text to the convention will begin in plenary. In order to organize our work in an efficient manner, the plenary will first consider articles three 517 2435 and 36. I repeat, the plenary will first consider articles three 517 2435 and 36, which were not updated in the revised draft texts of the convention and or were the subject of informal consultations in the intersessional period. Those provisions are central to the finalization of the draft convention. And at this moment, I will invite delegations to present any developments or compromise solutions resulting from in the informal discussions so that all delegations are abreast of the stage of negotiations. And this we quickly have a proposal that helps us meet consensus discussion on those provisions will continue. In open ended informal meetings. I will chair these open ended informal meetings. On these same articles that I mentioned, the plenary will then continue by considering the remaining provisions by groups. And the discussions for each group at plenary will be led by a vice chair as follows. First of all, general prison provisions, criminalization and jurisdiction. This will be led by Mr. Turley Moon George Maria to three and as well. The vice chair from Nigeria to procedural measures and law enforcement and international cooperation to be led by Mrs. Briony Daly Whitworth vice chair from Australia and thirdly, preventive measures technical assistance, and information exchange mechanism of implement Attention and final provisions. The discussion will be led by Mr. Warisawa Koichi, newly elected vice chair from Japan.
While the document will be projected on the screen to inform discussions, but the goal of the concluding session is to prove a draft convention by consensus to be submitted to the General Assembly. Therefore, we will not engage in an onscreen drafting exercise. We've already heard the many and varied views and now need a text that can be as close to consensus as possible. At plenary, the committee will consider the revised text of the convention without reflecting changes on screen in real time, unless they help to bring us closer to consensus clearly brings us closer to consensus and this benefit from overwhelming support. So in the the delegations are encouraged and thus to focus on improving the proposed revised draft text of the convention with the objective of reaching consensus refraining from reintroducing previously expressed positions that do not enjoy broad support or introducing proposals or new language or concepts, which have not been discussed up to this point.
Now, in view of the severe time constraints, I would ask all member states to please avoid delivering general statements and to focus instead on providing concrete input. That is concrete proposals or or amendments on each provision under consideration, if needed. Of course, the goal of consensus, including providing the rationale for their position in a concise way if so desired. Furthermore, I kindly ask delegations to avoid observations on translation, because this will be dealt by the consistency group, I repeat, please do not make observations on the quality of the translation. As you know, there is a consistency group which was set up and it is in charge of making sure that the translation is perfect. Member states may transmit their comments by email to the Secretariat at the email CYBERCRIMEAHC@UN.ORG. See, it's the usual email address.
Furthermore, in order to allow us to advance in our work, and mindful of the challenging time constraints, I will present articles 235, 1724, and 35. At plenary during the first and second plenary set meetings today and thereafter, as mentioned before, I will take them to informal open ended meetings. The work of the open ended informal meetings will be guided by me they will be open to all governmental organizations that will be held in English and a hybrid mode in conference room 11. In conference room 11. I repeat, due to the heavy agenda for the concluding session, the open ended informal meetings will be held in parallel with the plenary, the secretariat will help the chair the informal meetings and will publish information on updated meetings arrangements at the on the Committee's website. I repeat that everything that I've just said, you will find on the Committee's website in written form very clearly, delegations are invited to monitor the website for further details the website of the special Ad Hoc Committee, and the latest information on the work of the open ended informal meetings of the ad hoc committee at its concluding session.
Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that any outcome of the open ended informal meetings will be brought to the attention of the plenary for consideration. By the ad hoc committee, I repeat, no decision. No decision will be adopted by the informed meetings, all final decisions will be brought to the attention of the committee in plenary for consideration and adoption. delegations are also encouraged to actively meet and the margins of the plenary meetings and the informal open ended meetings to advance their discussions on divergent views on specific provisions and to share the outcome of those discussions in either open ended informal meetings or in plenary, as appropriate, with a view to facilitating consensus
Furthermore, as you may recall, at its sixth session, the ad hoc committee decided to continue the work of one open ended co facilitated, informal negotiating group beyond that session, that is the group on the use of terms. Accordingly, this group will continue its work during this session, with the aim of finding a consensus on the terms to be used in the future convention would therefore encourage member states to exercise flexibility and find compromises as much as possible.
I would also like to thank His Excellency Mr. rapoo, Lani, Sydney malkani, Ambassador, and Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations in Vienna, represented but at this session by Mrs. Prakash knee, or Dorothy, Counselor of the permanent mission of South Africa in Vienna. And Mr. Eric Doval, la Serda. So Gosia, Counselor of the permanent mission of Brazil to the United Nations in Vienna, and vice chair of the ad hoc committee, I want to thank them for their leadership on this very important matter of the future, the issue of terminology for the future of the treaty, and I would like to ask all delegations to support their efforts and help them to conclude their work fifthly I will remind you that the consistency group will, language consistency will continue reviewing and ensuring the consistency and the six official languages of the United Nations of articles that are agreed upon at referendum by the ad hoc committee. I would like to sincerely thank His Excellency Mr. Claudio Peguero Castillo, cyber affairs adviser at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Dominican Republic, Vice Chair of the ad hoc committee and coordinator of the consistency group as, as well as the member states who have accepted my invitation to designate experts to represent the official languages of the United Nations for their continued support. I would like to underscore the heightened role of the consistency group at the current session for the ad hoc committee to be able to prove and draft text to the convention, and the six official languages of the United Nations at the concluding session, in line with its mandate.
The consistency group will need to revise all provisions agreed at referendum within the following two weeks. Consequently, the group's work should start right away, or as soon as possible, in order to have sufficient time to complete its task. As you may recall, very few provisions were approved by AD referendum at the sixth session, so the committee will need to work on most of the provisions, which will then need to be examined by the consistency group. The task at hand is therefore quite challenging and huge to support this group of editors and translators and will be in constant coordination with a consistency group. And I would also like to thank in advance all those involved for their efforts. I would like to repeat that the committee will be expected to consider the revised draft text of the convention in its entirety during the first week of the session, to allow for further action during the second week, including the discussion of a draft resolution, to which the text of the draft convention will be annexed for consideration and adoption by the General Assembly at its 78th session. The ad hoc committee therefore needs to make every effort to reach a consensus in a timely matter, and on all provisions.
If such a consensus is not reached, by the middle of the second week, I will address in consultation with Bureau consider the way forward including any decision by by the committee that will need to be taken pursuant to paragraph five of the General Assembly resolution 75 slash 282. I will now turn to the organization of our work and on the participation of various multi stakeholders who I want to thank for their active involvement and readiness to support the work of this committee throughout all its formal sessions. In line with the modalities for their participation approved by consensus, the multi stakeholders will be given the floor to provide general comments at specific moments throughout the session, if possible, bearing in mind the limited availability of time to provide inputs that could support member states in their negotiations. I would like to recall that interventions by multi stakeholders should not exceed three minutes each and that the floor will be given to as many multi stakeholders as time allows, which may vary during the session. Multi stakeholders are reminded that they may submit their written contributions to the Secretariat for their input to be published on the Committee's website, but also that they can get in touch with various delegations present here to present them with their ideas. To organize our work, multi stakeholders wishing to take the floor are invited to inscribe their name with the secretary at the table on my left of the podium, due to the complexity of the meeting arrangements during the session, I would strongly remind participants to consult the Committee's website for updated organizational information which will be updated daily.
Now, now that I've presented the methodology for the concluding session, may I take it that the ad hoc committee wishes to adopt the agenda as orally amended, and the organization of work of the concluding session as presented?
I see no objections. It is so decided. So we've concluded item two of the agenda. And we will now straightaway turn to Agenda Item three, entitled revised draft text to the convention.
Yeah, we'll examine don't just so for consideration of this agenda item, the ad hoc committee has before the revised draft texts at a convention contained in document a slash ac dot 291 slash 22 slash Rev. One. We will therefore begin with the consideration of the revised draft text of the convention in accordance with the approved organization of work. Let me begin by thanking all of you for your constructive work in the formal and informal negotiations of the sixth session, and thereafter, your contributions were essential for the elaboration of this document. Now, as you may well recall, our deliberations at the sixth session have enriched the rolling text of the draft by by completing various proposals, they've also equally revealed one decisive fact that we're all in agreement on most of the content of our future convention. Many of the language proposals covered by the draft wouldn't really change the substance. My impression therefore, was that for the most part, the original draft was very close to consensus. I have high hopes that this revised draft, which tries to consider the reflect the discussions during the sixth session, will bring us even closer to achieving it. Now, in the course of elaborating this revised draft, I have closely examined all proposals and statements that were made by Member States non observed non observed non member observer states and multi stakeholders in the formal sessions intersessional consultations and the various informal meetings have also held numerous bilateral and multilateral consultations with member states substance in these discussions reassured me that keeping most of the original draft with some metal modifications would be the best path towards reaching consensus. Therefore, I was careful to only make amendments for two reasons.
First of all, I included proposals that were supported by a large number of member states. In this regard, I have incorporated several proposals made in the various informal meetings are the sixth session by their coordinators and by member states where these were either agreed in informals or were where they were supported by a large number of delegations both in informal meetings and in plenary session second, I've incorporated very few changes which I consider deserve consideration while striving to preserve the delicate balance between member states positions. and also to facilitate consensus. With the assistance of the Secretariat, I also made some editorial amendments, which merely aimed to clarify the legal content of the draft and avoid any ambiguity. I will devote the rest of our meeting and this afternoon to the discussion of some key provisions, namely Article Two on the use of various terms article 36, on the protection of personal data, articles three and 35 on the scope of application of the convention, article 17 and the preamble. before initiating that discussion, please allow me to briefly present the more substantive revisions that I have made to the original text of the convention. Please note that these explanations do not seek to preclude any discussion that you may wish to have, but rather to provide context, I will not repeat the origin of all these provisions, because that information can be found in the explanatory notes to the draft texts of the Convention, which are available on the website of the sixth session of the ad hoc committee. So, let us begin with Article One. I have made two changes to paragraph C, in order to facilitate consensus. So Article One, paragraph C. First of all, I've included a reference to capacity building, which received widespread support. For the sake of consistency. I have aligned the wording of the proposal with that of article 54 paragraph one and article 57 paragraph five subparagraph H namely technical assistance and capacity building. Second, I have deleted the last half sentence of this paragraph because I felt that a more generalized approach would be more conducive to reach consensus.
Now moving on to article 11. information communication technologies related forgery. In this provision, I only amended the title in order to reflect the fact that we have not yet agreed on the terms to be used in the context of this offense, which is computer information and communication technologies related forgery. Article 12. For the same reason, I made the same change to the title. Also you as you may have noticed, I've kept the word theft in the title. I'm aware that many member states have asked for this term to be deleted, arguing that these two distinct offenses should not be dealt with under one single offense. Some delegations also argued that the issue of theft would already be covered by Article Six. However, it seems that under some member says domestic laws causing a loss of property by manipulating digital information would constitute theft rather than fraud. Their reference to both theft and fraud should therefore simply take account of the diversity of legal concepts found in different legal traditions. And I hope that keeping this this mentioned will not diminish the possibility of reaching consensus on this issue. In addition, I've included paragraph C. Following the proposal, the coordinator of the informals group ate at the sixth session, as well as the broad support expressed by member states in plenary. Let's recall that NAT article 12 does not only address fraud through the input or alteration of computer data, or through interfering with the functioning of an ICT device but also fraud through the deception of a natural person by using an ICT device. The bottom the end of article 12 of the revised draft text equally incorporates the proposal the coordinator and the discussion and plenary during the sixth session and it replaces the last part with a gain in money or other property.
And certainly in article 13, a number of changes have been made to reflect the discussions in informals of group seven and implement plenary during the sixth session. The title has not been changed as the majority of member states called for the retention of the term child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation material. And subparagraph. B, the act of otherwise engaging with has been deleted in accordance with the working group of group seven, and in view of the number of member states calling for its deletion subparagraph D has been deleted, as Member States expressed both in informals and in plenary that these ask that these actions are already covered by article 16 on laundering proceeds of crime and article 19 on participation and attempt. In paragraph two, the revised draft text follows the definition of child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation material contained in the working document of informants group seven. It defines visual material and mandatory and written or audio content in optional terms, while deleting original paragraph being.
Regarding the sub paragraphs of this definition, I understand that there have been difficulties in reaching consensus particularly in the words or oppose in subparagraph, a received opposition by several member states which is why I decided to delete this element from the definition regarding subparagraph D of paragraph two. The revised text follows the wording of the working document of informants group seven. paragraph four, on the exclusion of criminalization of children for self generated material, and largely returns the original text with the small modification of changing shell to name paragraph five reflects a proposal made in informal group in formulas group seven, which received the support of a large number of member states. I understand that this provision allows states parties to not apply this offense to material that has been consensually produced in relationships between persons who have received the legal age of sexual consent for their private use only. For the, in addition to the exclusion of self generated material from criminalization in paragraph four, paragraph five would thus be an important exception, to give effect to adolescents gradually accruing a right to self determination.
The form of paragraph five has been moved and inserted in article 21 as paragraph seven. It has been adopted to reflect a more generalized approach to the protection of children accused of the offenses under this convention. Several member states without opposition asked for this change will turn now to article 14. With I will provide some explanations that will allow you to follow the organization's the negotiations rather, with regard to article 14 a number of changes have been made to reflect the work of informants group seven and the discussions in plenary. I have amended the title which reached agreement and informals. In paragraph one, the prohibited conduct now focuses on the purpose of committing a sexual offense against the child instead of the broader notion of sexual purposes. This change follows the working document of informals group seven. Moreover, I have adjusted paragraph two and included paragraphs three and four, in accordance with the proposal of informals group seven. All three paragraphs have reached agreement and informals and allow states parties more flexibility in determining the specificities of this offense. Article 15 of the revised draft also follows the work of informals group seven.
Paragraph one did not reach agreement in informals, which is why the text of the original draft was retained. The only change that has been made is the deletion of the act of offering, which informals group seven regarded as constituting an attempt of selling that would already be covered by article 19 on participation and attempt. Paragraph two of article 15 on the definition of intimate image follows the proposal of group seven and the discussion in plenary paragraphs three and four have reached agreement in informals. As these two provisions appear to be linked to Article Three, and as the discussion has not yet taken place in plenary, I will provide for transparency my understanding of these provisions. Paragraph three of article 15 is as I read it, attempted to cover material intended to cover material that has been produced in the period during which adolescents wish to exercise they're gradually developing sexual self determination as they approach adulthood. Thus, paragraph three, allows states parties to categorize images of persons images of persons whose age lies between 18 years and the earlier age of sexual consent as intimate image instead of child sexual abuse material as long as it does not depict child abuse or sexual or exploitation. Thus, the provision follows the advice of several member states to not deal with this conduct under the usually harsher, harsher penalize Child Sexual Abuse material offenses. But as intimate image paragraph four clarifies that any depiction of child sexual abuse or exploitation cannot be consented to thereby limiting the optional application of article 15 to appropriate cases.
Paragraph five gives states parties the option to require intent to cause harm and only address so called revenge porn. And alternative paragraph five has been proposed in the informal meeting, which I have decided not to include, because it was not sufficiently negotiated upon. That provision dealt with the option of States Parties to reserve the right to not apply in whole or in part, article 15. I believe that such a provision would raise the issue of reservations to the convention in which merits a discussion on its own, and she'd rather be dealt with in general terms in the final provisions of the convention. Article 16 concerns laundering of proceeds of crime. Here are several changes have been made to article 16 to accommodate member states concerns and to facilitate consensus.
In paragraph two of article 16, I have deleted sub paragraph a, as a large number of member states called for its deletion and none for its retention. In turn subparagraph B has been divided into two sub paragraphs but this change predicate offenses under this provision are limited to the offenses established in accordance with this convention. In subparagraph, D I have made a small editorial revision and deleted the reference to the Conference of States Parties to this convention to align the wording of this provision with that of UNCAC the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime untuck.
Finally, I included subparagraph F, which reflects Article Six, paragraph two subparagraph F untuck. Originally, article 37 of the consolidated negotiating document, discussed that our fourth session contained an independent provision on this matter which ultimately was not included in the original draft text, as a large majority of member states called for its deletion. However, it could be a useful addition under Article 16. And I leave it to you as to whether or not it should be retained. Article 19 participation and attempt in article 19, paragraph one, I deleted the terms ater or a better, as several Member States called for its deletion, and in order to maintain consistency with the language of article 27 of the United Nations Convention.
The Untaek says the term article 21 is on prosecution, adjudication and sanctions. Article 21 was largely retained in its original form, but now includes in paragraph seven, a general provision on the Protection of Children accused of the offenses established under this convention, which was originally found in paragraphs and paragraph five of article 13. Article 22. Regarding article 22, I have made two editorial changes first, in paragraph three, the original reference to the article on extradition now specifies article 37, paragraph 11. Second, in paragraph four, I have replaced the word take with adopt such measures, article 23 in scope of procedural procedural measures, in article 23, I have inserted the word specific before criminal investigations or proceedings, as a considerable number of member states has called for this addition both in plenary and in informals.
Article 25, expedited, expedited preservation of stored computer data or digital information and article 25 paragraph one I have included after the term traffic data, the terms content, data, and subscriber information. This inclusion was proposed by the coordinator of group six as well as a number of member states in plenary given that the enumeration of the different types of data is not exhaustive. This edition only clarifies by way of example, which data may be subject to a preservation order.
Article 28 search and seizure of stored computer data and digital information in article 28. I have made one minor editorial change in paragraph one, and moved part of the sentence from the Shippo to the bottom of that paragraph as proposed by the coordinator of group six, and as requested by several member states. Article 33 on protection of witnesses. In paragraph one of article 33, I've included the wording in accordance with its domestic law to align the language with article 32 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption following the wish of several member states.
Article 34. Is on assistance to and protection of victims. I took a count of the proposals on paragraph four, which garnered significant support. And I've incorporated a proposal which aims to provide a more generalized approach to the assistance to end protection of victims article 37 extradition and article 37 Paragraph 10. I've included a reference to existing channels of the International Criminal Police organization which plays a crucial role in combating the use of ICTs for criminal purposes.
Article 38 transfer of sentenced prisons and article 38. I have included wording considering the rights of sentenced persons and issues relating to consent rehabilitation and re integration, as this addition had received support by a number of member states article 40 general principles and procedures related to mutual aid Legal Assistance.
In Article 40, I have made two changes. First, I've deleted paragraph one and the general scope of mutual legal assistance. Through this deletion the relevant articles on mutual legal assistance of this chapter, are now governed by article 35 on general principles of international cooperation. And that said, articles that define their own scope, such as article 37 on extradition, remain unaffected by that change, which should simplify the text and provide for clearer and more coherent approach to the scope of the chapter on international cooperation. When discussing this article, please consider whether the new first paragraph is well placed or whether it should be moved to a different location such as article 35. Second, in paragraph 20, on the refusal of mutual legal assistance, I have inserted a footnote that reminds us of the additional grounds for refusal that were proposed during our sixth session, and which might be further discussed.
Article 41, which concerns the 24/7 network. In Article 41, I have made a small adjustment and simplified the text as article 35. Paragraph one now determines the scope of the 24/7 network. Member states may consider if we should make the scope of this article more specific, as the 24/7 network is not the authority in charge of mutual legal assistance.
Article 42, expedited preservation of stored computer data, or digital information, in paragraph one of article 42, I have made an addition that was proposed by a member state. It should allow member states to discuss the technicalities and practices of the procedure to request the expeditious preservation of computer data. The reason is that the requesting authority often does not know the exact location where the data it seeks is stored, particularly in consideration of the often geographically distributed ICT infrastructure of service providers and the increasing use of cloud computing. And narrow reading of the original provision could thus imply that it only covers such data that is stored in a computer system located in the territory of the requested state party. While such data that is stored by the same service provider in a service in a server cluster, and a third state would not be covered. The current wording thus, would have the effect that the nexus to the requested state party is not only established if the data is stored in the requested state party, but also of the service provider controlling the data is located or established in the territory of the requested state party.
For that reason, the same addition has been made in article 44 paragraph one on mutual legal assistance in accessing stored computer data or digital information.
And in article 45, paragraph, one on mutual legal assistance in the real time collection of traffic data. In paragraph five, you will find a footnote explaining that informal discussions on the grounds for refusal were ongoing when I elaborated the draft. The same applies for articles 43 paragraph two on the expedited disclosure of preserved traffic data. By the way, none of the footnotes are meant to remain in the draft text to be submitted to the General Assembly. This is for your information.
In Article 42 Paragraph seven, I have amended the period of preservation affected in response to a preservation request, as called for by a large number of member states. The period now is a minimum of 60 days instead of a maximum of 90 days. Article 45 mutual legal assistance in the real time collection of traffic data and article 46 mutual legal assistance in the interception of content data in articles 45 and 46. I have decided to have decided to retain the words shell and italics. This approach follows the advice of the coordinators of group 11. To continue the discussion on the question as to whether these provisions are to be mandatory or optional. Moreover, I did not want to preclude the continuation of the informal discussions on this topic at the time of drafting the revised text,
article 53 preventive measures, I made two changes to that article. In subparagraph, three B, I have deleted the words and contribute to its non tolerance. I felt that this deletion would be the minimum common denominator of member states positions. And I hope that this subparagraph is now acceptable to everyone. In subparagraph, three D, I have included a provision that was proposed during our sixth session which encourages service providers to take effective prevention measures preventive measures, I'm aware of the discussion and Member States positions on this issue. And I hope that the caveats of were feasible in light of national circumstances and to the extent permitted by domestic law can facilitate consensus.
In Article 24, on technical assistance and capacity building, I have made four changes. In paragraph one, I have inserted the wording taking into particular consideration the interests and needs of developing states parties. A large number of member states called for that inclusion without opposition. In paragraph three subparagraph G, I have included the word confiscation to align its wording with Article Three, paragraph one of the revised the draft text of the convention, as well as in the relevant articles of the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the UN Convention against transnational organized crime. In paragraph four, I've included a reference to domestic law as requested by a number of member states. In paragraph eight, I have replaced operational and training activities with technical assistance and capacity building to implement a proposal that received significant support and to align its wording with articles. One, paragraph C, article 54, paragraphs one and 10 and article 57 of paragraph five subparagraph H article to use of terms we shall. I've also added here paragraph O, which contains a definition of the term relevant stake holders following the terminology used in general assembly resolution 75 slash 282. This inclusion aims to ensure a coherent approach to the involvement of stakeholders in the various activities related to our efforts against the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes and streamline the text avoiding repetition each time that the term is mentioned. Consequently, all enumerations of stakeholders throughout the revised draft text have been replaced with the term relevant stakeholders as defined in Article Two. For the remainder of Article Two, I have chosen to retain the original draft text of the convention.
As you may recall, since our fourth session, the use of terms has been the subject of informal discussions under the guidance of our two trusted co facilitators. His Excellency Mr. rappelled and Sidney Malecon, represented by Ms. Prakash near Adwa. Tea counselor at the permanent mission of South Africa and Vienna, and Vice Chair Mr. Eric Deauville la Serda. So go soon. I strongly believe that this format continues to be the most conducive to reaching consensus, and therefore I propose that the CO facilitators continue their informal discussions and report back to the plenary before the end of this week.
Article 36 protection of personal data For this article, I have also attained the language of the original draft for the time being. As you may recall, this article was subject was the subject of informal discussions of group 10. Under the coordination of the representative of the European Union, Mr. Dan Rodenburg. At the end of the sixth session, the coordinator reported to the plenary on the progress made in the informals and continued beyond the sixth session with his efforts to facilitate consensus. The informal discussions held during the intersessional period resulted in a new proposal, which is in its version of 12 October 2023, available on the website of the sixth session of the ad hoc committee. I now invite the coordinator to present this proposal to the plenary. This is the revised proposal. Mr. Rodenburg. Do you have the floor?
Thank you, Chairman. And with your leave, I will give the floor to my colleague, John, who has been dealing with this point recently.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As you will recall from the sixth session, article 36, as it is currently drafted in the revised draft text enjoys the support of the vast majority of delegations. As you know, a number of delegations wish to see more specific rules for the exchange of personal information in the convention, as they consider this would further facilitate cooperation between the parties for the future convention. However, as other delegations considered that a more general high level set of principles would suffice. The current text was developed to refine to reflect those views and find a workable balance between the different views. On that basis, and at your invitation, Madam Chair, the EU continued to work with the delegations during the intersessional period, and identified a few textual amendments which we believe could turn that support into an overall consensus, we think we are now very close to securing that objective, with a text that takes into account all the views that we have heard, and represents those a genuine compromise, subject to your approval. Therefore, the EU stands ready during this concluding session to continue to fine tune the text with those delegations who may still have questions to further consolidate that already very strong support and, if possible, to reach a consensus. You and all the delegations can count on our continued support to find an agreement on this article. Thank for your kind attention. Merci beaucoup.
Thank you for that presentation. If the committee agrees, and we'll ask the coordinator to continue with his efforts in order to reach a consensus and to organize informal discussions with the interested delegations during the first week of this session and then to report the plenary by Friday morning. And if possible, the chapter on international cooperation could be then examined in plenary, I know that things are moving forward, but I would like to give additional times to make sure that everyone can agree. Now article 24 conditions and guarantees Oh, sorry, Article Five respect for human rights. So, respect for human rights and article 24 conditions and several and safeguards as the discussions and inform most group five have shown this cluster is particularly sensitive, so I therefore thought it will more appropriate to allow these discussions to continue and I therefore retain the original draft text to the convention for these provisions. Once again, I would like to invite the delegations to limit their interventions at this stage only to share their ideas and proposals that may help them reach agreement on these articles, and not just to restate their positions. So I've couldn't come concluded a presentation of explanations of the text and now we'll open the floor and we will now look at the list of speakers
I hope that the Secretariat has taken note of requests for the floor. I have Nicaragua as asking for the floor you have the floor.
Madam Chair, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of Bella rose, marandi Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mali, Iran, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Syria, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Collab on the ad hoc committee that it should implement its mandate in accordance with hunger resolutions 74 Slash 247 and 75 slash two a two and submit the draft convention to the UN General Assembly for collaboration consideration during its 78 session. UN member states declared that the future international treaty should be comprehensive, that is to cover a wide range of criminals act. It should also ensure protections of state severity probe provide for effective procedural measures which are aimed at collection and unhindered exchange of electronic evidence, including for the purpose of preventing and combating combating ICT crimes. UN member states emphasize the importance of extended international cooperation and providing mutual assistance on effective basis. The convention should become a progressive tool to prevent a countered the use of both current and new and emerging technologies for criminal purposes. Technical Assistance, capacity building and technology transfer income on country information, crime are considered by states as internal parts of the convention. We call on the UN member states to join our statement. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Mr. Madam Chair, Nevsky beaucoup
Thank you, Nicaragua. I just want to remind you that we're discussing articles five and 24. So I would ask you to to try to achieve consensus through proposals which which might which you think might help us reach that consensus. Article Five has to do with respect for human rights article 24 is on conditions and safeguards.
we have a list of speakers we have Iran, the Russian Federation, Jamaica, Cuba and Egypt, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your efforts and endeavors to progress the activities of the ad hoc committee, as well as for your able leadership during the last six sessions of the ad hoc committee to create a positive and productive working environment, which we assume will continue at this concluding session as well. Madam Chair, the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran is of the view that the fulfillment of the main goal of this and the mandate of the ad hoc committee which is to elaborate, a comprehensive international convention on contouring the use of information and communications technologies, for criminal purposes, can only be achieved through the constructive atmosphere, atmosphere, and professional dialogue based on the common interest of the old participating delegations. Therefore, in preparing the text of the future convention, it is necessary to follow an inclusive approach and to prepare a balanced text, which encompasses the opinions and views of all delegations keeping in mind or main goal. My delegation, while thanking and appreciating for your efforts, and the Secretariat for the ad hoc committee in the This process is of the view that the revised draft text is of the convention contained in document a slash AC slash 291. A slash 22. Slash row one needs more review, to address the genuine concerns and consideration of the states with an aim that the final texts of the convention be agreeable for everyone, Madam Chair, as the practice of the this delegation in the previous sessions of the ad hoc committee, Iranian delegation will continue to engage actively and constructively in the course of the discussions with view, achieving the main goal of the decision, and the final elaboration of the convention by consensus, and as well as for your able leadership.
Madam Chair, according the article five and 25, my delegation would like to reiterate that the primary focus of this important meeting should be dedicated to the realization of the very mandate conferred upon the ad hoc committee as per resolution 79 slash 247, which is the elaborate a comprehensive international convention on controlling the use of information and communications technologies for the criminal purposes, by way which it is required to draft a treaty with the technical approach, akin to the ad that employed in drafting the UNCAC and those to avoid the duplication of the work and avoid addressing matters that is principle falling within the purposes and scope of the human rights treaties, and the fragmentation of the relevant treaty obligations, as reiterated before the UNCAC to which 190 Estates or party and other relevant treaties such as the single convention of the narcotic drugs of the 1961 does not include the Human Rights provision signifying that the very simple fact that the criminal justice conventions focus on technical aspects of the fighting the use of ICTs for the criminal purposes and it has been the established practice not to involve the matters, such as the human rights that was already an extensively been addressed and elaborated in other treaties. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Merci beaucoup.
Thank you, Ron, Jamaica.
Madam Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. As this is the first time CARICOM will take the floor at the concluding session. I wish sincerely to thank you for your excellent leadership of this process. CARICOM remains committed and will continue to contribute in a constructive and meaningful way to this process. As it concerns Article Five respect for human rights. CARICOM supports the inclusion of Article Five as currently worded, we asked for the insertion of the word applicable within this text in reference to applicable human rights. This was not included, however, we support the revised text. CARICOM believes that this provision is well placed in the chapter on general provisions. The effect of this placement is that all obligations procedures, powers contained within the entire text must be read and applied consistently. With each member states obligations in international human rights law. This would be capable of rights, or this would include rights and responsibilities, which are contained within a range of UN instruments to include the ICCPR as well as future conventions, which will contain human rights provisions. And therefore we ask for the retention of the provision as currently worded, article 24 conditions and safeguards. With respect to article 24 paragraph one, CARICOM is of the view that the text strikes a balance in acknowledging and providing for safeguards whilst enabling law enforcement to adequately investigate criminal activities. As such, it is carried comes preference for the language to be retained as currently presented in the revised text. And so we asked for its retention paragraph two, taken into account the views expressed in the room. CARICOM had called for the retention of the original language, which speaks to review, we had noted that several member states also asked for the inclusion of the term supervision. And so we remain flexible in that regard. On article 24, paragraph three, we support the text as currently drafted and asked for its retention as formulated. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Massey,
thank you, Jamaica, Cuba.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, my delegation would echo everyone who has said you've done a tremendous amount of work and we'd like to reiterate our full support to you in the final, the final phase of our discussion and the we can assure you of the constructive involvement of my delegation and the rest of this process. Now, the regard to the topic before us Article Five, my delegation continues to be concerned with the excessive language on issues related to human rights in the text. Given that this is not a discussion on human rights, but rather on the prevention, and combating and criminalization of the use of information and communication technology for criminal purposes. As a delegate a Third Committee, I know that the issue of human rights is very important for all delegations present here. But for some reason, the United Nations has a division of labor, and there are topics that are assigned to various bodies. So generally speaking, from my delegation, there's too much a human rights language in the text, especially as we see that the criminalization commission component in the text, which should be the purpose of our discussion is increasing is increasingly reduced. So that is a general concern that we have. And we'll continue working to find the right balance so that both of both dimensions are very important.
But this is a discussion on the issue of criminal crime, criminal aspects and offenses and not human rights regarding Article Five and I and I couldn't agree with this from the point of human rights, that this is an article in language that is moving in the right direction. Of course, without prejudging any other discussions on the same language, and other aspects of the text. And on this article, we believe that there is an omission, which I think is quite significant. And that is not, not all countries have the same obligations under international human law of human rights, depending on the various instruments that each country has ratified. Therefore, for this language to be considered. There's a very important word in the second line that we should insert. I think our my colleague from CARICOM have tried to, to mention this. This paragraph is mentioning, states parties as a whole in Article four we say, each state party, and there it's clear that each state party will act on the basis of its national legislation and the treaties that it has signed, whereas Article Five is very general. So we would suggest inserting with their respective obligations under international human rights law, inserting that language in this way, this article would be a little bit clearer. We believe that to add respective before public obligations in the human rights law would would clarify slightly, how States Parties of this future instrument will have to make sure that the implementation of their obligations are in line with the obligations that they have undertake taken on under other instruments. We also have a general comment, we believe that this paragraph is examining how this instrument can contribute to the implementation of human rights upholding of human rights, but we would also like to see the other side of the coin and that is for states parties. In the in the implementation of international human rights instruments also contribute to the implementation of this convention, so that there's a true count momentarily, we can submit this comment in writing, so that it is reflected in the minutes of the meeting. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and once again, you can count on our wholehearted support.
Thank you very much, Kuba. Yes, please, I would suggest that you submit this language to the email that I mentioned your proposals. The secretariat is taking note Dulli of your proposals, but it would be even better if you sent them in to us. now give the floor to Egypt, who will be followed by Nigeria, Nigeria.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Allow me to start by commending your efforts during the last six sessions and during the intersessional. And the work that you have supervised trying to take our this convention forward. Madam Chair, Egypt would like to align itself with the statement delivered by Nicaragua. Unfortunately, the statement was distributed to many states very recently. So we consulted with the capital, and we could not join the statement before it was delivered. But we agree with all the terms and references referred to in that statement. Excellency, when it comes to Article four, the question of protection of human rights while countering ICT use for criminal purposes, is an essential issue. So protection of human rights under Article Five is a necessity. And we recognize the importance of this provision. Nonetheless, we do not understand why do we have a reference that is similar to that at least five or six times in the text. We have asked during the informants to have a list of all articles that relates to human rights put together so that we take care of that and evade the redundancy in the texts repeating the same obligations on the states in different corners of the text.
On article 24, we still believe that article 24 is problematic, because it's taken almost verbatim from original text that region text suits its members, suits those who have negotiated it. As it stands, we do not understand why do we pick the tool and choose the principle of proportionality out of all the other legal principles recognized under international law? And how are we going to apply the principle of proportionality? In the room, of course, costs will be the the forum where we discuss the application of this treaty. For instance, we in Egypt have death penalty as one of our legal provisions. Other countries don't how are we going to apply proportionality here? Madam Chair, the reference in paragraph two, two grounds justifying application is very vague. Grounds justifying application to whom an application of what to the cost? Or is it? Will it be open for countries to come and ask Egypt or any other stakeholders and ask Egypt? What are the grounds upon which you have built your laws? And on what are the grounds you have used to for applying those laws? I think this goes much beyond the terms of human rights that we have agreed upon in human rights conventions. And it needs to be fixed also, revision or legal judicial reviews, who is entitled to ask any country? Why did you apply this judicial review on certain act or not? The when, when the Council of Europe was negotiating with the best they have their own institutions and their own courts? These issues are related to internal courts to decide who else outside our governments is supposed to ask about these issues. This is the we still believe that this is an intrusive language that goes beyond the protection of human rights. If the purpose is to protect human rights, it's already there under Article Five. Any country can use under Article Five to make sure that states are obliged to protect their human rights while countering use of ICT for criminal purposes. Madam Chair, we will propose some amendments to this article. We have tried over the past six rounds to refer that this article is not convenient for an international context, unfortunately, is still there. Thankfully, you have put it in italic and we will continue our discussions on that But for us article 24 is quite intrusive and it goes beyond our obligation that we have subscribed to under international human rights instruments. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, yes. Thank you, Nigeria, followed by the Russian Federation.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will permit me to start off by expressing the support of Nigeria's delegation to the work that I'm sure has CRAF has guided us. True. Up to this point, Madam Chair, we, our delegation supports Article Five, as it is a draft that currently noting like several other delegations the importance of the importance of fundamental human rights. Coming to article 24, we also find we also support the inclusion of adequate 24 In this convention. Now, to us, we in line with our domestic laws, there is the over akin protection of human rights, which is generally embedded. And then when we come to the application of procedure, powers and laws, there are specific aspects which our Lord takes into consideration, noting that in the course of an investigation, there are aspects that more that affect certain aspects such as privacy more, therefore, there are, there's a need for rules to safeguard the exercise of the powers given to law enforcement, such that those powers are not abused, and such that they do not impinge on the fundamental rights of our citizens. So in line with that thought process, we find articles five and 2024 in order and we continue to remain open to working with other delegations to find language that helps them or helps all of us reach consensus. Once again, we thank you Madam Chair, and look forward to a successful session.
the Russian Federation, and then Pakistan.
Madam Chair, thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to read out the statement by the head of the Russian delegation to the ad hoc committee as well as the Special Representative of the president on international cooperation and information. Security. I'd like to remind you madam chair that our head of delegation was refused a visa to come to the US to take part in the final session, so I will read his statement.
Distinguished colleagues, the work of the special of the ad hoc committee of the General Assembly of developing universal convention on countering the use of information ICTs for criminal purposes, is nearing its end. We believe its results are contradictory. The mandate of the ad hoc committee determined by resolution 74, slash 247 and 75. Slash two a two has been fulfilled only partially. First of all, we know the lack of reaction of the Secretary to our requests to ensure a fully fledged participation of the Russian delegation in negotiations, due to inability or incapacity to stop the sabotage by the United States and Austria who refuse to issue visas to our diplomats or experts or dragging out the consideration of their requests. The deputy head of the Russian delegation Ereignisse Junoon, who was one of the inspires of the future treaty, was particularly targeted during the session. We also have had to deal with another issue the inability of the Secretariat to set up a hybrid format of the negotiations this position in it Just under the demonstrative intention of involving non government entities leads us to doubt about the intentions of the Secretary to ensure the inter governmental character of the negotiations, the chairman and the Secretary provided a text of the future agreement in November there are some important elements, including encouraging international cooperation and providing technical support.
There is an attempt to although it's timid establishing, improving, establishing a new norm aimed at overcoming the technological inequality. Now, the hostages of the of the efforts of IT giant, giant IT companies are not only users of ICTs, but states that the speaker is reading his texts at such a speed that it is almost impossible to interpret. Now an important component of this document is the attempt of the future Convention to Combat fraud financial financial crimes and child pornography. This latest is child pornography is a scourge our children from early on are lured into a digital concentration camp greeted by malefactors with the help of modern technology. Younger victims of sexual violence in the notorious case of Jeffrey Epstein are just the tip of the iceberg. In this context, comm combating the spread of illegal information in this case, child pornography is a step forward in attempts to combat modern high tech crime for which information is a means of crime. Whereas distortion is the very goal of criminal activity as a significant element of the draft presented by the chair or its provisions on establishing exchange of electronic evidence. This approach lays the groundwork for cooperation between the relevant agencies of states, it bolsters their efforts to that are already underway through mutual legal assistance in order to ensure criminal prosecution of criminals. These are the important but unfortunately few achievements of this draft.
What remains unaddressed are the fundamental provisions of resolution 74 Slash 247 and 75 slash 282, which prescribe work on developing a comprehensive treaty in August in November of 2023. We were presented a slightly amended Budapest convention without its harmful, article 32 B, which violates the central principle of the UN Charter about the sovereign equality of states we don't understand why the framers of the document dismissed appeals to criminalize the most dangerous public actions including combating the spread of terrorist extremist and Nazi ideas with the use of ICTs in accordance with the various resolutions of the Security Council and general assembly as well as the legislation of most of its member states. We are also puzzled by the unsubstantiated refusals of some states to cooperate and in combating against the inducing children and adults to suicide using ICTs. Death groups against against the teenagers are a global tragedy, not many countries have been able to avoid the dangerous phenomena the blue whale. To combat this evil we need to take steps.
Another comment on the results of the work of the ad hoc committee is the inability to develop a document aimed at combating ICT crime. The Secretariat unfortunately was unmoved by arguments that combating criminally, criminally liable actions especially at a terrorist type include a broad range of measures. This is not only investigating crime and prosecuting, which is partially mentioned in the draft, but also prevention and suppression of criminal activity. It's well known that it's better to prevent a crime and in the area of ICTs. This is only possible through international cooperation.
We have to also mention that this current version of the treaty enshrines an obsolete practice of law enforcement bodies that does not reflect today's realities. Many articles are copied from treaties that are 20 years old if there are no efforts to agree on procedures and special methods of investigate Asian are creating platform and Zen channels for cooperation among law enforcement bodies quite to the contrary, provisions on storing and disclosure of information that are diluted are not binary and not binding, excuse me. Before the beginning of the negotiating session, we call on the Secretariat to be very attentive to the voices of member states of the UN who are in favor of and rather not against resolution 74 Slash 247 of the General Assembly statements by certain delegations about their commitments to human rights or simply a propaganda ploy, we still have time to, to write the situation and to agree on an effective and much needed treaty. We call on all delegations to be ready to fulfill our mandate. We have proposed the number of proposals on this and we will, we will present them when we get to to the specific relevant item on the agenda. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now regarding Article Five and 24, we wholly supports statements by Iran and Egypt, but slightly later, we will add our own comments on this. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. I would like to remind delegations that there is no time limit during your interventions. But still, we want you to be reasonable and not exaggerate things. And above all, one should read at a sufficient speed to read slow enough to allow for interpreters to interpret easily. Thank you very much. Pakistan is next on the list, followed by Belarus, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Paraguaya, Eritrea and Brazil, Pakistan have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Allow me to extend my warm congratulations to you for your exemplary leadership throughout the last six sessions. Your commitment to an inclusive approach considering all inputs, and the clarity provided in the explanatory notes for of the zero draft have been commendable. As we enter the final session, I trust that our collective efforts will culminate in the realization of a comprehensive draft convention as mandated by General Assembly resolution 74 slash 257. Throughout the negotiation process, my delegation has been actively involved, contributing significantly by presenting a multitude of written proposals, providing sound rationales for each amendments, and successfully building support for some of our suggestions. However, it is apparent that two guarantees the conventions comprehensiveness and address all crucial aspects adequately. further discussions are essential in our ongoing commitment to this endeavor, my delegation is dedicated to active engagement, striving to foster consensus on all outstanding issues. This approach also reflects our dedication to ensure that convention is comprehensive, robust and inclusive in addressing a multifaceted challenges posed by issues we are discussing.
Madam chair now moving on to Article Five on which you invited comment. Article Five introduces principles of international human rights law. There are two issues which are to be discussed here. The first is the absence of human rights examples in historical precedents, as highlighted by distinguished delegates of Iran and Egypt before p. This raises a pertinent question about the selective inclusion of elements related to human rights in the current convention. The second issue relates to the concerns that emerge regarding the omission of acts those that undermine human rights from the criminalization chapter. Despite their perceived significance. In this context, my delegation wishes to draw the attention to our propose article 16 Best Madam Chair, we emphasize says that the rights of 1.8 billion Muslims and other billion facing discrimination should not be overlooked. When calling for the full realization of human rights. We understand that this has to be discussed in the criminalization chapter. But our aim is to build the release reasoning and rationale for acceptance of this article. This article as drafted is acceptable to Pakistan, and we would be happy to retain it in its current form with the small minor amendment. So the article would state that the state party shall ensure the implementation of their obligation under this convention is consistent with their respective obligation under under international human rights instead of law, we would like to replace it with conventions to which they are party. This is the small amendment which we propose. And in this amendment, we believe that a number of issues are going to be addressed number one, the respective obligations, which arise from those convention to which a state is party. Moving on to article 24. Madam Chair, the Article Five which we just discussed, covers the principles of international human rights law, and it is applied to the entire convention as a whole.
We also note that the human rights aspects are repeated in article 24, paragraph one, and we believe that it is unnecessary and not mandated and repetative. Moving on to paragraph two, we know that in paragraph two, the actual measures and conditions and safeguards are proposed by you the end, this is where we support the paragraph as a whole. For paragraph three, the discussion on elements of lawmaking considering to formulate law, we have our reservation about its effectiveness and usefulness. We also note that in the international convention, such elements where we describe how the law is formulated, how the interests of citizen are realized, and the interests of third parties are considered in domestic legislation is not mentioned. And therefore, we cannot support that. Madam Chair moving on to the concrete amendment, after providing rationale to reasoning of article 24. Here are the details. In paragraph one, we would like it to end where it says provided for under its domestic law. The paragraph first would end here and again, the rationale and ending the paragraph here is embedded in our comments which we provided, we do not support the reputation of human rights aspect which is already covered in Article Five. And certainly it applies to article 24 Also, and with regard to the last part in paragraph one, which shall incorporate the principle of proportionality, the very element of principle approach proportionality remains vague and inconsistent and is also open to interpretation. What is proportional to any state might not be proportional to my understanding, and in order to remove this ambiguity, we propose the deletion of this last part.
Secondly, similar to like Egypt, we also question the justification or the element of ground justifying application minus this element. We support paragraph two as proposed by you. But we would call for a deletion of ground justifying application in paragraph two, paragraph three for the reason which I have already expressed, well, we would like it to be completely deleted. Therefore, the article title, condition and safeguard would include the actual condition and safeguard and not the elements through which a domestic legal procedure or lovemaking is made effective. These are our comments on the article, Madam Madam Chair, we are ready to provide it in writing if it is acceptable to the room. And finally, Madam Chair, my delegation has joined this session with a lot of optimism, one to reach consensus, and to help you reach consensus, we would engage constructively with all the fellow colleagues present in this room trying to move forward. And this these are the position which was not our initial position when we started negotiating in this process. But we have come a long way, we have tried to understand and move forward and short flexibility to our maximum. And we will continue to do so thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Pakistan, Belarus, then Saudi Arabia. But he bogus.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. And I welcome you at this concluding session. We thank you for the immense work you've undertaken in the context of the previous session, you may count on our work and in turn. First, I'd like to say that our delegation is, of course, disappointed. Due to the lack of due to the fact that delegations didn't take, take advantage of the opportunity to look at this convention as a comprehensive one. Of course, we're not very optimistic here. We don't understand why juvenile crimes or why terrorist related crimes, or human trafficking related offenses were not included. Furthermore, we disagree with the insufficient attention paid to measures that should be taken for Crime Prevention in the realm of ICTs. I'll be brief. Turn into Article Five. Here, we have nothing against human rights issues. But certainly the convention is specialized in nature. But given given the fact that this is an ICT convention, and not some framework, human rights document, but if we retain Article Five, then of course, it needs to be changed. And in that event, to be brief, we would support proposals by Pakistan or Cuba, or the previous proposals to the effect that member states should act consistent with the commitments they've taken on under international conventions and not certain international general rights. So thank you very much for your attention.
thank you very much Belarus, Saudi Arabia and then the United Kingdom.
Chakra. Thank you, Madam Chair. Allow me at the outset to express my deep appreciation to efforts over the past periods to reach a consensus on the Articles of this convention. Taking into account what you presented and the call to be concise, especially as we do not have enough time during this session. Very briefly, Madam Chair, we would like to support the statements by the representative of Egypt, especially when it comes to article 24. We believe it is important to continue working during the session to redraft this article so that the scope of its application is consistent with the international nature of this convention. My delegation will participate in any informal negotiations on this matter. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. the United Kingdom then Paraguaya, Eritrea, Brazil, Venezuela, Morocco, El Salvador, and Ecuador. The United Kingdom
Thank you, Madam Chair. As this is my first time taking the floor, like other delegations, I would like to thank you, your team and the Secretariat for your work on the revised draft text of the convention. I won't repeat our previous positions on the two vital articles we are discussing, and the reasons for the changes we have previously supported and continue to support.
Instead, I would like to make a specific proposal on Article 24. And to explain our reasoning behind it. During the sixth session, the UK proposed that the specific safeguards contained in article 24 of the text be applied more widely. And this was done by replacing the word chapter in article 24, paragraph one with the word convention. This was supported by a large number of other states and included in the group five facilitators proposal, but not the rd, TC. We have listened to the views of those member states who did not support the proposal. And in order to address the concerns we heard, we'd like to revise it to make it more specific. We would like to propose replacing the words this chapter in article 24, paragraph one, with the words chapters four, and five, so that it would read the powers and procedures provided for in chapters four and five are subject to and so forth. We also propose making the same amendment in article 24 paragraph three. There are two main reasons for proposing these changes. Firstly, they would make it clear that the safeguards in chapter four on procedural measures apply equally when those domestic powers are used for the purposes of international cooperation.
Chapter Five. Having heard some member states question whether this is the case, we believe it is important for our convention to clarify it explicitly for the benefit of all states parties. Secondly, our proposal would ensure that those areas of international cooperation set out in chapter five, which are not based on the procedural powers in chapter four, are also subject to adequate specific safeguards. Chapter Five includes measures which are not explicitly based on the chapter four powers. These include elements of article 40 on mutual legal assistance, for example, taking a voluntary witness statement, or the spontaneous provision of information obtained via means undefined in our convention, article 41 on the 24/7 network, for example, those measures in paragraphs subparagraphs, three, a and three C, which may go beyond preservation requests, as well as article 47 on law enforcement cooperation, and article 48 on joint investigations. Overall, we strongly believe that ensuring the specific human rights safeguards are applied when using the international cooperation provisions will build confidence between states parties. The requested party can be confident that the request was issued by the requesting party whilst respecting the conditions and safeguards. And the requesting party can be confident that the requested party will execute its request in accordance with these conditions and safeguards.
Ultimately, increased trust and confidence can only serve to enable greater cooperation. I would like to be clear. Article 24 does not confer any new human rights obligations on states parties, rather seeks to clarify how their existing obligations are relevant to the operation of our convention. No does article 24 mandate the application of all of the conditions and safeguards to all of the powers and procedures it covers offering States Parties significant flexibility in this regard? This is made clear by the wording in paragraph two, as appropriate in view of the nature of the procedure or power concerned. Nor does article 24 imply somehow supernatural supervision? It clearly states that the conditions and safeguards in question are those which a state party shall provide under its domestic law. Where paragraph two refers to judicial or other independent review, it is clear this is at the domestic level. Some delegations have raised parallels with existing instruments. Quite simply, there are no parallels in existing instruments to the unprecedented nature of the expanded scope of international cooperation for the collection of E evidence included in the rd TC. When coupled with the highly intrusive procedural measures, the amendments we are proposing are unnecessary. That is to say, the scope of international cooperation available under untuck and UNCAC is less extensive, and the powers less detailed and intrusive. The safeguards in those instruments are therefore not the appropriate point of reference for the safeguards in our convention. We are comparing different regimes.
In conclusion, then, Madam Chair, we believe that by providing additional clarity in a way that necessitates minimum and min amendments to the our DTC, our proposal will help to build trust and confidence between states parties. Incorporating additional safeguards will enable and not impede international cooperation. The promotion, facilitation and strengthening of international cooperation is in all of our interests, and is one of the stated aims of our convention. We therefore hope, Madam Chair, that member states will be able to support our proposal. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Paraguaya, followed by Eritrea, Paraguay, you have the floor.
Madam Chair, like to make this statement on behalf of the of the States Parties of Mercosur, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru, also, associated state sir. also joined in the statement. First of all, I would like to thank you and your team. For the work you've done to conduct these negotiations. We also want to assure you that you can count on our support, so that the negotiations conclude successfully. Madam Chair, this is the first time that we are making a joint statement during in the course of the negotiations of the future treaty. However, we would like to say that we've already issued two specific declarations on the topic. The first one was on the sixth of December of 2022, in Montevideo, and the second on the eighth of December of 2023. In first the equal Sue. So bearing that in mind, we believe that it's very important to highlight that during the last meeting that took place in first the ECOWAS, so we held very fruitful dialogue and exchange of experiences on cooperation in combating cybercrime. And with this in mind, we'd like to express our wish to see the text adopted by consensus. And based on the timetable that was proposed on the negotiations of the convention in this committee, first of all, it's important to allow inter international cooperation to exchange oil electronic evidence as broadly as possible, while upholding human rights, including guarantees and the necessary guarantees and safeguards. Secondly, is this reflects a commitment to build capacities of States Parties in the future? Convention? Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Paraguay, Eritrea and Brazil.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for introducing the new revised draft text. Once again, I wish to express my delegations appreciation to you, Madam Chair, your team and the Secretariat for all the hard work made to put together the revised draft text that is presented for the consideration of the ad hoc committee. My delegation aligns itself with a sentiment expressed by the delegation of Nicaragua. That stressed the importance of faithfully fulfilling the mandate of the GAO resolution 74, slash 247 and 75 slashed to a two barrel chair, much work has been done. We need to recognize and acknowledge and we will remain positive and committed to adopting a text that represents and reflects the views and aspirations of the general membership to be adopted by consensus. You have invited us to comment on to draft articles five and 20 for our objective or the future convention is to keep it balanced and focused on the offenses outlined in the text and other offices that we might agree to include with an overarching provision all human rights that ensures the respect of human rights is the implementation of the Convention as formulated in Article Five, therefore my delegation support article five, with the minor amendments proposed by the delegation of Pakistan. Article 24, my delegation believes Madam Chair, it requires further work and consideration. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Brazil.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for leading us on this discussion. We're very glad to have you here with us. And thank thanks, also Paraguay for manifesting the common position of our group. Just now. Madam Chair, Brazil supports Article Five in its current form. It's an overarching human rights article. It works as a reminder of the obligation of all countries regarding human rights. The convention is unprecedented in several ways. The convention established establishes crimes, establishes powers and procedures. For this reason we believe safeguards are necessary necessary, especially safeguards that are in article 24. Other safeguards that are also article 21, part of for the convention creates a basis for for cooperation, for criminalization. And we think that the convention should also create a basis for safeguards in applying applying those powers. We Brazil supports article 24. And we'd like to propose a small amendment to article 24 para one, article 2424 para one incorporates the principle approach proportionality. And we have heard colleagues from Egypt from Pakistan asking who will say what is proportional and what is not proportional? From our point of view is the law who says what is proportional or not? In the sense, we would we would suggest adding a legality to the principle of proportionality would have the principles of legality and proportionality. We believe that the judge is law, as I mentioned, is the international human rights law as established in Article Five also in mainly, domestic law. Madam Chair, Brazil is committed to negotiating a convention that may become universal. We respect several points of view expressed in this room by several member states. It comes without saying that we respect the difficulties members states may have with inclusion of provisions all So with the exclusion of provisions, we need to find common ground and work towards compromise. In the sense we support in general, the revised draft test text as a base of of this compromise, and we would call on our own member states to consider as much as possible. Sticking to the tax that has been produced by humanitaire, with the help of circuit Secretariat. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Brazil, Venezuela and Morocco.
Thank you, Madam Chair, distinguished colleagues. We of course, are very happy to be here, again, together to finalize our work that has now taken several years. And we want to thank you and to commend you, for your hard work personally, as well as the entire delegation of Algeria, and the team from the Secretariat throughout all these years. And, of course, the the revised proposal, the convention and the explanations of the new the new additions, we hope, and we trust that we can conclude our work in time. And now to get to this specific topic.
I want to once again, endorse the statement made by Nicaragua. When we began the list of speakers this morning, and want to express our support for the comments made by the delegations of Iran, Egypt, Cuba and Pakistan, on articles five and 24. As is well known, and as all our member states do. Venezuela participates actively and ensures compliance with all international instruments in the area of human rights. And of course, we can support reference to this topic. However, we believe that because constant repetition and reference to this dilutes the true objective of this convention, and it seems to distract us from His true purpose, which is not necessary. And we have repeated this over and over the past two years and even before that. And so with that in mind, we would prefer just one reference in Article Five. And we support the proposals made by Cuba and Pakistan a few minutes ago to be more just to be a bit more specific regarding paragraph 24. And in particular, subparagraph, two and three, they go beyond the object of this convention and do not contribute to its goal. Furthermore, they could go against the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and contradict it and contradict other articles of the post proposed convention, especially this is the sentence. That refers that there'll be a judicial or other independent review. And it's not clear what is meant by that. Nor is it clear whether this will be a domestic or international as well as somebody that one delegation just mentioned. So with this in mind, we'd like to repeat that the repetition of human rights issue dilutes the goal of combating ICT related crimes. So we said, just deleting a reference to it entirely, or at least certainly the absolute need to do transform these references, but they're in formal or informal and formal. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Morocco, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the first time I'm taking the floor. So I'm seizing this opportunity to thank you and your team, and the distinguished Secretariat for all the efforts deployed for crafting the revised the convention text and also for all your efforts throughout this process. Morocco stays engaged. And we look forward to our continued engagement in this concluding session before going to Article Five and article 24. With your essential oils, Madam President and through you to the Secretariat, we have received many elements from our capital regarding, of course, the translation in Arabic of the revised text. I know that you have already highlighted that we shouldn't make it a substance of of discussion. We are aware of that but we just seeking your indulgence in notifying us about The teams are the focal points in charge of Arabic substance consistency groups. I've looked at the website capital that as well, but we weren't able to see who is in charge of that. So if you could indicate so we can get in touch with them. And to highlight the discrepancies we see so far in the Arabic texts.
Now go into Article Five, as we have indicated in previous session, we are in full support of that. We have seen it across the regions and across the text as an overarching component on human rights, calls on member states obligations and also respect and promotion of human rights. So we request retention as a as it is granted, article 24. We don't have any comments, I've heard the room, our only request would be the retention of Chapter This is what we have black and white from capital. So I would like to indicate it as such. In the other parts of the article we are we are fine. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The question by Morocco allows me to just clarify for all delegations, that all those who have proposed amendments or, or any specifics regarding language, because this consistency, please send your proposals to the same email address to the secretary. And I prefer that there'll be the same channel for all this so that we don't have too many channels of communication. So instead of addressing the consistency group, or the very, very states involved, please just send your comments or clarifications or proposals to the secretary who will convey to the consistency group. Thank you. I have El Salvador, Ecuador, Peru, the United States, Singapore, Iraq, China, European Union, Australia, Syria, Egypt, the Republic of Korea and Chile, and Uruguay, Argentina, Cameroon, and Indonesia for now. So give the floor to El Salvador.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. like to welcome our colleagues here representing various countries. The session for our delegation to Article Five, regarding safeguards, and human rights. There, there are two references to this and the whole instrument. This is why my delegation would like to express our flexibility, the grid to maintaining the language of the revised text, as it is, in spite of the fact that the text of a convention, as I mentioned only has two provisions on safeguards for human rights, it is necessary to strengthen as a minimum the and retain these two references to have to make sure that the text of the convention is in line with international law of Internet of human rights which are interconnected with the various aspects of digital technology in the fight against cybercrime. And specifically, my delegation would like to say that human rights are inherent, inalienable to all human rights. Therefore, these rights broadly are universal, inalienable, they're inter interdependent and indivisible. They're equal and they're non discriminatory. Now, taking into account these fundamental principles, my delegation considers as we have stated in informal consultations last week, we consider that Article Five should not have any kind of exemptions or reservations, just as the specific any specifications which which instruments are applicable or not due to the fact that universal human rights are guaranteed either by law, either by a treaties, customary law, or other forms of international law. We're grateful to the chair and their entirety. aim at the Secretariat for their tireless efforts up to now and you, we can assure you that you have the wholehearted support of El Salvador to continue advancing in this joint endeavor. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, El Salvador. Ecuador.
Good morning, Madam Chair. The delegation of Ecuador agrees with your statement in your inaugural speech in this last session of this ad hoc committee, this work has been a lengthy process of exchanging ideas, presenting positions and endless negotiations which have demonstrated your your patience, and your hard work, as evidenced by all those who have taken part in this the sessions of the ad hoc committee. Well, Ecuador does have a few concerns. And we believe that it's important to continue negotiations to include specific additions or contributions and to clarify certain commitments that we would take on in spite of that we believe that the text you have presented is an excellent document, which reflects a an exercise by the chair that is truly high, high level achievement in search of consensus, which is why we'd like to take this opportunity to echo those delegations who have acknowledged your extraordinary leadership, your your outstanding diplomacy and hard work to achieve these results, and you can count on our support to achieve concrete results in this process. Now, on Article Five, we believe that the text proposed is the minimum that is acceptable to establish that this criminal justice instrument should be implemented in the framework of respect for human rights. Well, we don't have the specific proposal made by Cuba, we believe that it could be a relevant way forward to achieve consensus on this article.
As far as article 24 is concerned, we'd like to reiterate the need to have conditions and safeguards that are clear in order to generate confidence in effective cooperation among states, as was already mentioned by the delegate of the United Kingdom, we support the mention of the criterion of proportionality, and the mechanisms of judiciary supervision subjected to domestic legislation, which could be clarified in the current language. Furthermore, we support the proposal of Brazil, and making a reference to the principle of legality to guarantee judicial security. Lastly, on Article 25, Ecuador considers that the text is quite flexible by permitting that certain crimes or categories of crimes can be established and defined, and also rec recognizes restrictions imposed by national legislation, which is why the delegation of Ecuador supports it in the form in which you've presented Thank you very much, Madam.
Thank you very much Ecuador. I hope that I will deserve all the very all the praise and comments on my behalf that you've made that help I will try to do so by the end of this session, Peru, and then the United States.
Good morning, Madam Chair excellencies Distinguished Delegates like to greet everyone on behalf of the delegation for RU. It's a pleasure to see you, madam. leading our closing session. Madam Chair, we would like to echo the expressions of gratitude to you for the excellent work that you've done in charge of the ad hoc committee over these two years of negotiations. We would also like to through you, convey our gratitude to your team and to the Secretariat for the excellent support Word that they have provided. Madam Chair, Peru would like to state its wholehearted support for the mandate that you have been exercising in this committee. And we'd like to ensure you have our constructive cooperation in this very important endeavor that brings us together over the next two weeks. Now, on to the subject matter. On Article Five Madam Chair, our position has been stated consistently throughout this negotiating process, regarding our preference to have specific and concrete references on the protection of human rights in the future convention, therefore, the delegation of Peru is in a position to support your proposal in this article, which we believe, as Ecuador mentioned, is the acceptable minimum for our country.
As for article 24 There's no doubt that conditions and safeguards in the implementing implementation of the provisions of the of the convention is very important, and ensuring a fair and just to prosecution of cybercrime. For this reason, my delegation is also ready to support your proposal of article 24 contained in the working document. We believe that it is very well crafted and very well balanced. Lastly, we have been listening attentively to the various proposed amendments made by delegations that preceded us. And we will express our comments on these at the right time. Thank you very much, Madam,
thank you, Peru, the United States to be followed by Singapore.
And thank you and your team that have worked so tirelessly over the last two years to forge an incredible document through six sessions. And we will work very closely with you and all member states to seek to finalize the process. Like many countries, the United States is seeking to fight cybercrime and ensure that there are no safe havens for criminals. But we continue to affirm our unwavering commitment to doing so following proper legal procedures, having clear safeguards, and ensuring the protection of human rights. It's critical that as we enhance cooperation, we build those two elements, strong safeguards and human rights. We therefore support the inclusion of articles five and 24.
In our view, as noted by others, five contains the minimal elements that we believe are essential. But it is not sufficient. We need additional safeguards, and other provisions in the treaty. One of these obviously, is article 24. And we support the article 24. And the changes that have been suggested by our UK colleagues. These standards in 24 to us are the minimum standards that states party to this treaty will agree are required when the powers and questions are used under this treaty. It's not supranational, so it's not supranational supervision. It's joint standard setting for technological innovation is shaping our lives. And we need to see how we can establish new norms entering an era where freedoms and protections are needed to guarantee freedoms and protections online as they are offline. We look forward to forging a global partnership through this new instrument to protect essential freedoms and rights fight cybercrime, and most importantly, as well creates new pathways for technical assistance and capacity building, which will be vital in this process. I'd like to add a separate issue to my comments and replying to the distinguished representatives of the Russian Federation. I am actually proud to report that of the 14 visa requests that were placed 12 were issued including one that was not done in the required timeline. That is an approval rate of 85.7% in terms of issuance. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you, Singapore.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor. As is the first time I'm addressing this chamber, please allow me to express my delegations appreciation for your leadership over the process and the revised draft text of the convention. Singapore recognizes that this revised draft text seeks to strike a delicate balance among the many positions put forward by Member States. Then we also take this opportunity to express our support for your leadership, and assure you of Singapore's full commitment to striving towards consensus over these next two weeks. On Article Five on human rights, Singapore echoes others in the room, such as Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM, and Nigeria to strongly support this article as currently drafted by you and your team. Madam Chair. We believe that this article is well drafted, as it seeks to balance the overall focus on criminal justice in this convention, while urging member states to take into account the respect for human rights in accordance with their respective obligations under international law. Moving on to article 24, Singapore has followed the discussion in this room, as well as over the past sessions and also during our bilateral consultations with several other delegations. Singapore stands ready to support this article, as it is currently drafted. We also thank the distinguished delegate from the UK for the proposal regarding article 24 and his detailed explanation for the proposal. However, we would need more time to review this new proposal, and we will be happy to do so during the informal sessions to follow. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Well, for this afternoon, I'm going to give the floor in succession to Iraq, China, European Union, Australia, Syria, Egypt, the Republic of Korea, Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Japan. Czechia, the Russian Federation, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Iceland, Albania, Lester Rica, Uganda, Ghana, Dominican Republic, India, Mexico, United Republic of Tanzania, Indonesia. For the time being, that's the list. So just a little bit of patience. I give the floor to the Secretariat, who will make some announcements regarding meeting rooms.
And thank you Madam Chair, the Secretariat would like to inform the governmental delegations that an open ended informal meeting on the use of terms would be held this afternoon at 3pm. In conference room 11 And the online. The link to join the meeting online has been circulated by the Secretariat to all registered governmental delegations. Owing to the limited space in conference room 11 delegations are encouraged to limit the size of their delegations in that in those meetings, to no more than one or two delegates. And instead to make use of the hybrid format, especially if the room is full. delegations are also invited to monitor the website of the concluding session for information on the schedule of open ended informal meetings. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Louis de. I would like to remind members of the bureau that we have a meeting at 1:30 As announced previously in the same room as last time, so it'll be the 16th meeting of the Bureau. Thank you very much. We'll see you later after lunch.
