Your Excellencies distinguished representatives. Ladies and gentleman, you're welcome to our morning session this Friday. Before we resume consideration of chapter two where we left off, I will give the floor to the Secretariat to make an announcement.
Thank you Mr. Chair on behalf of the vice chair from Australia. The Secretariat would like to inform governmental delegations that a proposal was circulated to all delegations based upon the informal and formal consultations that she held yesterday evening. For the delegations consideration. It was circulated by email I understand. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Your Excellencies distinguished representatives. Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to this morning's deliberations. I hope we will make some progress. We left yesterday we were we resumed the concentration of chapter two. We were looking at article 10. Misuse of devices. We. With your flexibility and cooperation. We adopt we agreed ad referendum paragraph one paragraph one, E. Right. We stopped at paragraph one B. And I hope that the delegates have had some time to reflect on this. And I don't know. Like I said the request the proposal to delete the last sentence regarding whether is a state party may require that a number of such items processed before criminal liability attaches. I will I would like us to return to this. And if we have any answers that will set us off. I see the request for the floor from Australia first. So I would yield the floor to I will yield the floor to Australia and then return to the Russian Federation because I had made two proposals that either way. It was for the constitution of the room. So Australia you have the floor. On my apologies. That was a mistaken microphone. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. So in that regard, okay, I see the request for the floor from the United States. United States, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've had an opportunity to look at this language again and consider it in the context of article 10 and the wider treaty. Because we believe that flexibility with respect to these articles, which form the core of our new treaty is very important. If the sense of the room is that we don't need this highlighted sentence, then the United States and go along with that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Okay. Well, it will I do not see any other requests for the floor. So may I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees to the deletion of the highlighted text, and thereafter we can agree. The paragraph, paragraph one b i Add referendum. Okay. I see no objection to that. So you better delete the highlighted text and mark the subparagraph B as agreed at referendum. Thank you very much. That sounds like a good start to Friday. Great. So the next one is paragraph two of article 10. Do we have anything? There's nothing Egypt you have the floor.
Thank you Mr. Chair, please allow me to give a joint statement on behalf of a number of states with regards to the draft convention as a whole. The States joining the statement Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. express their sincere gratitude and appreciation along with Iran and Syria, for the wise leadership and effort exerted by Her Excellency Ambassador Fozia murky Chair of the ad hoc committee to elaborate a comprehensive international convention on countering the use of information and communication technologies for criminal purposes over the past two years and during the important ongoing session, with the ultimate goal of agreeing on a convention that aims to achieve effective and valuable international cooperation to prevent and combat crimes committed using ICTs in the cyberspace. In the same vein, we also wish to thank the chairs team and the Secretariat for for their dedication towards achieving the goals and objectives of this convention. chair while the group welcomes that the negotiated convention would stipulate that states parties are to ensure the consistency of the implementation of their commitments in accordance with this convention with their commitment stemming from relevant international human rights law conventions, which these respective States Parties have joined. It underscores its refusal of any proposals that may lead to either amending or contradicting these international human rights law conventions. The group reaffirms the importance of avoiding selectivity, or the imposition of certain human rights outside of the proper context which the international community has outlined for the inclusion of these rights within relevant international human rights governance. The proposal to expand the scope of article 24 in the draft convention to include the chapter of international cooperation is unprecedented as this article is primarily concerned with the conditions and safeguards, which states outline on their respective national legislations to ensure that there is no abuse of the procedure and measures described in the fourth chapter by its law enforcement authorities. Accordingly, any linkage between this article and the conduct of international cooperation runs contrary to the principle of the respect for sovereignty of states and the non intervention in their internal affairs. Attacks cannot be interpreted or misconstrued in a manner that implies anything other than the fact that national courts are exclusively authorized to ensure the adequacy of these conditions and safeguards or to hold relevant parties accountable for the abuse of procedural measures. Bearing in mind bearing in consideration that article 36 reaffirms the importance of respecting personal data on the chair as for article 13, while the group strongly supports the inclusion of this article, which will serve to protect children from the increasing expansion of material on the Internet relating to the sexual assault or sexual exploitation of children, it opposes any formulation that may contradict with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, especially the definition of a child or the Indian version in the third paragraph of expectations, exceptions to the application of the first and second paragraphs which severely undermines the rights of children. The group also opposes the inclusion of the fifth paragraph of the article, as it is relevant to the main topic of the article. The article is concerned with the non criminalization of consensual sexual relationships. As pertains article 15, it is necessary to reaffirm the importance of not formulating the article in a manner that undermines a state's right to criminalize the publication of intimate images, whether with or without the consent of the parties involved. This is in order to preserve order and public morals. It is also important to strike out the phrase without right from this article. Honorable chair while the gloop welcomes any international effort concerned with the rights and conditions of women and children, it is necessary to avoid the imposition of terms
the speaker has been cut off, or you can finish just
thank you honorable chair for your understanding. Because the statement has been provided on behalf of a number of states thank you for giving me an extension honorable chair. Where the group welcomes any international effort concerned with the rights and conditions of women and girls. It is necessary to avoid the imposition of terms which do not garner consensus, and are not outlined in any international legal conventions relevant to the crimes which are covered by the United Nations Office of drugs and crime. Accordingly, the group reaffirms the importance of taking the aforementioned into consideration within the convention. In conclusion, the group reaffirms its endeavor to support the chair to agree on a comprehensive agreement that addresses the concerns of sets and remedies and existing gaps emanating from the use of ICTs. For permanent purposes. The group is also open to any proposals or initiatives that can contribute towards achieving the school. Thank you, honorable Chair.
Thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of Egypt, Pakistan, you have the floor.
Thank you very much your chair, Pakistan would like to commend the distinguished ambassador of Egypt and the group of countries presenting statement on their behalf and would also like to align itself with the statement just delivered from the floor. Pakistan also believe that the chapter of criminalization is dictated by the principle of speed, scope and the prevalence of those instances that impact our societies. My delegation also wish to draw your intense attention to the need of uniform applicability of international norms for the full realization of objective scope and mandate of this committee. Throughout the negotiation, we have seen the balance shifting in one direction. We haven't seen many acts of criminalization that impacts our societies added in the list of crime. In particular, the article 16 Best entitled prohibition of incitement to violence proposed by my delegation, which is now the proposed as article 15 base. Mr. Chair, the inclusion of prohibition, provision, prohibiting incitement to violence, discrimination, and domestication of religious figures, text and values within the convention, addressing the misuse of ICT is not only vital for my delegation, but for others. Those are affected by racial discrimination, and tendencies like Islamophobia, and xenophobia. It is deeply alarming that such acts have a potential to incite conflict that mirrored the severity of actual war situation. Effective punitive measures are paramount to address these Perlier strains, which, while upholding equality, justice and comprehensive implementation of human rights provision, Mr. Chair, while freedom of speech is undeniably a fundamental right that must be upheld, it is vital to distinguish between In fundamental rights and reckless behavior that warrants punitive action. personal liberties, such as freedom of speech and expression are not absolute, and must not be perceived as such. The action in question, which caused direct harm, disrupt public order, contribute to societal imbalance and infringe upon the personal liberties of others are our grave concern. Mr Chair, as we contemplate our goals, and strive to conclude our work in this session, it is crucial to acknowledge and appreciate the need for flexibility, ensuring that all states can derive common benefits from the outcome.
Thank you very much, the Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you. The statement just read by the distinguished representative of Egypt on behalf of a group of states. That reflects the national federations concern as well. With regards to this article, we support Egypt's statement. So far, we've had no response to Russia's suggestions regarding the article on criminalization. Our suggestions have not been taken on board and very little time remains. Therefore, we've prepared one article which merges several articles with suggested earlier, we call it other offenses involving ICT. These include senators extremism, including racism and xenophobia, trafficking in persons, illicit drug trafficking, trafficking in arms, encouraging suicide and other dangerous types of offenses. The language proposed has been submitted to the Secretariat to be circulated among participants. It's short and simple. We look forward to responses from the ad hoc committee. One more thing. We also have a draft article 15 dissemination of intimate images, non consensual dissemination of intimate images, that does not seem to be as dangerous or as serious as some of the other offenses I just mentioned. However, this one is addressed in the draft convention, even though it is non consensual. This article is about protecting individuals. And it does not rise to the level of very high public danger as the offenses I listed earlier. Therefore, once again, let me call on all delegations, please study the text we have proposed. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and all of the distinguished delegations. I thank the distinguished ambassador of the Egypt for delivering this joint statement on behalf of the some states, including my country. And so my delegation, Islamic Republic of Iran would like to align itself with the content of this joint statement. I would like to reiterate our position as the article 13. And article 15 of the dress draft text of the convention, as you see many delegation are already this discontent with the certain parts of the provisions of the set articles. As such provision prejudice, does domestic laws, and even contravene the very rarely has on the app of the criminalization of the act related to child sexual exploitation by visibly creating loopholes that would allow criminals to pursue their malicious intent and commit such heinous crimes. Mr. Chairman, in this respect, I would like to underline among others, that the paragraphs three and five four of the article 13 is not acceptable to us and we will we also cannot accept that this art this paragraphs, the said article with the current formulations. Although I know that you are Vidya you're able chairmanship in the informal consultations we are going to find the compromise takes about that. We appreciate your endeavors. And the other hand regarding for the using of the song warnings in in the criminal context, such as dishonest or without rights. We do believe that we knew we were going to have a one compromise words, according to the one unified wording in this convention. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. Is this another request for the floor by Egypt? Or is this an older? Okay, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just very briefly, I would like to express the Egyptian support to the statement made by the distinguished delegate of Pakistan regarding the proposal of article 16. This, we fully supported. And from the third session of this committee, we highlighted the importance of it and I think that there was a support to in principle to the rationale behind it from all member states, but they were short of having it in decriminalisation. So after I seek the indulgence to reconsider the importance of this article. Secondly, Mr. Chair, we support in principle, the proposal made by the Russian Federation, and we are looking forward to see the text of this of this important paragraph. I think that this is a good compromise for the the crimes that were not included in the envisaged convention. Thank you.
Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving the floor again to me. I appreciate you. Only very briefly that the my delegation would like to support the intervention made by distinguished delegation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and distinguished delegation of Russian Federation. Thank you.
Thank you, Iraq, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sherman. My delegation commends the proposal of the delegation of the Russian Federation and delegation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. And at the same time, we also share their reservations with regard to these articles. Thank you.
Thank you, Indonesia, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and very good morning to all colleagues and distinguished delegates. I take this opportunity to express our support to the joint statement made by Egypt, and group of countries and as well as the statement made by the Sudanese delegate or Pakistan's. We note that in from the discussion is now taking place to discuss several articles, including articles 3, 5, 7, in 24, as well as 35. Indonesia in particular highlighted the concerns of member states concerning the proposal, expanding scope of article 24 in the draft convention to include and set parameters for international cooperation, which contrary to the principle of non intervention in the internal affairs of member states. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Australia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair and good morning to everyone. Thank you to those delegations so far this morning, who have intervened with particular thanks, thanks to the distinguished delegates of Egypt. I just want to address some of the points that were made in terms of article 13 and article 15. I wanted to express Australia's support for the intervention that was made by Canada a few days ago, on the concerns raised in particular around the application of consent. We should keep in mind that this offense is is a minimum. This offense doesn't deprive a country wishing to go further if If that's what works for the legal system, that has been an approach across 1314 and 15, in the sense that it provides a minimum, and then if countries wish to go further than they can, if additional restrictions are required that is entirely open to them to do that. So, rather than and I think we would have some concerns around suggestions to states state in articles such as article 15, that a country can go further because it sets a potentially a dangerous precedent, in terms of implementing a whole range of articles in terms of paragraph three, or 15, and the call to remove flexibility on how this applies to children, where they reach the legal age, to engage in sexual activity. This paragraph is really important to Australia, and provides flexibility for domestic legal systems that either consider this material to be child abuse material, where it depicts children, or those that may see dissemination in this very limited circumstance, as requiring a more nuanced response or, or more nuanced ability to consider whether child abuse offenses or non consensual sharing of intimate images is more appropriate. For example, sharing intimate images between children of the same age may be better dealt with as a privacy issue, rather than exposing children to the criminal justice process. And I have heard a number of times that we're here to protect children, by exposing children to the criminal justice process unnecessarily, in my mind, undermines that objective. In terms of the proposals for article 13 To remove a number of paragraphs, we have significant opportunity here to make global progress to combat child abuse online. Those paragraphs are representative of careful consideration from significant negotiations, over many sessions to find a way to provide articles that protect children online, allow for very limited flexibility in only narrow circumstances while protecting legitimate sexual.
Thank you very much Mauritania, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, colleagues. We'd like to express our support for the statement made by the distinguished representative of Pakistan on the same basis explained by him thank you.
I see the requests for the floor from Egypt, Syria, Qatar. And you have your right of say, and I will yield the floor shortly. But yes, I know that there must be reactions from to the statement delivered by His Excellency, the distinguished ambassador of Egypt on a group on behalf of a group of member states.
But just and again, this is with all due respect. just reiterating of bouncing off that statement is not really going to help us. It is essential that we remember what we've said here repeatedly. Speaking generally about our discontent about a number of articles is not going to help us make progress. It is only looking at the language of individual articles or paragraphs and dealing with what the challenges are, and finding language that enables us reach consensus, or explanations that enable other delegations see our point of view. And like I said before, all ultimately for proposals that have been made and have not made it into the revised draft text of the convention. Madam Chair has made it abundantly clear that at this point where we are If you're putting forward a proposal, and I plead with all delegations, if you're putting forward a proposal, it would help very much if you have consulted, and you at least have that this is the number of the kind of support you have this a number of delegations in support of that proposal. Having said that, I asked your permission to after Qatar, so close this list after Qatar, so that we can resume the paragraph by paragraph concentration of the criminalization chapter. I take it that this is agreeable. And I thank you for your kind. Flexibility. Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I think that I will start with your directive to go para by para. And we have a proposal in line with with our statement, Mr. Chair, we have a proposal for Article Five, that I would like to propose to take into consideration the concerns of more than 20 states. And I think that we had applied your methodology that we had, you know, consulted with other countries in this regard. So our proposal for article 15 is to add Article Five, paragraph five bits. Nothing in this article shall breach or this criminalization of dissemination of intimate images under domestic law of state parties. Again, nothing in this article, shall prejudice, criminalization, of dissemination of intimate images under domestic law of state parties. And here, Mr. Chair, this is a clarification that is consistent to explicitly illustrate what did the distinguished delegation of Australia mentioned that nothing in the you know can preempt us from doing so in domestic law? So let's put it here in black and white in this in this regard. This is our proposals that chair and I hope that this might take the the support of the rest of room if there is a need, there is an eagerness for consensus on this outcome. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The distinguished delegate of Egypt. Naturally, we would this is a new formulation, maybe member states we want to think about this a bit and see if it is something that the find agreeable. In the interim Lazar, we have a list of speakers will yield the floor to Syria. You have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, sir. At the outset, my delegation associates itself with a statement delivered by the distinguished representative of Egypt on behalf of the Arab group and other group of states. And we also share their their representative of Pakistan the concerns he expressed. We support the content of his statement as well, with regard to the amendment provided by Russia. This amendment was already submitted in the previous session, and we would like to reiterate our support with regard to crimes included in the referred article with regard to the suggestions made by the distinguished delegation of Egypt right before me with regard to the addition of a paragraph, it's it's really an important suggestion and we support it
Thank you very much Qatar, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The State of Qatar supports the Pakistani proposal on fighting religious racism, xenophobia, and also supports the Russian suggestion.
Thank you very much, Brazil, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. We and good morning to everyone. We were actively participating in the informants regarding article 13. And articles 13 through 15, we are very conscious of the difficulties and of the sensitivity of the subject for many countries. And through these negotiations, we saw that perhaps, as colleague said this morning and inform us less is better. And we would split with colleagues once again to try to simplify the detailed language that they're proposing throughout these articles, and try to find a common ground that's more simple and accommodating of differences that have been mentioned in the debate this morning. So it would be just a call, again, for us to not dwelve into differences that are not going to be solved in the text of this convention. And try to focus on finding a way of at least having article 13 approved as soon as possible. As it's, again, we've said this before, it's one of the most important articles of the convention, and a goal that we share, and should not be lost due to these differences in details. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Distinguished Delegates from Brazil, Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll keep my comments to the proposal put forward by the distinguished delegate of Egypt in relation to Article 15. We've talked about this a number of times, Canada's position is clear this offense was proposed as a privacy offense. The suggestion by Egypt is to turn it into a morality offense. Putting the new offense provision in the non consensual distribution of independent image offense, which is supposed to protect a victim whose privacy is being breached is now turning that victim into a criminal. This is akin to having a sex assault offense, and putting a prohibition on prostitution in the same offense. So you're taking a victim and turning them into a criminal at the same time. There is nothing stopping the distinguished delegate from Egypt for proposing a separate offense, but it does not belong in the non consensual distribution of intimate images events. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Iraq, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegation supports the proposal by the Republic of Egypt with regard to article 15. And also, I express my reservation on the statement made by the distinguished chairperson minutes ago, in which he requested that we refrain from repeating support for the statement made by the IRM group. Mr. Chairman, at a time when Iraq respects the laws and the life of other states we expect in return for respect for these states with regard to an article this sensitive and this danger, this is a matter of existence for us that has to do with the nucleus of the family. And the future. And we cannot in any way compromise this reservation in fear of the fact of endangering the future of children, thank you.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Iraq. Just for clarity sake, I cannot prescribe the rights of any member state to speak and express their opinions. My appeal was that we go to concrete proposals, which is just a repeat of what Madame chair has repeatedly asked the room for. So, that request was just so that we put forward the concrete proposals with respect to particular items so that they can be considered for the purposes of reaching consensus where feasible and making progress there. I thank you, the United States you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There have been some statements this morning that some of the negotiated and compromised paragraphs and article 13 hurt the protections of children. But I would actually say that these paragraphs were drafted to specifically protect children who may find themselves in actual violation of the laws that are designed specifically to protect them. We need to allow some flexibility for minors who engage in sexual activity, and to allow domestic laws with differing ages of consent, while ensuring universal protections against their abuse and exploitation. Specifically, articles 13, paragraphs four and five and article 15, three to four are also necessary in order to allow the definition of child to remain at 18 to provide for universal and cross border protection of all children, while allowing differences in domestic law about the age of consent. Regarding the issue of article 15, adding language to that, that specifies that state parties are allowed to do something that is unrelated and not otherwise restricted is unnecessary. It's the equivalent of adding a paragraph to article 13, about the dissemination of child abuse material that says state parties may also criminalize the dissemination of pictures of puppies. It is not related to what is at issue and being criminalized in the article, it is not something that state parties are otherwise restricted to do. And I would also draw attention to article 59. Three parent paragraph two. That says each each state party may adopt more strict or severe measures and those provided for by this convention for preventing and combating the fences covered by this convention that already ensure differences in domestic legislation to address some of the concerns that have been done the articles 13 and 15. Were a result of many, many hours of negotiation trying to find compromise of differences in domestic law while making sure that we are still protecting children, which is what we are all here to do and trying to get rid of them now, while also restricting the ways we can protect children in other respects, is not a way forward. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in line with the proposal, distinguished delegation of the Egypt, my delegation would like to support this proposal and as well as the regarding for the paragraph two of this article article 15. We do propose we proposed to delete the the last sentences of the paragraph to after the recording recording full stop, the rest of them would be deleted and deletion of the article sub one paragraph five whole Thank you
Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that you know, talking too much about that. We have spoken about it for long hours and long hours, which we highly respect. The problem is that, unfortunately, we will not engaged in these informants. That's why we are raising it now. And I put i, this delegation had explained several times in the informants before this concluding session, and during the plenary that we cannot associate ourselves to the to what has been agreed in the informals. And it seems today, if it is agreeable and consensual, Mr. Chair, why more than 20 countries are opposing it now. Is it consensual? I don't think so. So that's why, Mr. Chair, we are trying to find a solution in this regard. And, again, having these caveats in in this outcome, Mr. Chair, won't harm anyone having it it will help others, but it won't harm anyone to have it in the in the text. Besides Mr. Chair, article for Article Three, or paragraph three of article 15. Mr. Chair, we think that this paragraph is implicitly attempt to alter the definition of a child in contradiction to different conventions, Mr. Chair that had the right definition for a child that is consensual one. And I think that it is of paramount importance, that that that that person, regardless of their age, cannot consent to the dissemination of an intimate image that constitute as child sexual abuse, or child sexual exploitation material. That's why Mr. Chair, we are asking also for the deletion of Article paragraph three, and paragraph four of article 15. Thank you.
Okay, Iceland, you have the floor place.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And in terms of the articles we are currently discussing, not specifically 13 and 15, I would highlight we have a very high level of this comfort, we would like to, and I would maybe point out that we were not a act in formal, so they've been just mentioned. But that doesn't mean that we don't see a compromise in there, which we think is the absolute minimum, and will be something that can help us all get past the finishing line. So we are very grateful to the colleagues who spent hours upon hours to find a compromise. We would highlight the importance of recognizing the type of crimes that are described in depth article 15 and state's obligations to prevent them prosecute for such crimes. As I highlighted, this is the result of compromise. And I must emphasize this compromise is at the level of the absolute floor that ISOC can live with. There is not a paragraph in draft article 15 That we are not unhappy with. But in the interest of consensus, we will be willing to show great flexibility and live with the article acid is drafted. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, let's get past this finishing line.
Thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Iceland, the United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, as expressed by a number of states, including the UK articles 13 and 15 are incredibly important offenses. The text as proposed by the chair in the latest draft followed very lengthy discussions regarding these complex complex issues, and the resulting text was drafted to enable the necessary flexibility to cater for varying domestic regimes whilst maintaining these offenses in the convention. While we Note the points raised by other states who may seek to criminalize domestically matters further than what he set out in these provisions, we do not consider that there is need for such matters to be explained expressly set out here, noting in particular that article 59 paragraph two already makes this clear across the convention, we have worked constructively with states during 23 hours of detailed information on these articles with a view to reaching consensus, we cannot accept the deletion of article 13, pages three through five. The UK supports the retention of these articles as drafted. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much. Again, before I have the request for the floor, from Pakistan, Cameroon, but before I yield the floor I want to ask a question. Maybe it will help us. Maybe it will help us reflect? And okay, and this is my question. In the conversation that has come out. One of the things that is clear is the nature of the offense. I'm speaking specifically to article 15. Now, what has come out in the discussion is that article 15 is formulated as a privacy offense. And so, this is my question, is it possible that the proposed addition as made by the distinguished delegate of Egypt? Now, this and this has been clearly stated that this takes it away from takes this article 15 away from what it is supposed to be a privacy offense. My my question will be this is there some way that this offense as couched in any way takes away the laws of those countries that do not see concerned as being a differentiating factor where intimate images are displayed, because it will appear that this all this is where this whole thing revolves? The other question following on this for us to reflect is if a number of countries a group of countries already have their domestic laws, that say, you cannot share or disseminate any intimate images. It will appear that where there is such you already have a legal framework that deals with the dissemination of any intimate images. So, for your jurisdiction, this privacy offence as conceived and as pursued by several delegations, does not apply to your region or to your own jurisdiction. So I want us as we go ahead to interject to put this in perspective and, like the distinguished delegate of Brazil mentioned maybe also explored the possibility of finding and an alternative that does not spell out the details. or in such a way that we can make progress. But I'm in your hands. And but I'm inclined also to think that this is seeming impossible to agree this. So we may want to, with your permission, I have Pakistan, Cameroon, Senegal and Holy See on the list, may I after this, may I close this? We pack it because it is clear that we cannot make any progress on this. And then we move on to other things. And if it is possible, there can be some further consultations and negotiations. But again, remember, it is your responsibility to seek support and get that support for your proposals. Thank you very much for your kind understanding. Cameroon, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving us the floor. Chair. I wanted to comment on what you've just said. Yes, you're certainly right. But we also need to take into account the fact that the convention, once ratified supersedes domestic law in each country that ratified it. And you know that as well. So what we're trying to do here is harmonize international practices, if Cameroon approved language such as an article searching, ending with the words without right. Then, by so doing, Cameroon would accept that one can have the right to disseminate images of sexual acts. And it's a no, that's a limit, we cannot go beyond. And my delegation does have a problem with that. If we say without rights, that means that can be such a right. So once again, once a convention is ratified, it has certain value in the local jurisdiction. And that is why we are negotiating at here to arrive at the same understanding to make sure that this is indeed a framework, legal instrument. And on that basis, countries should proceed with regard to their domestic law. Thank you.
Thank you, Russian Federation, you have the floor.
I wanted to speak to article 15. I think this article encourages a certain understanding, you can't do it without consent. And can you do it with consent? Can a child give consent as a child in a position to give consent? This is something we need to give some thought to. Mr. Chair, you were quite right to point out that article 15 is about privacy offenses. And I have to get back to what I said earlier. We include in the convention offenses that have to do with the private life, the privacy of individuals, okay, but why are we ignoring crimes against the whole of society? As you've seen, article 15 is not consensual. Still, we persist in discussing it while ignoring Russia's proposal of language that addresses truly serious crimes. In our view. This article 15 should not be in the convention at all. It's not part of the scope of the convention. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Senegal. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senegal has a few comments to make. Rick writing articles 1013 and 15. The dedication of Senegal suggests deleting the end of the sentence in article 10. For about the possession of electronic devices or systems this is something that should not be in a legal text read what you limit the scope of application and take away neutrality. the next comment, Mr. Chair faster job with articles 13 and 15. Paragraph two in these two articles contains definitions that need to be moved to the article about terminology. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Molly, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to express my delegations gratitude to you for your leadership on your efforts. Having said that, we shared the concerns expressed by Senegal and Cameroon. We have the following comments for article 13 delete the reference to intent and without right. This is very subjective. So in what intent and what outright should be deleted. Also, we should bear in mind with regard to article 15 that the worst case scenario here is the dissemination of child pornography. So foresee is something that should be removed as suggested by Egypt. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Pakistan have the floor.
Thank you chair. Regarding article 13. My delegation would like to reiterate a stance for deletion of paragraph three, four and five. We would like to put forward an alternate version of paragraph four in article 13 as put forward during the informals. In our assessment, the various suggestions under consideration deviate from the fundamental principle of safeguarding minors as mandated by the universally universally acknowledged Convention on the Rights of child. Additionally, we acknowledged the inherent capacity of minors to provide legal consent. The inclusion of provisions related to consensual sharing of intimate images or warnings about the potential criminalization of inadvertently sharing explicit content among themselves seems incongruent. Within the context of this article. Our proposal is derived from article 41 of the CRC, which reads as follows. States Parties shall enact measures that are more favorable to the realization of children's rights, and which may be contained in one the law of a state party or to international law enforce for that state. Minister in article 15, we support the proposals made by the respective delegates of Egypt and Iran. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Holy See.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Good morning colleagues. We would like to draw attention to article 13. We think that in paragraph one and two, there have been several proposal put forward either here in previous sessions, or in informal informants, we think they deserve merit. At the same time, I do also take the point raised by the distinguished delegate of Egypt of Brazil, that some of these proposal might be further discussed in a different setting also considering that we need to find like a sort of not entering too much into detail discussion here, but at the same time, we do not In that it's a detailed discussion with a very big issue for us, paragraph three, in the sense that this has been defined as a caveat as a loophole, we, after hearing like even a couple of days ago, the room, we reached out again to capital and to report that we are extremely concerned about this provision. We think that this is really allowed to for the production or something, for example, simulated or artificially generated images. And we really have some concerns with this with that, we'll also share by a number of delegations. In this sense, we again, we read the read for the request deletion. Now, there has been a lot of discussion on this article. And we think that we might find ourselves lost in the sea of article 13. This article is about childhood and children and we have a competence if we find lost at sea on this article, which is CRC. CRC should guide us that's why we think that the proposal of distinguished that I get to Pakistan to insert here, article 41, of the CRC is, is a very positive one. And we were happy to lend support to it. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I had indicated with your permission that well, I'm in the hands of the room. What's the appetite? Is this something we want to consider the proposal made by Pakistan announced spotted by the Holy See as a possible compromise in the room. But I see there's a request for the floor by Brazil. However, mind that to think that if that discussion is going to be as protected as we it's been so far. I would urge that we move that we pack that discussion and move it to maybe possibility of having informal informal consultations, but I'm in the hands of the room and Brazil, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. We are in your hands. Of course I just wanted to propose. I don't know if it's the appropriate time. But perhaps we could consider in plenary here. Actually, the proposal we made this morning on Article One. D. There are CBS actually that has garnered support in informal informants and see if that's feasible.
Thank you very much, distinguished delegates of Brazil. I think I like that idea. Right. Progress in small bits. So yes, the secretariat will put up some of what was discussed in relation to Article 21. Yes, I think it's important that the entire room looks at it. We'll see if that will boost drive for consensus. While they're pulling that up. I yield the floor to Burkina Faso. You have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm talking about Chapter Two incrimination criminalization. We suggest including an article involving minors in the commission of illegal acts such as subversive or armed activities, extremism offenses related to terrorism offenses related to the distribution of drugs or psychotropic substances, and actions related to trafficking and firearms. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So do we have the language?
No, no, I mean, the one in front inform us
Sorry. Okay. Thank you before I see request for the floor, but before I yield I don't know if it is in respect of why but my appeal to the room was that as suggested by the distinguished delegate of Brazil, we had a lengthy conversation and with respect to Article article 13, paragraph one. Start from the top. Okay. Okay. The chapel's has that. Yes. So we, the discussion in the room was that we can agree we should consider removing the word live streaming, as I'd been proposed by Iran, who graciously expressed their flexibility on removing that. However, in we were able to agree in informer, informals sub paragraph C. And also the proposal to add a paragraph D, which reads, state parties may also establish the finance is financing of offenses established in accordance with sub paragraphs a to see of this paragraphs as separate offenses. Okay, as a separate offense. Yep. My question to the room is, are we does the ad hoc committee consider first off that we can agree subparagraph C.
Rwanda, may I request you when we resume once we finish? I just wanted to get this out of the way then. But your request for the floor is with respect to this up. Okay. So Rwanda, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I wanted to say wasn't it's on this article, but not this. See? It's on paragraph one. Okay, there. So what I want to say is like Rhonda doesn't understand why we have to put without right, it means if someone given the right he can commit this offense. So that's why for us, we don't like to see that word there without right. Because it doesn't make sense to us. That's what I wanted to add for the see. Coming back to the sea, we agreed on it. It's fine the way it is. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Sorry.
Okay, thank you very much. Um, just for I know, we've said this, repeatedly, that the inclusion of the phrase without right is so that you avoid creating a strict liability offense. And if you read it, that there actually are instances where you have people who may be in possession or interact with child sexual exploitation and abuse material in the course of their work in the course of research, but it is your right. Of course, it is your right as a state to hold your views. May I Okay, Molly, Vanuatu and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I I request I yield the floor to Mali
Thank you, Chairman. I don't want to take you back. But I think that the countries that are in favor of deletion can be reflected here that includes Mali. So we've also asked for the deletion of the words without right. Without going into the explanation without challenging the explanations, thank you.
Thank you. Just for clarity, it's this is being displayed for the purposes of us. Considering the progress that was made, where the viewer to either making a decision whether we agree with it or not, it is not about adding people who support or not, this is pulled up to show you what went on in, in in plenary in informal informals. But it's not about if we're just like we've been doing, if this doesn't work for us, of course, we're not adding anything. It is only that which we can agree that will be added here. All right. So having said that, my my request to the room was actually with respect to subparagraph C, can we this was a grid in informals. May I ask if the ad hoc committee is able to agree this ad referendum? I see no objection. No, it was from DRC is this in relation to paragraph C? But if it is not like, Okay, thank you very much for your kind understanding. Yeah, so.
Thank you, Chairman. The DRC. Recognizes paragraph C, but just coming back to paragraph one. Where, unlike other delegations, we do not agree with the term without right. Despite your excellent explanations. I think you'll see that many delegations do not allow for the terminology without right because as our colleague from Cameroon has said, in some countries, that discussion supersedes our laws. So if I think it might not be appropriate in my country in particular, to have that terminology. Thank you.
Good, thank you very much. Going back to see my request, I do not see any object. Oh, okay. Mauritania. All right.
Thank you, honorable chair. We'd like to go back to paragraph one. We would like our support to be noted for the request to delete the phrase without right thinking.
Okay, thank you very much. Again, I plead with you. It will help us if we make this progress. One item after another. So as of now, the question the question in the room is is the ad hoc committee in a position to agree ad referendum subparagraph C as was agreed in infomercials infomercials. Okay, with respect to this I see no objection. I see no objection in the room. Okay, so I see no objection is room it is agreed ad referendum
small victories Yeah. works. Okay. The next step. The next step is, of course, we had the proposal as you see reflected in as subparagraph D. I also ask
the room if the ad hoc committee considers and is in a position to agree. Saw paragraph D AD referendum. Oh, okay. Here I see I have Qatar Jamaica, European Union United States. Qatar, you have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak of article 13, paragraph one we would like to omit without right, thank you.
All right. Thank you very much, Jamaica, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair for giving me the floor. Jamaica is delivering this statement on behalf of the 14 member states of the Caribbean Community. CARICOM had initially wanted the term unlawfully, and there was overwhelming support for the term without rights. Against that background, CARICOM exercised flexibility and supported its inclusion. If the term with older rights or some similar term is removed, it steamies substantially limits the ability of our collective law enforcement agencies to address this problem. Why? Because ting are undercover operations if that if those operating your jurisdiction would have no legal justification or basis on which to proceed, the convention would have done away with that caveat. For example, without right facilities, the handling of such material in limited or certain circumstances, as determined by each state party, to further purposes of investigation and prosecution as one example. The provision as it is worded, does not take away the latitude from state parties. They maintain their sovereignty to maintain their national standards, based on how they choose the classified materials, whether they consider them obscene or inconsistent with their standard of public morals. We maintain that each state party with the inclusion of the term without right, each state party maintains drafting freedom, and the provision seeks to accommodate or very diverse realities. Against that background. Mr. Chair, curriculum supports the retention of the term without right Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, the European Union.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the EU and its member states. First of all, I would like to support the earliest statements being made my Australia and grantee states about the importance of these articles, article 13, to 15. And that we believe that you also believe it strikes a good balance. And in general, we can support the text. So regarding paragraph one, and first, I will start with paragraph one D if you allow me, Mr. Chair. I was part of the informal informal discussions on this. And we considered the proposal. And but unfortunately, this, we still believe that would create uncertainty with regards to article 16 and 19. In terms of how this offense that he's been singled out here is different from those. This has also made provision, which means that if we don't include it, the future state parties will have the freedom to also criminalize this. On top of that, presumably, the offensive of prosecuting the financing of friends is already widely must be criminalized, and therefore industry cooperation will be possible, very likely for it. So for these reasons, we do not see a compelling reason to include it and we cannot support it. Unfortunately, we do appreciate the efforts to find find solutions here. And going back just to the Shippo of paragraph one. We've heard the comments made regarding reference to without right. I would like to support the statement made just made by the distinguished delegates of Jamaica. This is absolutely essential for us to retain and maintain any support. The text is drafted. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Paraguay, you have the floor.
Good morning I represent Paraguay and as an individual who was involved in combat in child pornography every day of my life. I believe that important in fact, we must eliminate the terminology without right? Rarely this, this responsibility for the prosecutor who has to have access to these types of this type of material can indeed do that. There was a case that took place in Argentina, where a pediatric doctor was attempting to justify the fact that he had dozens of images of girls and boys sexual images, because he needed it for his work, and that individual was prosecuted. So we don't want to open the door for those individuals who are pedophiles, we believe that we have a greater interest the interest of children at heart. And we therefore must delete this terminology without right because we believe that any individual who possesses images or videos with a sexual content or an images of naked children should be investigated. And then within the framework of an investigate, you will determine whether or not that individual is culpable or whether or not that individual has a right to have such such images or videos. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Renato, you have the floor please.
Thank you, Chair in the search for consensus. And bearing in mind your earlier explanation and also the example given by the Distinguished Delegates from Jamaica. I wonder whether there could be a possible alternative to the word without right, particularly where the word right might have disturbing implications for a number of delegations will. Mr. Chair, one, what would propose that the term or the expression without lawful authority. And we believe that that might be a lot more accurate, given the examples that have been given by a number of delegations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, the United States, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With all respect for the desire to make progress where we can achieve small victories. We too were a part of the informal discussions about paragraph one D and had supported it because it was presented as a way to close many of the other disagreements with this article. But now that it seems every paragraph and even the ship chapeau of paragraph one is still up for debate and no consensus. We would like to support article 13, as drafted. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Your Excellency for giving the floor. I think we have reiterated our position on this article very well, during the formal and informal consultations and I think in the form was we were close to consensus in some parts of article 13. But it seems that colleagues the opposing partners prefer to start the discussions from the beginning. In that case, we would like to reiterate our position on having live streaming in subparagraph. A, and retaining other engage, engage or otherwise engaging with Child Sexual Abuse and Child sexual sexual exploitation material in subparagraph. B. We would like to retain paragraph D on financing facilitating or profiting from defenses established in accordance with this article. And on paragraph 2345, I think we have express our position and we will do that again, when time calm comes but on a similar note regarding the time without right. In our view, this term would actually be a loophole for criminals to conduct and engage in such heinous crimes. Now regarding the official capacities that judicial authorities or life or law enforcement agencies would have, in order to counter this crime, I don't I do not think that there is any need To add without right for that purpose, it is quite very given that every legal system has its own Rules of Criminal Procedure. And this is the judge, the final verdict of the judge that would decide whether a person has the has had the right, in good faith to counter this crime, or was it just merely for the sake of committing that heinous crime. And I think the term when committed intentionally is very clear in its message, if a person has the intentions, intention, and I think it's understood that this is actually an intention to commit a crime, not an intention to prosecute or investigate the crime, I think this is quite clear. But we would risk the integrity of paragraph one. And the zero policy that I think we all should seek in countering child sexual exploitation online if we add without right, in paragraph one. So we insist to deletion of without right. And I think I think the the observation regarding the work of judicial authorities, if that is the main concern, maybe we could address that in some other ways, not to create any any kind of loophole in paragraph one.
Thank you very much. Yeah, man, you have the floor.
Thank you very much. Through the discussions that we have heard. We noticed that the disagreement is on criminalization within national legislature, and this is something we want to reflect in the international convention, whatever the difference is, since the difference is regarding criminalization in certain countries, we must mention that what is considered a crime or an offence in one country may not be so in another a crime or an offence in a state even may not be a crime or an offence in another state within the same country. So these things need to be respected. And flexibility is needed among those participating in the discussion so that there is room for national action. As for paragraph one. criminalization is only when a crime or an offense is committed intentionally. And the the exception must come through a legal article or a legal item that specifies what the exception is and what the limits are to an exception. That is one opinion. Another opinion, concerning intimate and non intimate images is something I suggest to include in all contentious or controversial paragraphs. Anything that might be contentious in that regard, can have a caveat at the end of the paragraph so that it can be determined that national legislature will determine these matters later. And therefore, we will have solved that problem and eliminated the conflict in all contentious parts of the convention thing.
Thank you. But can I possibly have the floor? Messy, messy.
Thank you, Chairman. Article 13. One on child pornography. Burkina Faso reaffirms its position to delete the terms without right from my delegation. It's not we cannot imagine that an individual could have the right to carry out these acts are referred to in articles 13, one A, B, C and D and that is why my delegation believes it's inappropriate to use that expression in this article. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The United Kingdom you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, as others have stated and as explained by yourself, Mr. Chair, we agree on the necessity for including without right, as others have also said although we do consider to article 3113, one D as largely covered by article 19. We were opening we were open to considering it in informal informants. But given where we are now we reiterate that we support article 13 as drafted Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mauritania you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to express our support for the request to delete the phrase without right from the first paragraph of Article 13. We reaffirm this as for some delegations insistence on this phrase, on the basis that it provides legal authority for law enforcement authorities, we emphasize that the offenses stipulated under this article cannot be a justification for these law enforcement bodies, or for these delegations to insist on the inclusion of this force, therefore, we emphasize the necessity of its elimination. Thank you.
Okay, I still have the request for the floor from Iraq, Norway, Iceland, Egypt, Bahrain, Albania. Yeah, the list is growing. But I'm going to ask, again, I'm in your hands. Right. And so you see, this question of without right. There are there are two, two sides to it. One from the discussion, area appear that those who want the removal of the phrase see it that as long as you are law enforcement. You so even if the phrase without right, is removed from article 31. Your laws as a sovereign state, you have the power to maintain law and order you have the power to investigate and all of that. So a law enforcement officer in your jurisdiction can lawfully carry out an investigation. And it will, he will not be hampered. That's on the one side. And seeing this grow this growing trend of taught. I'm going to ask this question of the room. Can we say that? We will consider the deletion of the phrase without right. Noting that. As we have always said, you know, the good thing is for something that we want, we cannot we urge member states to tackle it in that domestic jurisdiction for something that we don't want. We say, Oh, he must be in the convention. Sir, I'm not a diplomat. I don't know how that works. You know, but I'm just thinking that maybe instead of going over how many people don't want without right and having all of those arguments we've we've had this for a long time. Maybe we should consider this as a question in the room. So I will. If I am optimistic, and say, okay, we can do take out the words without right. And people, law enforcement officers are protected on the basis of the discharge of their official duties within your domestic jurisdiction. And for those countries that fear feel it necessary to have the phrase without right can include it when they domesticate this convention. May I please ask the room that we consider this as a middle ground? Thank you, I am in your hands. And so I'll return to the list as we have way. But I will ask that when maybe we consider this as a middle ground as we speak or as we. And if it's an agreeable middle ground, then we can have member states who have who have requested to speak on this, withdraw the request, and then we'll move forward. But I will now yield the floor in accordance with the list as I have it here, Iraq, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation would like to emphasize our position, we are steadfast in our request to omit this phrase. At the same time, we thought that there was an agreement in the informal informants that were held on this article. We thought that this was a done deal. And within this context, we emphasize as is clear that all member states agree on the goal. The difference among us is on the phrasing. We hope that the states that are steadfast in their request to keep this phrase would show flexibility, we have exhibited flexibility indeed, in multiple occasions, among which was the flexibility we have shown on certain states requests in terms of technology transfer. And this is because they had concerns regarding copyrights in their countries, we have shown this flexibility, thank you.
Thank you very much, no way you have the floor.
On para one, we support the inventions of CARICOM and Argentina. And Norway cannot support a convention that prevents our law enforcement authorities from preventing and combating the serious crimes against children effectively. And concerning your question on a middle ground solution, we will consider it but at this moment, we cannot support it. We also support the rest of article 13. And article 15, as drafted. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Iceland, you have the floor. Thank
you very much chair. I think since I took the floor around the same time as my colleague from Norway that I will just say the second everything Norway has just said. And I said it at length before. Article 13 represents a balance. For us. It's a floor. That said we will of course, I will convey your message of asking for some flexibility to the head of delegation, but I'm not optimistic. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Baron.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, if you looked at the proposals we have suggested, we will see that we have a simple omission or to request otherwise there is consensus on everything else, because we truly do not believe that there can be any right to have such pictures. There can be no justification. We do not believe that the omission of this phrase will pose any problems, especially given that we have our laws and other countries have the laws as well. And as my colleague from Iraq has said, we have shown great flexibility, especially with regards to technology transfer. And this is in appreciation of developed states laws with regards to technology transfer to other countries. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair with regards to paragraph one of article 13. We understand everything you have noted. However, given device the importance of this issue, we see that it is important to omit the phrase without right Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Austria, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry if I may have missed the full scope of your proposal for a middle ground. However, if if it is I have to delete the word without right? I'm very sorry, but we cannot go along with that. Without right would cover several exceptions. The one that has been mentioned all over is law enforcement needs. I agree with the distinguished delegate of Vanuatu that may be without unlawful authorization that would be covered. For law enforcement. However, there are several other situations that are covered by the word without right. So for example, you have for science purposes, medical knowledge, medical science, your might need to have the word without right plus. One thing that we hold very, very dearly is also art. There are several works, that the subject of which is that people that have suffered from child sexual abuse, right about their ordeal in childhood. And since the definition of child sexual abuse material is as broad as it is right now. We need also without right to have an exception for people who are writing about their ordeal in childhood for in with respect to child sexual abuse, we think that is is a is an important important thing to have in society that people need to write about that. And yeah, it's also a part of free speech here. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Zimbabwe, you have the floor.
Good morning, Chair. And good morning, everyone. Thank you for also allowing us to share our views around article eight in one chair, I think we are all agreed as member states that we are being guided by the convention on the rights of a child. And we agreed that the children's best interests are paramount in this case. And we are at pains to understand in what circumstance can actually a person have a right to produce, offer, sell, distribute and transmit any material that is called child sexual abuse in nature. And for the purposes of exploitation of a child, we are actually at pains to understand at what point we have a right as human beings to do that, to produce material that to harm children. At what point do we have that? Right? I understand that we can have exceptions in our domestic laws to actually allow for those circumstances that are being raised by member states or that are being discussed in this meeting. That is exceptions. But honestly, a member states I don't think there is at any point as human beings we can have a right to produce sell distribute material intended to harm children. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Albania, you have the floor.
Also, we do not support the deletion of without right on the first paragraph, and we support the retaining the text of a whole article 13 as its original. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you for us here in Japan shares the concerns of Australia, and currycomb and the EU and others. We truly understand the article 13 and 15 are really important. And the current tax is the result of tremendous discussions. Japan's fact that they're careful wording including flexibility to cater for different domestic contexts. We will retain test drafted and we support for the retention results right. And there's no support for the proposal adding article one D Thank you.
Thank you very much. banane you have the floor
Merci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And congratulations to you and all the successive chairpersons for the leadership you've shown and also many thanks to all the delegations that have so actively participated in discussing this draft convention. Having said that, allow us to make a comment. We are not going to reinvent the wheel here. There's already accepted language and the number of instruments that exist and enforce in the state parties. So expressions like unintentionally found without right or not really knew it would make us uncomfortable if they weren't deleted. We been in support all those countries that believe we should retain the expression intentionally and without right. Let's look at the Malabo Convention, which covers a number of African countries. There's already that language there. We need an instrument that can be internalized in the domestic legislation. I'm also thinking of the Budapest convention that many states here apart is to also they use the same language why should we try to reinvent the wheel here? So again, we think they should be retained these words intentionally and without right. Thank you.
Thank you very much got the VA, you have the floor.
chair. Cote d'Ivoire believes that deleting the words without right is necessary to remove all ambiguity. In terms of the possible existence of any right to produce and disseminate pornographic material, the term intentionally should stay and that in our view is sufficient to cover all the various exceptions and the law enforcement needs. But if we are to truly focus on the interest of the children and ensuring the protection I think we should dispense with without right. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Australia.
Thank you Chair for giving me the floor. We would like to support Norway, Argentina, Albania, Japan, Austria and CARICOM on retaining without writing the first paragraph, it would also like to express that we agree with the current text of article 13 in its entirety as drafted by the chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Nicaragua. You have the floor please.
Thank you chair. My country would like to emphasize that the words without right should be deleted from article search in paragraph one. If we keep that phrase, we leave the door open to people who might use it as a loophole to cause serious harm to children. So we're side with those delegations that want without right deleted. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Switzerland. You have the floor.
Thank you Chair for giving me the floor. We have listened very carefully to the room. However, we would also like to stick to the current text therefore we would like to maintain without right. Switzerland feels uncomfortable in deleting this important reference. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Argentina. You have the floor.
Mic for Argentina, please. Thank you, Chairman. Our delegation has listened very closely to the various statements that have been made by delegations here. However, for our delegation, it is particularly important for the drafting of articles 10 and 13. Not to have new drafting a different from its original wording. Specifically, we will underscore the importance of maintaining article 13. One be as stands. Thank you.
Thank you very much Central African Republic, you have the floor
The delegation of the Central African Republic would like to join the long list of states that asked for the expression without right to be deleted. It's important because it would eliminate all confusion as to the enforcement of this law. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Georgia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. Good morning. We also support retaining without right and we generally support the original wording of article 13 as proposed by Chair. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Algeria. You have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, with regard to article 13, my delegation would like to associate itself to the to the countries that asked for the deletion of without right. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Nigeria, you have the floor. Please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair for giving Nigeria the floor for reasons already addressed by delegations who have spoken for the retention of the words without rights in article 13. And also in the spirit of finding consensus, while ensuring that there is no loophole. Nigeria would like to support the retention of the word without right with a little bit of an adjustment suggesting the replacement of the word without rights with without lawful authority. Also, Nigeria supports the rest of article 13, as drafted, thank you.
Thank you very much. Oh, man, you have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the delegation of the Sultanate of Oman. And taking into account the statements that have been made also supports the deletion of without right.
Thank you very much. Uruguay.
Thank you very much, Chairman. Very briefly, Uruguay supports maintaining the paragraphs as they stand in the final draft of the convention. We've all made many concessions, so has my country Uruguay, and we would like to support the text as it's currently drafted. Thank you.
Thank you very much, the Russian Federation.
Spicy. Thank you. We have spoken in favor of removing this phrase. But here's a question. Could you cite those cases when disseminating or selling material involving sexual abuse of children could be used for medical or scientific purposes
Thank you very much, Chad. You have the floor.
Thank you Chair for giving us the floor chart joins those countries that want deleting without right thank you.
Thank you very much. Oh salvado
Good afternoon, Chairman like many other voices, El Salvador joins in support of the current drafting as put forward by the chair. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Kenya. You have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. Kenya support. Kenya support the retention of without right with adjustments as proposed by the Nigeria delegation.
Thank you very much. Okay. It is obvious that we can't seem to make. Okay the Philippines you have the floor
Mr. Chair, we the Philippines would like to support the position of retaining, retaining without right in this paragraph in article 13. Thank you.
Republic of Korea, you have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair regarding article 13. We'd like to add our voice that the the Republic of Korea supports the current text as drafted. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you, Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, we would like to throw our support behind the current tax Thank you. The current chairs text.
Okay, thank you very much. I would seek the permission of the room to park the discussion well of adequate testing as it is, while understanding the attempt by the distinguished delegate of Brazil to help us move forward, it does appear that they're well, well entrenched in our respective positions. So we, we'll leave that at this point with your kind permission and read maybe go over some of the other articles that will return to article 10 refinish article 10 Yeah, we'll return to article 10 and proceed there there from maybe some Yeah, but we saw with your kind permission we had stopped at we're looking at article 10 And we have article 10 paragraph three adequate turn paragraph three May I May I ask the room if the ad hoc committee considers and is in a position to agree Article Three, paragraph three of article 10 ad referendum please. I see the request of the floor from okay all right. No Okay, I do not see any objection in the room and it is so marked as agreed ad referendum
Okay, do we have anything left? Hello So. Paper Okay, thank you very much for your time. So continuing, maybe may we look at maybe revisit article 12? Article 12 on we have a new we had the issue the conversation around whether to delete theft in the title. we I don't know if we can get any feedback from, from from delegations on that, but we also have a list. Do we need to agree the chapeau of article 12? independently? May I ask the ad hoc committee that we're in a position to agree to consider and agree? The chapeau of article 12? Please. Okay, sorry, Central African Republic that is this If fresh requests in respect of article 12? Or if it is, have the floor?
Oh, it does appear. They're invisible. Okay. All right. Yemen
with regard to article 12, and the word theft, or fraud, these are two separate crimes. And the paragraph talk talks about fraud and not about soft but as as we say there are two different things. So therefore, we would rather restrict the article to communication for information and communication from
Okay, thank you very much. So again, let's just run through this bit by bit so that we don't miss anything. Are we in a position may we consider and agree the shampoo of article 12 or the referendum? Okay, Paraguay, you have the floor. See,
based on our legislation in Latin America, theft involves violence. So in this type of crime, we believe that the word theft in the title is not appropriate. So we wonder if we could delete the term theft and replace it with fraud or just use fraud. At the same time we would suggest the term patrimonial damage instead of loss of property, which literally means last but in Spanish loss doesn't involve that meaning and dog Castle embed in any event instead of one term that at least in Spanish. So property damage I suppose and not not loss of property then Bellotti Mapa refers, okay, on the last paragraph, we would suggest economic benefit or other goods because this concept should be left outside of this convention. Thank you.
Mauritania, you have the floor.
honestly, the right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we propose the deletion of theft from the title of article 12 On the basis of the fact that actions referred to in different articles have to do with fraud. So therefore, theft has no place in the article so that the whole article would be compatible with the title. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you very much. Just again, you know, we call for flexibility, but also on the side of what flows for those delegations that indicated and, you know, well, just a, okay, a small if you delegations indicated that the one that Tefft added to this, but as we as has been considered and discussed in the room, the the text actually refers to fraud and in several jurisdictions, you know, adding theft here, actually just create that difficulty of bringing confusion in those jurisdiction, and since they are in the majority in the room, so to say, I would appeal that for, just like we've said, with several other matters, that for some of these things that seem to hinge on peculiarities within your domestic laws, you may choose to add tariffs when you domesticate this provision. I'm making this also applicable to the sub paragraph a. Were regarding the discussion around copying also. So that that being said, we may be able to, yes, we, we are also very different. And but they need to work together. As long as the basics are understood. I think we can make progress. So I thank you. I would, yes, I see the request for the floor by the Russian Federation, and you have the floor.
Thank you. We do want to draw everyone's attention to the fact that fraud involves interaction with the victim whereas theft as reflected in article 12. In a and b does not presuppose interacting with the victim. And maybe that is what we should pay attention to. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So returning to my proposal, I was asking the question in the room whether the ad hoc committee is in a position to consider and at least agree. The shampoo of paragraph of Article 12 The referendum. Okay. I do not see any objection in the room. And it is so agreed. Okay. For sub paragraph a. Yes. The sub paragraph a. There was the request to add copying to it. Which request didn't Well happened. Yeah. It did not. It seems several delegations are objected to the inclusion of the phrase copying. I am in your hands. That's very simple. Well, it could be simple, but again, may I ask the distinguished delegate of China if what was their take on this if they've given Need some thought and whether they still insist on the inclusion of copying. sorry, okay, while we wait to hear from China on that point, I see the request for the floor from Namibia. Now maybe you have the floor
Thank you Chair Namibia on Article 12 Namibia is supporting the inclusion of theft and we we are remembering that on Article 12 A, we propose to add copying isn't being copying is just an action like any other action which are listed on hey we we can put it between deletion or suspicion. They also the rationale behind coping on this on when it comes to cybercrime activities, this is type of data theft a person practically a person can come to your system or to any devices which you have and they start copying your data with intentions of whatever they will want to do with it for data breach or privacy violations. And also, we have several reasons which we can be done on this privates and intellectual property theft, it can also be part of this can be committed through copying just a normal copying, when you are doing copy and paste that is you are taking any information from whatever system which you are doing that we are opposing, or advocating the copying to be included, and the word theft, because that word 52 will present data theft on that. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much. Senegal, you have the floor.
you Chairman. The delegate delegation of Senegal understands and supports the position expressed by China including in the list under subparagraph a of the term I'm referring to article 12, paragraph a the term copying because as China has said, we believe that it's very difficult to speak about theft in the digital world. Perhaps what is possible to speak about is to speak about fraudulently or illegally copying the contents or data, because by making a copy, we believe that the victim has not been defrauded of his or her goods, but the illegal copying can be prejudicial for the victim. And that is covered by the provisions of article 12 which provide for digital fraud and we therefore, like China, we would suggest the addition in the list under a any input or alteration of fraudulent or illegal copying, thank you.
Okay, um, before I yield the floor, I have the request from Yemen and Egypt, but before I yield the floor to them, this thing about copying and the rest of the rest, if you read what when you read a you read B and you come to the concluding part of that of article 12 with the fraudulent or dishonest or unlawful intent of procuring for oneself or for another person without right again in money data. You see my question and maybe this will help me understand Why people? Maybe this will help me understand why delegations are asking for the inclusion of copying in this phrase, because when you How does someone by just copying by copying? Make procure for oneself? Because I will also read the offense is fraud, computer related fraud. And it is that when you do any of these things you any impute right alteration or deletion of data, right? Any interference with the functioning of a computer system, any deception as to factual circumstances. So, these are all about representations to other people to make them do something or yield up something. But how does copying either induce someone to yield up either a benefit or an item or take a particular course of action. Right. So, it is to that extent that that confusion is remains with adding the word copying to this in this particular article, but again, it's just a question to maybe help us understand, I remain in the hands of, of the floor, I remain enhance of the room, whatever, we will decide, I thought that it might just be possible to find some flexibility in this regard. Again, noting that, if this is, since this might just be peculiar to a few delegations, again, you can endeavor to put this in your domestic law by adding copying to read, and also by adding tariffs to it, if it makes more, if it makes it more effective within your laws. Having said that, I now yield the floor to Yemen
, I wanted to refer to the crime of theft. That can take place in the area of digital information, but not under Article 12. Because the theft of data recorded data when it comes to information, financial information, for example. This is covered by domestic laws, national laws. So as the chairman has said, article 12 should focus on ICT data when it comes to ICT fraud. That is appropriate here. Because the action we're referring to is fraud. But cases of theft are different article 12 involves information. And otherwise theft can be addressed by governments. Thank you.
Thank you very much. required all you have the floor.
Yes, yes. And yes, thank you, Chairman. Ecuador would like to support the proposal of Paraguay to delete the word theft from the title of article 12. That will allow for greater clarity. And it will also align with our domestic legislation. We also agree with the views expressed by you, Mr. Chairman, that it is not appropriate to include the word copying. And because that action is not directly related to the title of article 12, which refers to fraud and moreover, for some countries, copying has an impact on copyright. And we would need a greater definition of that in the text. Thank you.
Thank you very much Australia have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would like to hold out wholeheartedly agree with the distinguished delegate of Ecuador and also Paraguaya. To delete the term theft, initially, we would be flexible. But having heard the further additions in four, one A, to add the term copying the term seft in the title, of course, makes a lot more sense. And both addition, of course, change the scope of this provision considerably. I'd like to recall that we have already agreed to expand the scope by agreeing to a general provision on fraud in 12 C, which was a considerable concession from our side. And I'd also like to voice our frustration about the fact that whatever is offered from our side is never deemed sufficient for the other. There is an unlimited demand for expanding the scope again, again and again. And we're just sick and tired with that. Sorry for being so blunt. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Renato, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of our two supports the proposal to delete the the term theft in the heading of article 12. Simply because the elements of the offenses articulated in A, B and C do not contain traditional definition of fifth chair. One or two also supports the current language of article 12. Paragraph A, and does not support the inclusion of the term copying. Simply because copying does not belong to the class of offenses contained in that paragraph. Those offenses that ultimately may result in the commission of a fraud. offense. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Mauritania. You have the floor.
Thank you, Chairman. On article 12, A, we do not see the need to add reference to copying in this sub paragraph. Given our discussions in previous days, some delegations have suggested a reference to copying in Article eight and other delegations have suggested that it be placed in article 12. So there are divergent opinions with regard to placement for the word copying. But as you've explained, Article Six perhaps is the best option because in that article, we are referring to illegal access. And this is in line with Arab legislation where copying is considered illegal access and is prohibited. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Masa make you have the floor.
Thank you Chair for the opportunity given to Mozambique, or let's contribute in this debate in two dimension. The first is on the title. If we agreed to maintain the word theft on the title. It will support the proposal from the delegation that are proposing to include the word Copying on a because it when it relates to data theft, copying without right, it's not allowed. And part of this will be on our proposal. The second aspects is on the alignment with the text. And with what we're mentioning on a, the title covers Computer and Information and Communication Technology. But on a, we're focusing only on data and not on the other dimensions of ICT. So let's see if you can find a better wording to align the A, and not only to limit on data, and information, but also to cover other aspects of ICT to be aligned with the title of 12. We reading the V of article 12, we'll find some similarities of Article Nine related to interference. And we're not finding the difference on the tax on Article Nine, and on B of article 12. So let's see if we can find a better way of addressing this was. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, the Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you very much for giving us the floor. First of all, let me note that quite often in this meeting, including today, we see a number of states agree with things that are obvious and are aligned with their own legislation. But make the claim that this is showing flexibility or compromise. It's just an interesting observation. Now with regard to copying, let me repeat something that we already said yesterday when we talked about the relationship between Article Six and copying, an example was cited a question was put access to a system illegal access to systems as addressed in Article Six. How do would you find access? A person can have access but also copy information in an unauthorized way. So this is something that is not covered by any of the articles that we've seen on the screen. If there's any justification for not including copying with lecture here, good explanation so far, we haven't. So in that regard, the position of our delegation has not changed since yesterday. And we join the considerable list of countries that believe copying to be important, and it should be included on this article. Thank you.
Thank you, Chile have the floor.
Thank you, Chairman, on Article 12. We also agree with other delegations that we should delete the term theft. And I would just point out that on Article 13, we agree with the original drafting provided. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, it is clear that we were not likely to make any progress with this. I was going to say, but before we go have let me remind, let me remind distinguished colleagues that at this point, remember, it is your responsibility to garner support for any inclusion or any new proposals. Having said that, I was going to ask the room if we're in a position to consider and I agree subparagraph B of article 12 Okay. All right. I see no objection to that. And it is so agreed ad referendum was the next thing, nothing now, that is it also saw paragraph C, I would like to ask the room if we there was an editorial amendment proposed by the United States to use the word true. I just want to ask the room, we're in a position to agree with with this. And if we agree with this, may Can we agree subparagraph C ad referendum? Yeah, okay, put it on the screen. Mozambique, you have the floor.
Thank you chair, as we stated in our previous intervention, or like to on be before referendum lead to ask for clarification between the relation of the of article 12 and Article Nine, because for our understanding the redundancy or repetition of what is stated? Thank you.
Okay, I'm going to attempt this, because, right, where I taught B was a great add referendum, but of course, it is yours sovereign right to, you know, to go back and forth to revisit where you want so, but to your question. The offence is computer related fraud. And what it says it talks about any impute alteration, and all of that. Now, remember that you're reading a, b, c, together with a concluding paragraph, right. So you can suppress data, you can alter it, delete it, all right, to cause a person or get fraudulently gain some advantage. So for example, B speaks to interference with the function of a computer system. Let's just take the simplest example where someone is able to interfere with the functioning of your phone. Right, such that you're not able to switch off your phone or you're not able to exit a particular application that you have opened. And by so doing, they cause you to believe that your phone is malfunctioning and lead you to maybe take it to a technician or even in advanced, if you follow through that that procedure, you get a prompt on that same application saying update this. But all of that is manipulated by an individual that is interference with the functioning of a computer system for the purposes of carrying out a fraudulent act. If you in that example, if you were to go ahead and accept to update or install a particular program as is, as you've been prompted to what will happen, the the the person most likely will gain access to the information they want maybe to move to the next stage or something. So that is what be speaks to that. I'm sure other distinguished delegates may have better explanations, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around that and I hope that is useful to you. Yes, so having said that, if it is useful to you, we may like ask the question, if there's any objection to we agree in subparagraph B, a referendum. I see the request for the floor from Iran. You have the floor, please.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, for giving the floor to me regarding the as my delegation repeatedly in the previous session, asserted this position regarding the unlawful we are. Initially we requested the deletion of this, this honest, but taking into account the other delegations, positions and consideration we ordered in mind with you know, in the spirit of the compromise, we propose having this dishonest and unlawful together. So, once again, we would like to have the, you know, for after the dishonest we have or unlawful and also, after intent in accordance with the domestic law of the state. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. But just to wrap my head around this, before we come to the, you know, the issue that cut across about adding on lawful to where you have dishonest, I recall, there was some that that didn't seem to garner much support when this and this has come up in also a couple of other articles. But we will return to that. But let's finish. So I was gonna ask the question again, I regarding subparagraph B. It's we earlier before the question from the distinguished delegate of Mozambique, we, the committee, the ad hoc committee had agreed that add referendum, but of course, and I hope that the explanation kind of switches your concerns, so we can retain that as agreed at referendum. Mozambique, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair and sorry to for insisting on, we are clear about the definition and impact of interference. Our question is that the text of B of 12. It's almost the same of the title of Article Nine. If you go to align, check the title is almost the same. And here's where we're asking are we not risking to repeat or redundancy of the use of this is our question. Thank you. And our proposal for review.
Okay, you see, Article Nine is that is the, like you said is interference with with a computer system. Now, in article 12. Article 12, the focus is that interference with the aim of perpetrating of perpetuating fraud or perpetrating the offense of fraud. So it is a specific this thing to where it is used for fraud. But again, like I said, I'm in the hands of the ad hoc committee. I mean, your hands, it's what you want, if you want it. I don't have a problem. If you say you don't want it, no problem. All right, the United States. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and we appreciate your efforts. At an explanation to distinguish between article 12 and Article Nine. We agree with the explanation Article Nine addresses interference with systems that could result as as as, for example from a DDoS attack or from ransomware, which interferes with the system. You don't need an intent to defraud. To do that. Article 12 addresses a different kind of interference with functioning of data or a computer system with The intent to defraud. So it is a different, although the words appear to be the same, because of the addition of the intent to defraud and article 12. That is the legal difference between the two. While I have the floor, I'll also like to explain our edit C, which is to make it clear that the fraud we're speaking of, is done through a computer to the victim. So we're not talking about simply using a computer, for example, printing out something and using that print out as a basis for the fraudulent conduct on the question of fraudulent or dishonest or unlawful. We have heard the interventions of member states that question the reason for including dishonest but I would again, remind member states that we're talking about a fraud article. So fraud means at least in our legal system, the means to act knowingly with a specific intent to deceive. For the purpose of depriving another of whatever property that might be. So the deception the intent to deceive, is the fraudulent conduct involved here, dishonesty dishonesty is related to the intent to deceive the addition of or unlawful raises the question of what other mens rea or what other intent is contemplated beyond the intent to defraud or intend to deceive. If there is some third mens rea or potentially applicable to a fraud article. I'm not familiar with it. Because as I said, our our understanding is the intent to deceive, is at the core of any fraudulent conduct. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. We Yes, Iran has asked for the floor, but I need to just make this quick announcement. And if we still have time, we'll proceed otherwise, we will proceed when, when next feasible. We have reached the end of our morning session, but before we adjourn, I would like to inform delegates, that the distribution of the plenary time this afternoon will be as follows. Madam chair will address the committee on the next steps of the work. Vice Chair, Mr. Walrus our wheelchair the concentration on chapters six to nine. Vice Chair, Miss dolly WaitWhat will chair the consideration of articles and paragraphs contained in chapters four and five. This information is also available on the website of the concluding session. Having said that, we are out of time. And I thank you very much as we before we adjourn, I urge you again to consult get support for your proposals and return. The meeting is adjourned. Have a great lunch
