yet Bozo X Good morning excellencies. Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished delegates, distinguished colleagues Good morning to all of you and welcomes to the penultimate meeting of our concluding session. This morning we're going to continue to examine the remaining chapters in the third reading the third and last reading yesterday, we began chapter five this morning we'll continue with that and I will now open the list of speakers chapter five
yep, I don't
know speakers then can we move on to chapter six? Australia, Australia and European Union Australia, please.
Thank you chair, Australia supports article 37 Paragraph 18 as is currently drafted in the further revised draft text. Turning to articles 45 and 46. Australia support the word may in these articles. In our view, this flexibility will enable wider support of the convention in regards to article 48 Australia supports the proposal by the US to add the phrase for fences established in accordance with this convention. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup. Linear or thank you very much you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Shokran fear mad buying why had no idea the ideal I have done Anaka how to buy fuel root fakra Tiny Bonanza rock Velyka Noriko and also had akattak. See mother, son, and,
and 43 with regard to the the reference the the the additions to the last last attacks were only the term only as mentioned and subparagraphs, B and C are mentioned as the only grounds for refusal. We reserve our position on this, we still need to look need to look more carefully into it. We also support all those numerous delegations we have heard so far on using a May provision for articles 45 and 46 as regards life interception measures, and we would also like to support the US amendment to article 48. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, he will call you linear opion.
Thank you very much. You. Are there any other requests for the floor?
Georgia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The morning we also support may clauses in articles 45 and 46 live interception of content and traffic data and we also support the US proposal with regards to article 48 on scalping to Article Six to 16 Thank you
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. I'll be new
co chair also will be in support the proposal for New Zealand on 45 and 46 and also on the proposal and support a proposal for United States on Article 48. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup, airy. Thank you very much, Eritrea.
Thank you Madam Chair and Good morning colleagues, my delegation suppose the retention of shall on Article 45 and 46 Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much Nigeria.
Madam Chair. We thank you we by delegation, suppose the retention of shall in a Add it was 45 and 46. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Nicaragua.
Check it out says thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good morning, dear colleagues, Nicaragua, in article 45 supports us supports one and two and also in 46 as well. The word child. Shall shall. Thank you very much lucky enough. So thank you, Madam Chair, in articles 45 and 46, Burkina Faso would like to keep in the word shell rather than replacing it by me. Thank you all. Thank you very much, Namibia.
Thank you, Chair. Let me join the other delegations who are in support of the word shall instead of May for both 45 and 46.
Mercy package.
Thank you Pakistan.
My delegation would also like to support retention of the word shall in article 45 and 46. Thank you.
Merci. Tanzania.
Thank you Tanzania.
Thank you chair. My delegation supports the retention of the words as well as of serious crimes on Article 40 paragraph one, on articles 45 and 46. We call for the for the retention of the word shall have the word shall. And the proposal on Article 48. We would support its its retention in its current format text and we do not see the reason of having the reference to Article Six Six to 16 because we understand at least the consensus has moved into the direction of having the removal of article 17. And once article 17 is gone. There is no reason of making that reference because making a reference to articles would move the formulation away from the format of utopian Dunkirk. Thank you Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much. Great.
Good morning, Madam Chairperson. Distinguished colleagues, we support the retention of shall in 45 and 46 Thank You
sure can see that ISED Thank
you Madam Chairperson. Good morning, everyone. We support the retention of the word channel in articles 45 and 4645 and 46. And we would like to include the words serious crime in articles 1441 Thank you.
Shokran your Sydney Thank you. Senegal.
Thank you Madam Chair. Senegal would like to keep shall in articles 45 and 46 instead of may. Thank you very much, Jamaica.
Thank you Madam Chair, in respect of articles 45 and 46, while CARICOM has a preference for the word shall CARICOM can be flexible and support the inclusion of the word mean. In respect of article 48. CARICOM can support the inclusion of the reference to articles six to 16. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, your money,
Molly. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Malian delegation would like to reiterate our position the same as Burkina Faso with regard to the word shall rather than May for articles 45 and 46. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sierra Leone. Thank you, Madam
Chair. And delegation would like to support the ascension or SHA instead of May for article 45 and 46. And for article 48, who would like to retain it as it is, instead of giving you answers to the other articles? Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much, Jen, as you move through Atos. Good morning, everyone. And thank you, Madam Chair. The tunisienne delegation would like to join those delegations favorable in the word in the word of the word Charlaine. Not me. Given the importance of international legal coop raishin and to ensure the proper implementation of the Convention. Thank you. Thank you very much China.
Thank you Madam Chair. Article 45 and 46 are important basis for international cooperation we support the retention of the word shell. Thank you Madam Chair.
Miss Sita, she
Thank you China, Thailand.
As for article 45 and 46 Why Thailand sees the benefits of having such international cooperation put in place and have an has a preference for the word Chow. We can be flexible to go along with what may in the spirit of consensus. Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much. Livia. Shukran say
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. We would like to add the mention of serious crimes and articles 40 and 41. And the retention of the word shall in articles 45 and 46. Regarding international cooperation, thank you.
I'll be very brief. In terms of Article Five, We registered our support for retention of the word shall as well as in article 46. We believe that real time collection of traffic data is at the core of the implementation of this convention. And without that electronic evidence, it's going to be very difficult to cooperate. And therefore Madam Chair, shall is the appropriate words in these clauses. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Paraguay.
This has no precedent. Thank you, Madam Chair. We would prefer the word may in the articles given the technical difficulty of this operation. Thank you. Thank you, Qatar.
Sure, can I say thank
you, Madam Chairperson. always support the shall clause in 45 and 46 and prefer the retention of the word shall and the inclusion of serious crime in 1441 Thank you,
Shokran, Kenya. Thank you, Kenya.
Thank you, Madam
Chair. And good morning to everyone. The delegation of Kenya would like to own with respect to article 45 and article 46, to retain the words shall and regarding article 48. We would prefer to have the language as it's currently drafted. Thank you.
Thank you, Yemen.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. And articles 45 and 46. We prefer the retention of the word shall Particularly in view of the importance of this in international cooperation, and we also support the addition of serious crimes in 1441. However, we had mentioned that in certain cases, and the imprisonment of three or four years in our domestic legislations is Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I hope by the end of this day, we will have achieved our common objective, Madam Chairperson. We stress our our preference of the retention of the word shall in 45 and 46 and the addition of serious crimes in 1441 Thank you.
Shokran Amen.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Online supports previous delegations who have expressed their preference of the retention of the word shall and 45 and 46 and the addition of serious crimes to 44 and 41. Thank you.
Shokran. I have on the list the chat Vanuatu, Japan, demotivate stay. So Central African Republic, Tonga, United States, Cote d'Ivoire, for the Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic, Chad. Merci, Madame.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The chatty and delegation support says keeping in the word shall rather than May in articles 45 and 46. Thank you. Cool. Thank you very much, Vanuatu.
Thank you, Madam Chair, concerning articles 45 and 46 102 expresses a preference for the term shell, but nevertheless it is willing to exercise some flexibility with the term may in relation to Article 48. One or two is able to support references or reference to Article Six to 16. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Japan.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Japan is flexible on articles. 4546 is a regard shall or May, and also articles 42.6 and 43.2. Japan supports the retention of chairs original texts that our best captures the ground for refusal, article 40, south of our 21 D. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you demolish the
Thank you, Madame morning, everyone, the mandalas the delegation of the Melissa want to express our support to the retention of the walls shell in the article 45 and 46. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Lovely to meet some half
the Central African Republic. Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation approves the provisions of articles 45 and 46. And we also are in favor of keeping in the word shall in both articles. Thank you. Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Tonga.
running over everyone, and thank you Chair. Our delegation supports the use of me in articles 45 and 46. Although we do have a preference for Shell, in article 48, we support the US proposal, and also in article 42 and 43 where it has the references to article 40 Paragraph 20. I know it's I know it's a minor error, but I the paragraph should be 40 part article 40 Paragraph 21. Now, given the numbering the renumbering in article 40. And back to chapter on criminalization we do support the USS proposal to delete article 16 paragraph two C Thank you.
Thank you, United States.
Thank you Madam Chair. On article 37 on extradition paragraph 18. Like Australia, the United States supports the text as currently drafted in the further revised text on Article 42, paragraph six, as well as article 43 paragraph two the grounds for refusal. In both articles like the EU, we would like to reserve our position on these two provisions. And finally on articles 45 and 46. The United States supports the inclusion of may instead of shall thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Cote d'Ivoire. Now similar
Thank you Manager. The Republic of Cote d'Ivoire prefers the word shall in articles 45 and 46. Given the importance of electronic proof of international judicial cooperation, we also opt for the current wording of article 48. Thank you. Thank you very much, Russia.
Especially because Thank you very much chair the Russian Federation that supports keeping shout in for politics. Thank you.
speci bubble Choi C. Li.
Chakra. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. We join the delegations who preferred the use of the word shall in 45 and 46, and the addition of serious crimes with a necessity of defining serious crimes, since the current definition may not be suitable in this context, most crimes in the cyber field are huge. Only demeanor is not felonies and are punished by only three years of imprisonment. Thank you. Thank you, Saudi Arabia, thank you. To ensure the effectiveness of international cooperation in accordance with the first article of the Convention. We would like to associate ourselves with those who stress the mandatory nature of 45 and 46 with the use of the word shall pay Piru.
Thank you, Peru.
Good morning Madam Chair. Peru, as expressed by other delegations would like to express a preference for Shell in articles 45 and 46. However, in the interests of consensus, we could be flexible, and also accept me. Thank you. Thank you, the Maldives.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We are flexible. To use the word shall or May. Thank you.
Thank you, Lena, to consider is. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. As I mentioned in previous meetings, we believe that the crime we're dealing with is a crime of a trans national nature. And therefore there is a need to preserve the mandatory nature of articles 45 and 46. The addition of serious crimes so 40 and 41, as well is important. Thank you.
Shokran, Papua New Guinea.
Madam Chair, very good morning to you as well as good morning to everyone in the room. For Papa New Guinea, we are in agreement with having the word shell in articles 45 and 46. And on Article 48, we are comfortable with the paragraph s es Thank you.
Thank you, your book universal
universal. Thank you Madam Chair. Sorry to take the floor for a second time on the same chapter.
But we would like a reference to remain to the serious infringements in articles 40 and 41. And we also want to see article 48 kept in without a reference to articles six to 16 Thank you very much, Uganda.
Thank you Chair Uganda supports the tests as they are 45 and 46. Thank you retention option. Thank you, India.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We have some changes in article 36. We oppose the word applicable international law in article 36. And we believe that the data should be shared subject to the domestic law of the requested state party. And from the reading of article 36. It is not clear which international law is being referred to in this article. Then article 41. Ma'am, we have in the past proposed additions to be made in this article to cater to the taking down of the fishing links. And we are dismayed that these have not been added back in the article we would therefore request that these provisions may be added. And similarly in the article 42 para five we again reiterate our position and secrets deletion. Thank you Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much Panama. Good morning. With regard to 45 and 46. We prefer shall but like Peru, we can be flexible. For the purposes of consensus, we could agree with me as well with regard to article 48. We agree with a US proposal with regard to yesterday's articles to remove 613 to six, thank you
Mr. Ratan Arabiya? Thank you, Madam Chairperson. We prefer a mandatory nature in international cooperation, and we support those who would like to retain the word channel In 45, and 46 Thank you, Dylan.
Costa Rica.
Gracias. Thank you, Madam Chair. Costa Rica agrees with the presidencies, the chairs proposal on this chapter with regard to articles 45 and 46. We support the word shall. However, as other delegations have said, we would be prepared to join consensus. If there were to be a consensus for me. Thank you. Thank you very much, UK.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, colleagues. We would like to add our voices to those delegations wishing to reserve our positions on Article 42, paragraph six, and article 43, paragraph two, with regards to the grounds for refusal. We understand what well we we understand the intent behind these amendments. And we do see that not all of the grounds for refusal, which relate to the MLA unnecessarily applicable here to the the two the two articles which are not mutual legal assistance, however, we we, we do not. We understand that the Budapest convention is the motivation for these changes. But the note the they do not track with the Budapest Convention, which includes specific grounds for refusal, whether requests concerns, concerns a political offense. So we'd like to reserve our position. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. Theo damnable
that's the last speaker I have on my list. Are there any other countries that would like to take the floor Okay, so that brings us to the end of chapter five and we move on to chapter six. And I must recall to you that we have to finish this agenda item item three to then look together at the follow up to our work but now chapter six preventive measures there are we've got three chapters left to look at 678 and nine so chapter six preventive measures.
Hello, so no one wants to set the ball rolling. Egypt
Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, your colleagues, thank you for giving Egypt the floor. We have a minor amendment in paragraph three g of article 53. Since women and girls are not inherently vulnerable, madam chair is proposes replacing the term persons in vulnerable situations by women and girls in this sub para to reread developing strategies and policies to prevent and eradicate gender based violence that occurs through through or is amplified by the use of ICTs taking into consideration the special circumstances and needs for of women and girls Thank you Madam Chair
Thank you, Egypt, Iran.
Thank you Madam Chair for giving the floor to me. And regarding the sub para HR also we have the same position regarding the person in the world nervous situation. And in para just moments. In parallel in the article 53 para three and the sub para de we would like to propose we propose the already the The replacement of the encouraged to the urge in the deep the paragraph and also That's right. In the article 4045 Regarding the transfer of technology, my delegation had the you know, we had a very lengthy discussion about this important paragraph, I mean, paragraph one of 45 as yesterday, it was very clear, it is very important for the developing countries, because the transfer of technology has a pivotal role in the implementation of the, of this convention. And so, in the informal meeting, my delegation proposed deletion of the word possible because this para has a lot of diluted language and make it make the, with this current language, make the transfer of technology ineffective, ineffectual, and unavailing. So, my delegation in addition to the deletion of the word possible in the first line, I would like to propose in the first line of the paragraph one to replace consider with facilitate. And also, let me check the other Hara.
Just to
let me cope with the whole the microphone for Iran,
please. Part article 55. Para eight, we would like to propose are encouraged to be replaced with Shell.
And in the paragraph in the article 57 para seven
we would like to delete because it was in the informal, we didn't. We didn't you know, has any argument we didn't have any argument regarding this para seven. And the phrase, you know, the non governmental organization civil society until the end, we didn't have any agreement to inclusion of this, this part. So, we would like to propose deletion of the last part, because we have it is the, you know, some manifestation manifestations of the stakeholders. And we have not reached, you know, an agreement about this part. So the last part we would like to, you know, to be deleted, and also it was open, and it was not accurate as our friend, the informal. So, that's all Thank you.
Thank you very much, Iceland.
Thank you, Chair. I don't, yeah, I hope I wouldn't have to take the floor on this. But I just want to oppose what Egypt proposed here. And I this is a very, this is a very basic paragraph. And, of course, people in vulnerable situations are a larger group than women and girls. So we would vote to remain they this language as it's dance. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup. Thank
you very much, Cuba.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning colleagues. I think in the previous round, when we discussed this paragraph, my delegation made a comment, trying to help the chair in the sense of solving the paragraph that that was referred to, I think, by my distinguished colleague from Iceland, and before that, for my other delegations, I tend to agree fundamentally with the fact that different groups of persons may be affected differently, by the way you used ICTs are like in many other problems that we have in the UN right now. And they, this is pretty much 2030 agenda language. So From a human rights perspective, or a social perspective, this is pretty much the soundest language or the easiest way we can refer to this problem. Now, the conflicting part of this paragraph is not in my opinion, the fact that the different groups of persons face different realities. The problem here is mixing gender language with that, because at the same time that I believe that both issues are important, they are sending a conflicting message. So, perhaps we can separate the ideas without losing any of them. I think the best way to do that Madam Chair is to put as well as before taking into consideration because the way it is phrased now, it is referring to gender based violence against persons in vulnerable situations. And as I indicated before, the majority of the cases of gender based violence are exerted upon women and girls on the basis of their gender. Now, I know that it's debatable whether we have two genders or more depending on your national position on it. But but in any case, the majority of cases of gender based violence recorded by the UN, are exerted against women and girls, on the basis of them being women and girls. So perhaps without sacrificing any of the two elements on their importance, I don't know if by adding, as well as before taking into consideration separates a bit the two ideas that you want to want develop and prevent, develop strategies and policies to prevent gender based violence. And then that you want to take into consideration the fact that different groups are in different situations. And I would recall that the governing word, the governing word in this paragraph of the text is may consider meaning that there is no legal obligation.
Thank you, Saudi Arabia. Sugar and say the right.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As for the proposal on the amendment of article 43, we wish to support the proposal by Egypt, when it comes to the amendment of the amendment that has to do with the needs of persons in vulnerable situation and the use of the term. Women and Girls. Thank you.
Once again, thank you very much, Madam Chair for giving me the floor. In Article 43. Paragraph h we support the proposal of Cuba, we believe that this adjustment to the wording could reach consensus. And then in 57, seven, we support the amendment proposed by Iran to remove the last part of that Thank You.
Thank You,
Holy See,
Fidel, Russian who by the Russian Federation, and then Cuba again.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Good morning, colleagues. Article 53 paragraph three subparagraph. H we were ready to support the proposal to replace persons in vulnerable situations with women and girls. Hearing the eloquent explanation provided by the distinguish that from Cuba. I think that's a good way forward and we're ready to support that proposal. Thank you. Merci.
Thank you. Russian Federation. Special thank you Chair. With regard to terminology, cybercrime is not an agreed term. The Russian delegation would prefer the use of ICT for criminal purposes. But to achieve consensus as soon as possible, we also would agree with dual terminology we'd like to see that reflected in this document. With regard to gender based violence, also to reach consensus, we would support what was said by Cuba and the holy sea and propose the following phrase, sex based violence either before violence especially against women and girls. Thank you Spasiba,
Eritrea.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation has the same was like the delegation of Iran on Article 57 Paragraph seven. So I my litigation support the proposal presented by the delegation of Iran. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much. Cuba is no one grasping for the floor. Very well done Egypt.
Thank you, madam chair just to reflect on what proposed by the distinguished delegate of Iran pertaining to article 57 Paragraph seven. Article 57 Paragraph seven. This delegation, madam chair doesn't know how this paragraph is bracketed as agreed as referendum. Article 57, paragraph seven, Madam Chair.
Excuse me, Chef, Chef, Delegate Newsong, extinguish delegate. We
are on Chapter Six preventative measures, and I'm sure
I will refer back Thank you.
Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much for your understanding Colombia.
I said my I'm Chairman.
Thank you Madam Chair. With regard to article 53, paragraph three h we would like to keep the original wording Thank you.
Merci beaucoup, la Colombie, Canada,
Columbia, Canada.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor. Starting with the suggestions to alter the language in the technical assistance and information exchange chapter. The proposed changes to 54 one, and 57. Seven are not acceptable to my delegation. On 54, one in particular, reconsider the language that you've come up with to be a delicate balance of strong views in the room, and to further tweak them along in a certain direction is not a way forward. On the article in the chapter six article 53 Ah, I believe we couldn't go along with the original suggestion to alter it. And the Russian Federation suggestion to come up with a novel term sex based violence, and therefore alter STG language and a very familiar term is not acceptable to us, like Colombia, we would prefer the original version. However, the the change with as well as suggested by Cuba may offer a way towards consensus. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup cannot thank you very much, Canada,
Pakistan.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With regard to better paragraph h, which is displayed on the screen. My delegation originally the call to delete this entire paragraph reason being that we believe that this aspect is adequately covered and in the eyes of law, everyone is equal. But we are flexible. After hearing the views and comments given by a distinguished delegate of Cuba. We believe that it's a good way forward if it is included in the text and we would further see and comment and get back to you, madam chair with regard to if you'll invite comments on chapter on technical assistance also, or we can take the floor later. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much South Africa.
So with regard to article 40, sub para three h. South Africa could support the formulation that you currently have on screen. We think that it does contain important elements. But we've also heard some other countries waste concerns, so perhaps Cuba's proposal could be a way forward. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much Burkina Faso. We met Thank you chair. Article 53. Three H. We agree with Egypt and Cuba. There's a sort of mix of gender related language the guard to persons vulnerable persons. I would prefer the option proposed by Egypt, referring to women and girls, but we are also flexible. If the proposal of Cuba can help us move forward. We cannot accept it the way it is as it is now. Thank you. Thank you, Burkina Faso, Chile.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With regard to article 53 h we prefer the original language that you proposed and maintain the term persons in vulnerable situations. Thank you. Thank you very much, Norway.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding para haitch of article 53. We support the intervention from Iceland and Canada and we strongly support the retention of this paragraph and original language. Thank you.
Thank you, Slovenia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, the delegation of Slovenia wishes. Happy New Year to all the colleagues celebrating today. We would like to express our support for the addition of the words as well as in the paragraph age, as we believe it reinforces the protection of both women and girls and other vulnerable groups. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
icquoter Thank you very much, Ecuador. Gracias. Thank
you, Madam Chair. Ecuador can accept Cuba's proposal with regard to paragraph H of article 53. And in that way, the two groups would be protected. Both the those affected by gender violence but also persons in vulnerable situations for Ecuador. The protection of these two groups has to be clearly established. Thank you. Merci
beaucoup, Mexico. Thank
you very much Mexico, which has gracias.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Mexico is open to assessing the proposal put forward by the distinguished delegate of Cuba. However, we think it's essential to keep in these two components in the text. Thank you.
Yes, the Baku go study.
Thank you very much, Costa Rica. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Costa Rica believes that the language of 53 H is adequate. And it addresses the needs of these two population groups. And so we support the original wording being maintained. Thank you very much. Surely there is no way to make that remote?
Thank you, Madam Chair. We wish to support the proposal by Egypt and Kuba when it comes to article 53. Ah, thank you.
Especially because I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair, the language proposed by Russia violence against women and girls. There's also internationally agreed language. But in addition, it's neutral in nature, and that would suit the majority of states and that is why we would like to see that phrasing. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much. Molly Massey, madam. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to once again, commend you for your efforts. On article 53, three h we support Egypt's proposal for clarification. Thank you. Thank you very much, Switzerland.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to article 53, paragraph three, letter H. Switzerland would like to join Costa Rica, Norway, Iceland and Canada and others in expressing our support to keep the original language as contained in this paragraph. Thank you. Merci
beaucoup.
Thank you, Cameron. Without Thank you chair, my delegation is extremely hesitant regarding the phrasing of 53 three h as is displayed on the screen and is very sensitive to the proposal made by Egypt, that it was supported to remove any ambiguity. Thank you very, thank you very much for the chair Iceland.
Thank you chair and apologies for taking the floor. Again. I was just so surprised earlier that we were even talking about this. I thought there was complete consensus in the room and safeguarding women in all of the situations that they find themselves in online but apparently we have nuances in our approach to that so I wanted to explain a little bit more. Why I found it necessary to take the floor here and when we are talking about it Gender Based Violence is a range of issues that we are talking about. And women girls, and those that define themselves within that sphere of the denture. Sphere, are in difficult and are sometimes different situations. And if we do what cube is proposing here, we are making it so that it is not an application, or it's not important to look at the intersectionality aspect of the discrimination or the challenges that women face online. And a very good example here is, for example, a disabled woman, if we do what Cuba is proposing here, that then we are not talking about developing, looking into the specific challenges that disabled women face, but only disabled people, or gender based violence. And I think this is a step backwards, if we do this, and I would urge the group to consider too stick to the original language that is, and I have to commend the drafting of it as it stands, because it's very eloquent and touches upon the important things. Thank you. Miss,
thank you very much. In fact, we've all drafted this together, but at the end of the chair, make a decision. Based on her personal assessment, here, I'd like to ask everyone to avoid general discussions or explanations. At this stage, we are carrying out a third reading of the text with Secretary take notes, have a note down to our comments to make sure that everything is documented. But we're not going to adopt anything today. Let's be clear. So the end of item three, you will see I will propose some steps to move forward, and then we'll decide on how to proceed. But for now, please, as we were doing since the beginning of this morning session, please propose concrete language or agree with others on concrete language for particular articles on or paragraphs. Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Cuba to clarify your proposals. Thank you, Cuba.
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, my proposal was to help you because we are very much in tune with this paragraph in our national capacity. The problem is, I think that, as you said, we are in the third reading of the set of the seventh session of this, the argument made by my distinguished colleague of Iceland, with which I very much agree except on the fact that we don't refer to people as disabled, rather with disability, but then that's also something that we could discuss is not going to be solved in a cybercrime or ICT process. It's a bigger discussion than that. So it seems to me again, maybe a former, an island has to be a bit more pragmatic about things in life. That we need to be sure of what it is that we can agree, the reasoning of what the intersectionality of things, which I agree with is not going to be solved in this text. So if we want to have language in this regard, which I think we should, because it is very clear that one women and girls is a different group, very large and very diverse, too, they face different situations that us as men do not. And three that there are other groups that also are in a similar position in different contexts. If we want to keep that that language, I would presume that we should try to be pragmatic and drafted in a way that people can in this room, accept it. Because otherwise you can go to your regional document and draft the things that your region can't can support. But this is supposed to be a un document and it needs to reflect a minimum common denominator for 193 Member States. We are in your hands Madam Chair,
near Cebu.
Thank you very much Azerbaijan, followed by Peru, Namibia, Panama, Senegal, El Salvador, Botswana and back rain me as Azerbaijan.
Thank you Madam Chair. Let me say about article 53 paragraph three ah. We will like to retain the original wording because these terms are different in Thomas Stick loss of member states in the same time, girls woman is not covered all persons. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, pero.
Thank you very much for giving me the floor. Madam Chair once again, with regard to paragraph H of article 53. Peru can support your proposal as it is. With regard to prevention and eradication of gender based violence, this is fundamental, and it can't be left out of this text. Thank you
all Namibia. Thank you, Peru, Namibia. Thank you, Chair,
let me just support the explanation given by the distinguished delegate of Cuba. And in this regard, we would like to support his proposal to incorporate that language in terms of as well as, of course, Madam Chair, gender based violence is is an issue to us. And it's something that we take very seriously as, as a government, but to incorporate presence in vulnerable situations. I think we would be very much flexible and comfortable with a proposal by Cuba. Thank you, Chair.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much. Panama.
Aquila. cinquante, tres. Article 53. H, we support the current proposal of the text that you presented, Madam Chair. Thank you. Yes.
Senegal.
Thank you, Senegal. Nothing. Thank you, Madam Chair. And 53 Three H. Senegal has reservations about the current language. Even if, for us sex based violence would have been preferable. We still could accept the mention of personhood and reservations. But with regard to proposal of Egypt. That could be a compromise between the two. Thank you. Merci. Beaucoup. Thank you very much El Salvador.
Whenever the Good morning, Madam Chair, thank you very much. You've asked us to be brief. So article 53, paragraph H. On that article, my delegation would have a preference to keep the language that you have put forward in the revised version. However, we recognize the concerns of other delegations. And in a spirit of being constructive, we think that Cuba's proposal could represent common ground. But we do also thank the distinguished delegate of Egypt for stressing women and girls. But for us, it's important to keep in the reference to persons in vulnerable situations, because that is the gives the broadest category of protection. And we think that Cuba's proposal is a possible compromise solution. So it would read
taking into consideration their special circumstances in need of person in vulnerable situation, which are Gracias,
thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Muchas gracias. I will stand
very much to you. That's why now.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And at 53 three h Botswana supports the retention of needs of persons in vulnerable situations. At 54. We endorsed the statement made by Africa group last week to call for transfer of technology to be included. Now on the on some three Elia articles 16. To see we support the US proposal to delete 16 to see 4546 articles.
We support the use of May thank you very much. Thank you, Botswana behind
Thank you Madam Chair. When it comes to article 53 h we wish to support the proposal by Egypt and we'll also consider that it is a common ground that will enable us to reach consensus. Thank you.
Thank you madam chair on Article 53 paragraph three sub para ah we support your text. Thank you.
Thank you Tanzania
Bill madam chair on 53 three h we support the proposal made by distinguished No get off Cuba. Thank you.
Thank you, Sudan.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be brief and comes to article 53. Ah, we wish to support Egypt. Thank you,
Eritrea.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation support the proposal of Cuba. Separate age of article 53. Thank you.
Thank you, Australia.
Australia joins our voice in support of article 53 paragraph three, eight. The proposal to replace gender based violence with violence against women and girls would not be neutral strategies and policies to prevent gender based violence would encompass prevention of violence against women and girls. We also support the separate reference to persons in vulnerable situations, which recognizes that people are not inherently vulnerable, but vulnerability can be generated by context, violence and exclusion. So we're fully supportive of paragraph eight without amendment Thank you.
Merci.
Thank you, Vanuatu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Concerning article 53, paragraph three h one word to support the original language of your further revised texts, and is unable to support the proposals made by the distinguished delegates of Egypt and Cuba. Additionally, Madam Chair in relation to the proposal to amend article 53, paragraph 3d, one word two prefers the term and courage in the in the original of your text, and does not support the proposal to change the language to the word, urge, because it is not in harmony with the opening permissive words of other paragraphs and the permissive language in the support of paragraph three. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you uza Hong Kong.
So we still have the United Kingdom, United States, Qatar and the Philippines and Jamaica, and I stopping the list United Kingdom.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regards article 53 paragraphs of paragraph three D. We've, we've listened with with interest to the various arguments put forwards this morning by different delegations, but we would like to support retention of your original draft. We feel that it represents a delicate balance. And we think it would be a backward step to upset that delicate balance. Thank you, Madam Chair. I beg your pardon. I was referring to paragraph H. Apologies. So it's 53 Three H. Yeah.
Thank you, United States.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief, we would add our voice to the distinguished representative from Iceland and retain the chairs text on 53.3. H on a number on a couple of other matters while I have the floor on 53.3 to the United States remains opposed to limiting the scope of participation of relevant individuals and groups outside the public sector in the area of prevention. So we believe that the phrase the relevant aspects of should be deleted there. And also, just as a technical point, there are currently brackets in the text in 53.3k when we believe that the paragraph was agreed at referendum and we think that the bracket should be removed, thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much GitHub.
She couldn't say Teresa. Say my husband, mother, Thoreau, the same men for Kurata.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to 53 three h. We agree with Egypt, Egypt's proposal. That is a conceptual view, I think The Philippines. Good
morning, Madam Chair, the Philippines would like to register its intervention for article 53. Ah, the Philippines could accept to keep the language as it is. But in the spirit of the consensus, the Philippines is flexible in supporting Cuba's proposal. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you, Jamaica.
Thank you, Madam Chair. CARICOM can continue to support article 53 paragraph three subparagraph D as drafted, we can be flexible on the wording in article 53 three e and continue to support articles 53 Three, h three i as drafted, we lend our support, madam chair to articles 53 paragraph four and paragraph five as drafted and can continue to support article 54 One, and 54 three subparagraph a curriculums preference, madam chair is for the word shall in article 54 Paragraph eight. We can continue to support article 5014 as well as article 56 paragraph four and article 56 Paragraph six. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. jermichael Republic, the cohee. Republic of Korea.
Thank you Madam Chair. Very briefly, we would like to express our support for the text as it stands the respect to the soul paragraph H article 53 Thank you.
Thank you, Albania. Albania. Thank you, chair again. With regard to the article 53 paragraphs Ripper ah, we do support the retention of the original text. Thank you. Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much, Yemen. Lead the fellas outcomes in Salah cell Fogra. Madam Chair, with regard to 53 three h. We agree with the Egyptian proposal for the reasons put forward by the delegation of Egypt. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair and apologies for taking the floor again. So South Africa support your language and 53 three D and I and we also support the inclusion of shell in 54 para eight. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much. Very well. So that brings us to the end of the list of speakers. Chapter seven. Now, we have seven, eight and nine to go. I suggest that we take seven and eight together chapters seven and eight. We'll consider them together. labia, Saudia, Saudi Arabia, as you can see the rise. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a proposed amendment. On paragraph 757, article 57. We propose paragraph seven of 57.
We propose to stop with the information proposed by state parties information provided by state parties and ad.
And by the states parties with regard to review mechanisms, I repeat in English
as may be established by the Conference of the state parties. Why did he why the deal I say the Raisa this
amendment, madam chair is in accordance with the Convention on Transnational crime, as well as the anti corruption convention, that is our proposal there for an amendment in paragraph seven of 57 Thank you.
So crunches Elam.
Thank you very much Iraq as the floor.
Couldn't say the raise.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We would like to express our support for what was proposed by Cuba. With regard to 53, three h. We believe that this is something that is beyond the text that we are discussing. It's a broader debate than this convention debate today. And moreover, the wording proposed by the chair is not is not consensual Thank you. So, Quran Jessie, thank you very much. Thank you to Egypt.
there is paragraph four and we see that there is a term subject to their domestic low in the middle of the of the Para and we see that this is not appropriate or not correct, because, if we put it here Madam Chair, it will it will not cover the entire paragraph. So, we are asking for moving subject to domestic load to the beginning of the paragraph to the beginning of the paragraph, Madam Chair, taking into consideration that the second part of the of the of the paragraph is talking about the close cooperation between state parties and relevant international nongovernmental organizations civil society hasn't done so, it has to be subject to the domestic law. So, Egypt for paragraph four asks for moving subject to domestic to the domestic law to the beginning of the paragraph in paragraph 54 Six. We would like to highlight Madam Chair, that the listing of stakeholders in some relevant provisions of the further revised text is inconsistent with the listing adopted in UNCAC and onto particularly paragraph 54 six which is inconsistent with article 61 paragraph two of Konkuk therefore, it proposes madam chair the addition of the term in accordance with domestic law before the ward relevant to add in accordance with domestic law before the word relevant taking into consideration madam chair that we had broaden the list. So, we have to highlight here that it will be difficult to address all these list of all categories of stakeholders at the same level, Madam Chair, I'm I will stop here madam chair and I will come back to the chapter seven unless you allow me madam chair
are very thin some digital? Well,
we are already on chapter seven. So you may continue. Rajeev Newsome, Egypt, we are already looking at chapter seven. We finished with chapter six.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Stan.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With regard to article 54 paragraph three subparagraph. A, we would like to include after investigation including digital forensic investigation
and Madam Chair, moving on to article 55 paragraph one, after trends we would like to include and risk assessment to translate the transfer of technology amicably in article 56 paragraph two subparagraph B. After the word and material assistance, we would like to add and transfer of technology and then the paragraph would continue reading to support the efforts of other states in sub paragraph D of the same article. After the term and training programs, we would like to add and provision of modern propriety software, comma hardware, and then it would continue. With regard to article 57 Paragraph seven. Madam Chair, we would like to support the comments made by a distinguished delegate of Iran. We also believe that this paragraph is open. We are still continuing and having discussions over it. And we would also support its deletion of the last part, as suggested by a distinguished delegate of Iran. Thank you very much.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much. And now we'll give the floor to Iran.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, colleagues. First of all, my delegation would like to support the intervention made by distinguished delegations of Egypt and Pakistan, we could go along with all proposals made by distinguished delegation of Pakistan. In addition, Madame Chair, again, my delegation would like to reiterate to remove where possible, it was very difficult for my delegation to go along, even with mutually agreed terms right now, the room accepted, we can go along with that, but to having two caveats, where possible, is not fair to put it in the text and we would like to remove it. And also to remove consider on relevant stakeholders as distinguished delegation of Egypt mentions, there is no consensus to have a definitions on that because different roles of stakeholders. So we cannot put all stakeholders in one basket, we would like to, again to make reserve our reservations on stakeholders. My advice is to go back to the articles, including in the part of technical assistance and put the relevant stakeholders as we have this practice on on CAC. So we cannot go along to put relevant stakeholders in this chapter. And of course, in the whole of the conventions, and madam chair on paragraph five of the this article mentioned, I mentioned, Article Five mentioned to, at the end of paragraph mentioned to stimulate discussions on problems of mutual consensus. Maybe the best the best term is challenges to discussion on challenges of mutual concerns or something like that problems to talk between sovereign states or problems. I think it is too strange. And in article 55, paragraph two at the end, including it is difficult for me to see on the screen, Madam Chair.
Please, yes, they put at the end, including best practices to prevent and combat such offences in their own CAC use, as well as I think the appropriate terminology here is as well as and we'll look to change including to as well as thank you Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup. You cannot die left click to suit, South
Africa and then Russia, Canada. Replicated. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I plead to the room. I have an observation about article 54.6. There's been a request to add subject to domestic law. However, the article begins with states shall consider assisting what other upon request? Are there any domestic laws that we should be aware of Madam Chair, that prohibits states from considering assisting and other upon request? I really don't think this is a particularly a directive or mandatory provision. And so we would oppose the insertion of the caveat and Madam Chair, the other suggested changes made by the last three delegation to intervene, none of which we believe are necessary are things that we believe are best left out. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much, Canada, South Africa.
Take the floor on behalf of the African group. And we'd like to express our appreciation for the very comprehensive article on technical assistance and capacity building with regard to pair of article 54 pair one Madam Chair. So firstly, we thank you as well as the committee for the inclusion of transfer of technology. This is very well appreciated in saying that Madam Chair, we note that pair one is still very heavily caveated, we have the word consider 14th, we have the word where possible, and we have the word and mutually agreed terms. And this article is very important for the effective implementation of, of this convention. So, Madam Chair, we would appreciate and reiterate the call that the African group made is to remove where possible and perhaps maintain the transfer of technology and mutually agreed terms that will be very helpful to us. On a national level, Madam Chair, South Africa could go along with articles 5455 and 56. And we reiterate our call to maintain the language of show. Thank you very much.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much, South Africa on behalf of the African group, Russia,
especially with this.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Russian delegation address with the concerns of Pakistan and Iran on 57 Seven Thank you.
Spasiba. United States.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We have one suggestion, going to chapter eight on Article 64. And then is the threshold for ratification. To reiterate that we stand firm in our support of a threshold of 60, which we believe will only strengthen our efforts on implementation and cooperation. And then, throughout various parts of the text on the issue of stakeholders on which a number of delegations have made comment. We do not believe there should be further weakening or narrowing of the enumerated references to relevant individuals and groups outside the public sector within the text of the treaty. We feel it must reflect the important contributions played by nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions and the private sector, for they play critical roles in both the prevention and fighting of cybercrime. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Switzerland.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor. Simply to echo what was said by our distinguished colleague from Canada and also us regarding the issue of the stakeholder. We fully support what was said by this delegation. Thank you. Merci beaucoup Vietnam.
Thank you very much Vietnam.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving as a floor we have a suggestion for the last line of the convention. Regarding the authorization to sign this convention, we want to share with the drone that the delegation is authorized by the state president. So we hope to remove that phrase by the respective governments. So it will read that all the underside will be duly authorized as the practice in an audit a numbers of UN treaties.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup China.
Thank you, China.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair. As for article 57, paragraph seven, we agree with other colleagues proposals. In other words, this paragraph should end with after international regional organizations. This can help us align with the provisions of other international conventions. In addition, paragraph seven. The content of paragraph seven is very identical with paragraph five and six, there is no need to repeat was already covered. As for article 624, the number of States Parties needed for entry into force. We support the current text or reducing the number of countries for example 30. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much, Norway.
Thank you, Madam Chair, regarding article 54 One. As we said yesterday, we fully understand the importance of the transfer of technology for developing countries. And as a compromise, we could accept the inclusion of it in this article. And in the preamble, but however, the transfer of technology may only be provided when it is possible for our country, we will therefore not support the deletion of where possible, or any other changes in this paragraph. On article 57, para seven we support what was said by Canada and the US and we do not support the deletion of this paragraph or any parts of it. On article 64, we support the US proposal to increase the 60 ratifications. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup. Thank
you very much, Nicaragua. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Delegation supports the amendments proposed by Egypt and Pakistan in articles 50, article 54. And we repeat our support for the amendment proposed by Iran in article 54, paragraph seven. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Brazil.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to everyone who have to comments on chapter 10 or nine, article 64. First, I would like to support your proposal of 40 as the threshold for entry into force, as I said before, and we'd like to reiterate our request on Article 60. Paragraph one, to delete that paragraph. And as stated before, by our delegation, this paragraph is coming from the Budapest convention in there, there is a different context. It's a part of one article that refers to mutual legal assistance treaties within the European Council or within Europe. And that clause there is supposed to allow for those treaties to be applied even when Budapest is enforced. But we already have a very similar provision in our in our treaty, which is 40.5. which states that the provisions of this article shall not affect obligations under any other treaty, bilateral or multilateral that governs or will govern, in whole or in part mutual legal assistance. That provision is much more clear than this one. This one gives an impression that might be lead to different kinds of interpretations about the force of this treaty. And we do not agree with maintaining that provision there. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much Brazil, we still have Egypt, Russia, Morocco, the United Kingdom, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Iceland, Georgia, and Chile on the list. And I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that we really do have to finish items three and four this morning. And we've got one hour left to do that, Egypt.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding the intervention made by the distinguished delegate of South Africa on behalf of Africa, Egypt lends itself regarding with it, particularly pertaining to paragraph one of article 54, which is in line also with the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Iran regarding the deletion of were possible. On article 57. Madam Chair, Egypt still doesn't see the merit in the last sentence of, of paragraph three. And we see that this is a subjective sentence and it won't help in a while we are applying the rules of procedure of the conference on Article 57. Paragraph six is a proposal replacing the word the term relevant stakeholders to two observers, instead of relevant stakeholders to observers, and this is consistent madam chair with paragraph three of the same article. So that because we don't have in the convention now or in there further, revised text is The term stakeholders except in the, in the in the preamble. So, in for consistency, Madam Chair, we are proposing changing the word relevant stakeholders to observers, which is inconsistent with paragraph consistency with paragraph three, on paragraph 57. Madam Chair, we have a real concern that procedurally, we see that this paragraph is agreed at referendum, which is not the case anymore after the third the revised text, because there was the term stakeholders inside this paragraph. And now there is a list of categories of stakeholders. And, to my knowledge, Madam Chair, that this there was a proposal request for the deletion of agreed either if random through was presented to the Vice Chair of the of this committee, and later on, it was referred to the Bureau of the of the of the committee and there was a decision to open this paragraph again, and this is inconsistency with also the ruling of another vice chair for reopening another agreed at referendum. Text so I seek your indulgence, madam chair to delete. Now, the agreed address for
KBM FC
very well, Russia.
Specifically. Thank you Madam Chair. The Russian delegation supports the proposal of China and supports the third Thursday Ratification 20 Rather than paragraph 20 on the ratification. As for the amendment, the Russian delegation would propose a three year time frame after the re entry and departure of the convention given the accelerated development of ICTs. And going back to 57. Three we support deleting the last sentence Thank you.
Oops, my Hawks evoplay Morocco, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair, an article 54 We join other delegation as long as as well as the South Africa on behalf of the African group to delete where possible in paragraph one in article 57. In paragraph six, we request stopping the Para after regional and international and regional organizations. And paragraph seven to stop the paragraph also after international and regional organization. And as has been indicated by my colleague from Egypt, this paragraph has been open so it would be more accurate and adequate to remove the agreed other referendum reference in the in the text. Go into article 64. We support it as actually drafted and the retention of the 40 clause. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much. We have the UK and then Mexico.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm taking the floor to comment on chapter seven. And just to say very briefly that the United Kingdom supports this chapter as drafted. We thank the various delegations for their amendments suggested amendments and additions this morning. But for the reasons that we have previously outlined, and were explained very clearly by the distinguished delegate from Norway, earlier, we believe that the best pathway forward is to stick with a compromise, which is found in the current language. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mexico. Muchas gracias and Euro President. Thank you very much chair. We commend the flexibility of these negotiations. And we have made a great deal of progress in many areas, but we still have a long way to go on proposal of Mexico with regard to raising the threshold for the entry and effectively convention, that's the The APA chapter eight. We believe that we need to combat cyber crimes. And we believe that the entry into effect. That is the rapid entry into effect of the convention could actually undermine our goals. We must keep in mind that presented tivity. We've had a lengthy debate during the drafting of this document, and we would not want to see that with only 20% of members. The treaty is already entering into effect. It should be competitions of the Conference of State parties, they must be endorsed by two thirds. Would that be representative in that case, if the treaty entered into effect, with only 20% of delegations taking part in negotiations? With regard to the adoption of the protocol? Do you think that two thirds of the those 28 states so only 3% of delegations in total? Is it normal for just such a small number of delegations to be able to define the course of this the treaty, if we want it to be truly universal, then we need to raise the threshold for entry into effect, it must enter into effect in accordance with our vision. As for the operationalization of the convention, what is the point of bringing it into force? prematurely if we can't ensure it's implemented, we are willing to work with all member states to combat cybercrime. But we should not rush into this when it comes to entry into force. Otherwise, delegations would not be ready to actually achieve the goals that we've set for ourselves. Unlike what was said by certain delegations, if we set the threshold as at 30, this would not mean that this treaty would enter into effect too late. Rather, it would guarantee the universality and Representative representativeness of this of this convention. Third, we would like this convention to be different from previous texts. This convention ought to be a unique one. The goal of the convention is to be innovative. We think that untucking UNCAC, which were convention signed two decades ago, are good references and the film was cut off by Hollywood, if you could live put if you could turn the microphone back on from Mexico, please i Luiza complexity that extension the last compromisers last. So, these are very complex issues. These are very sensitive topics. This is an unprecedented convention because it has to do with cyberspace. If we settle for already agreed upon language. Then, for example, for the DB and J text, the entry, the threshold entry into effect was raised with the goal of making the DB NJ more universal, that I'm sure as we've been saying, since the very beginning, Mexico will continue to work constructively to ensure that this convention is a truly global one in order to combat cybercrime to achieve that goal, the convention or to entry into effect with broad widespread support, and therefore we reiterate the need to raise to 60 the number of applications and sorry for the entry into effect. And lastly, we would like to ask all delegations who agree with us to express themselves on this topic. Thank you says the chair, Dominican Republic and then Iceland. Gracias.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to everyone. With regard to article 64th on the entry into force, we fully support Mexico's proposal and all of the arguments that have been put forward by Mexico just now. Namely that the number of ratifications is 60. That's 30% of the UN membership. And a convention of this kind relates to international cooperation. And it's a global global in nature. So it can't just be 20 or 30%. If we can't get 60 ratifications in the first year, we'll have been wasting a lot of time and money. Thank you.
Chair, three points. We would like to support Mexico's proposal very compelling arguments that we Support. We'd also like to support the statement earlier from Norway. And finally, for practical reasons we would have to oppose the proposal regarding 60 per one from Brazil. That would not work for us. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup la Gog. Thank
you very much, Georgia.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Georgia. So far, it's the language of chapter seven as drafted as regards the proposed amendments on stakeholders to article 57. We object to them and we strongly support all the agreed language. We were convinced by the reasons submitted by Mexico regarding the number of ratification so we strongly support raising this number to 60 Member States. Thank you, Madam Chair. Merci beaucoup
Yoshi. Lee. Thank
you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to refer briefly to article 57. My delegation feels that we should keep the wording of paragraph six and seven. My country thinks the participation of interested parties is essential. And we agree with the current wording. And that's been key throughout this whole process. Particularly this will be important with regard to implementation. With regard to article 64, paragraph one, with regard to the proposal from the distinguished delegate of Mexico we to feel that the number of ratification should be increased to 60. And with regard to article 65, reducing the period for amendments, my delegation can not accept a period that would be shorter than five years. Thank you.
Merci renewal Opa. Thank
you.
Mr. President,
thank you Madam Chair,
equal 54 by half one. We do not support the deletion of where possible on Article 57, paragraph seven, we object to the changes which have been proposed. We also not that if we start reopening paragraph, which were agree that referendum, this is not a good indication for our future work. On article 60, we strongly object to the deletion of paragraph one. And on Article 64, we would like to align ourselves with the distinguished delegates of Mexico was eloquently expressed. Why a higher number would be better Damascena because not. Thank you, Chair.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much Tonga.
Madam Chair and article 64. My delegation supports the Mexican proposal to increase the number of ratifications to 60 Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much. There is still a very long list of speakers. Indonesia, Liechtenstein, Namibia, Nigeria, Egypt, New Zealand, Kenya, Iran, India, Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, El Salvador, Canada, South Africa, Coronavirus, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, United Kingdom, Peru, Colombia, Jamaica, Serbia, Ecuador, Panama, Benny in Guatemala, Albania, Singapore, Vanuatu, Australia, Yemen, Argentina, Eritrea, Honduras. And then
zoo Cueca I I really am in your hands. They can continue to express our positions. But I think that we must be reasonable here. And we must understand, as I mentioned before, that we're not going to adopt anything today definitively What was already agreed upon, I hope will not be reopened. We have come a long way. But honestly, can we consider that all the presidents have been have been duly taken into account? And if you allow me, I would suggest that we consider that at this point. Well, listen, I suggest that to uphold democracy and inclusion, I can give you the floor. But please just be as brief as possible, because we need to wrap up items three and four this morning. And give the time to the rapporteur to conclude the report for this afternoon. We have other agenda items to consider including any other business. And there are countries I think that will wish to have I'm not encouraging this, but perhaps some states that didn't make the declarations or statements on that item of the agenda any other business. So lets us be quick. Indonesia and Liechtenstein Indonesia first.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be very brief. On article 57.7. My delegation would add our voice in supporting the proposal made by Egypt and Iran and our article 64 With regard to anti de force model legation is to retain the Tres hold to the fourth installment of the vacations since we are dealing with the growing complex of threat of the Cybercrime itself. So there will be our intervention manager. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup li stashed. Thank
you Liechtenstein.
Thank you Madam Chair, so no time to lose. Liechtenstein supports chapter seven as was drafted regarding article 64. In chapter nine Liechtenstein supports a high number of fortification, and wishes to support the statement by Mexico. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup. Thank
you very much, Namibia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair, let me just align to the intervention made on behalf of the African group by South Africa with regards to transfer of technology. Yes, for now, that is all chair as you ask us to be very brief in our support. So just on the reference to where as possible to be removed.
Next, merci beaucoup Niger. Thank
you, Nigeria.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Nigeria will be very brief, we would like to align ourselves with a statement delivered by South Africa on behalf of the Africa group, we consider that article 54 already has a number of caveats. The paragraphs begins with consider affording. And that is to say that we're possible is no longer relevant is actually they don't don't in this paragraph, and we would like to request that it be deleted. Regarding article city for Madam Chair, after two to three years of intensive work, it is our expectation that many more countries would like to sign up and proceed to this convention, and would not like to, perhaps, begin to imagine that that might not be the case, and will begin to encourage many more countries to sign up. So we'd like to support Matt and kirs proposal for 40 Member States to for this convention to come into force. The on top and UNCAC is one of the conventions that have enjoyed almost universal law session. And that is a president in those instruments. So like to support your proposal in this regard. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Egypt.
Thank you, Madam Chair, back to paragraph seven of article 57. Madam Chair, this language is not in consistency with with Uncock. And I'm talking in this in this regard. And it's part of article 32, paragraph four of untuck and 63, paragraph three of Uncock. And we cannot imagine madam chair that we are talking about an on review mechanism that other than state parties will be involved within and this is a matter of sensitivity. Madam Chair, we are not challenging the important role of the stakeholders in assisting the member states in preventing and combating relevant aspects of the use of ICTs for criminal purpose CES. But we are here talking about a review mechanism, which is only the mandate of these state parties that are parties to this convention that signed this convention that are obliged, according to the provisions of this convention. And the distinguished stakeholders have no obligations or mandate in the implementation of this convention. So this is from the substantive point of view. That's why we are supporting the proposals made by the distinguished delegate of Saudi Arabia and Iran in this regard to stick to the Uncock and on top, again, Madam Chair, procedurally nothing is agreed upon till everything is agreed upon. And it happened before Madam Chair during this session, that one of the provisions were agreed as referendum and it later on it was bracketed again. Second thing Madam Chair, the very content of this paragraph has changed in the further revised text, the very content so I cannot oblige myself to add agreed at referendum for something that already has changed. As simple as that we are talking about procedures, Madam Chair, and substantively, as well. I thank you.
We may see the Egypt Thank you,
Egypt. You're absolutely right, New Zealand.
Thank you, Madam Chair. New Zealand supports the proposal to amend article 64 to 60 member states as proposed by Mexico. Thank you.
Merci, Kenya. Thank you, Kenya.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation supports the position of South Africa as read on behalf of the Africa group on Article 54. One, for the deletion of the words where possible, and also on mutually agreed terms. We believe the provision of technical assistance should not be conditional. Madam Chair. In order to reach consensus, my delegation can be flexible on the on the use of the words on mutually agreed terms. Regarding article 64. We support the proposal by the distinguished delegates of the United States as well as Mexico regarding the number of ratifications required before the convention enters into force. We therefore support the raising of the threshold from 40 to 60. Thank you.
Thank you, Kenya, Iran.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I don't want to repeat what distinguished delegation of Egypt mentioned on Article 50 Paragraph seven, many times we have requested during in formals in Vienna, and during the formal meetings we requested to remove accurate as referendum as some delegations requested and we hope the Secretariat at the next session, take oath, agreed at referendum and madam chair on Article 57, paragraph three, we would like to remove the last sentence from such rules to the end, because the talking about the principles which principles we are talking about, for example, principle of national ownership for the first time I have heard about that on 58. On Secretary the place, we are open to discuss that, but we we didn't agree to go along with the UN ODC. So this is we are I agree with to this language, but we are open to talk about which policies on Article 60 paragraph one, it is on precedent on unprecedented language, a strange language which give priorities to other agreement and truth is, it's not necessary to mention it that the convention to make itself a weakened and so it is really a strange language and it's not necessary to put it in the convention and we would like to be removed from the text. Thank you very much.
Thank you, India.
Thank you Madam Chair. Then we would like to reiterate our positions on Article 57 and 64 on 57 para seven. We do support the removal of sentence after the words regional organizations. And in para 64 We support the retention of the 40th instrument as in the current text.
Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you, India, Burkina Faso.
Merci Madame Allah.
Thank you, Madam Chair. For 54 One Burkina Faso supportive proposal of South Africa on behalf of the African group to remove the mention of if possible for 54. We support your proposal of 40 ratifications, thank you. Thank you, says the chair Zimbabwe
Thank you Madam Chair. We would also like to fully support the proposal delivered by South Africa on behalf of the African group to remove the word work possible in 54.1. And also to commend you madam chair for balancing the contesting interest in article 64 By making sure that 40 is the required number of countries that are needed for the ratification or for the entry into force of the convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Merci. lattanzio. Knee Thank
you Tanzania.
Very brief on Article 54, we align ourselves with the position made by South Africa on behalf of the African group calling for the deletion of the words were possible. On article 57. We join previous speakers in calling for the replacement of the words relevant stakeholders with the word observers, as proposed by Egypt. And we also strongly support those submissions made by previous speakers in paragraph seven for the sentence to end with the words regional organizations. Madam Chair, in article 60, we support the proposal made by Brazil calling for deletion of the article, but I'm sure the previous version had the caveat which had a balanced text, whereby those countries could could only do so as long as the objectives and purposes of this particular convention are not defeated. But having this language is in its current form, reduced reduces this convention to to the extent that it may not be operative in the presence of other regional instruments, and Madam Chair in relevant parts of the convention, and in line with existing international legal framework, for instance, MLA and extradition, that can that can happen in bilateral or regional regional terms, but in extradition and MLA, but making the convention not operative or subjected to regional treaties and instruments is not acceptable. In Article 64. We also support the original text. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup El Salvador en que el Salvador.
Mucho gracias. Thank
you very much, Madam Chair. So you've asked us to be brief, I will be, we would recommend what Mexico suggested and reaffirm what we have previously said with regard to our first intervention. Thank you. Yes, Canada, very much Canada answer.
So that sickness was on sank article
65. One we preserve a petition for now, as for article 64, we entirely agree with the detailed and convincing argument of Mexico and ask for all ask all delegations to on this important issue to consider supporting that proposal. So we can have legitimate and effective convention which ought to also be universal, therefore, Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, South Africa.
Thank you, madam chair with regard to article 64 entry into force, South Africa supports the threshold of 40 as reflected in your text. Thank you.
Thank you, South Africa, Kiribati.
Thank you, Madam Chair, will be brief. We also support the proposal made by the our Mexican colleagues, Mexico in relation to raising the threshold to 60. And I think, to have this convention, truly universal, and especially to make it so that at this time, put criteria to do to put into force I think it will be quite conducive for international cooperation and collaboration. If there's consideration on more states, rebuy, racing destruction, so we truly support Mexico proposal on this regard. Thank you very much. Thank
you Kiribati Nicaragua.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With regard to the ratifications we support China's proposal that it should be 30. Bearing in mind that this convention is very important for our countries. We can't forget the responsibility that we have as states to protect our people. With regard to the bad use of emerging technology, we support Russia's proposal. Thank you,
Nessie, Costa Rica, Costa Rica, Gracia.
Thank you, Jeff. The arguments of representation, operational lism. And the complexity of this convention are overwhelming. That's all been explained by Mexico. That's why we support the figure of 60 in article 64, thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Two points. So in chapter eight, article 57, paragraph seven, we support retention of the references to nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions and the private sector, given the vital importance these groups will have in helping us to implement our convention. In chapter nine, article 64, paragraph one, we would join those other delegations in supporting the very clear arguments put forward by Mexico to raise the ratification threshold in order to increase the universality and therefore the effectiveness of our convention. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
modality. And thank you very much, Madam Chair. baru would also like to express a preference to maintain the language relating to civil society organizations in paragraph 57. And also with regard to article 64. Although at the beginning, we were in favor of 40 ratifications for entry into force. After having listened to the eloquent statement by Mexico, we can now support the Mexican proposal. Thank you. Thank you, Colombia. Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation would like to support Mexico's proposal with regard to article 64, to raise the ratifications to 60. And we'd like to maintain five years, as suggested by Chile for article 65. Thank you very much, Jamaica.
Thank you, Madam Chair. CARICOM supports article 57. Paragraph two as drafted, and CARICOM calls for the inclusion of article 60 paragraph one in respect of article 62 paragraph two, CARICOM supports this paragraph as drafted and it is consistent with language in UNCAC, and own talk in large part and the language peaceful means aligns with language in the UN Charter and other UN documents in respect of article 64 paragraph one Madame Chair, CARICOM supports that are the article as drafted which includes the reference to the 40th instrument of ratification. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Miss C, Sam.
Thank you, Sofia.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor. Serbia fully aligns itself with the position of the European union representative. And also, we would like to support the position of the Mexican delegation regarding the number of the countries which should ratify this convention to put it into the force. I would like to emphasize that this convention is much more complex one comparing to the both Uncock and ontact conventions, that for the sake of the right implementation within the criminal justice system, systems of foreign countries, we need a very broad approach to it, and very complex implementation of the paragraphs and legal norms within the convention for the application by the criminal justice authorities, and as the lower number of the countries which should be the ones needed for putting into the force, this convention would not suffice the purpose and the cause of this convention. Thank you.
Thank you, Ecuador. Ecuador.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ecuador supports Mexico's proposal with regard to article 64. So that there will be 60 ratifications for the entry into force of the instrument. We believe that's indispensable in order to guarantee the effectiveness of international cooperation. Thank you, Panama. With regard to article 64, we support Mexico's proposal and then with regard to 64 one we will Like to maintain the current text as well as an article 57. Thank you, Ben in. Seema. Thank you, Madam Chair. We'd like to thank you and all members of the Bureau Secretariat and distinguished delegates here present. For the level of consensus that we've been able to achieve. We would like to just refer to article 54. If we want the consensus to continue to prevail, then it's no good applying conditionalities with regard to the transfer of technology, it's not only a requirement, it's also directly in line with human rights. It's all about solidarity, it we can't have partial implementation of human rights aspects. If you regard this issue as a subsidiary matter, that's a different thing that has to be subject to some conditions. If we follow that approach, sooner or later, we'll see that those of us that are asking for a clarity that we are not going to be the first we won't be the first victims, we are not going to be subject to this attack. Those that those that want partial and implement implementation will be the victims here, I would suggest that we remove any sort of conditionalities if you want the spirit of consensus to continue to remain Thank you. Thank you very much, Guatemala.
Guatemala,
Guatemala. Thank you very much, Madam Chair Guatemala, reiterates our support for the proposal made by Mexico this morning, with regard to the need for 60 ratifications for the entry into force of the convention. We believe that a greater number of ratifications for entry into force reflects the support and generalize commitments of the membership to achieve the goals that are being pursued. Thank you. Thank you, Albania. Thank
you chair. Also, Albania considers very important and complicated implementation of this convention. So that is the reason that we also support the proposal of Mexican regarding the number increasing the number of ratifications also we support the proposal of EU on not deletion on 57, para six, and 54 para one. Thank you. Thank you very much younger pool.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On article 64 entry into force we join other delegations in support of the US proposal and Mexico's intervention to raise the number of ratifications to a higher number. Thank you.
Thank you, Vanuatu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. One or two in the main supports the text of your further revise texts, or ever concerning specific items. One or two, is able to support the statement delivered by the distinguished delegate of the United States in relation to the retail retention of reference to stakeholders in article 58, as it underscores the crucial role of stakeholders in competitive combating cybercrime concerning article 54 111, who is able to exercise flexibility to retain the expression where possible in regards to article 64 One or two supports the statements of distinguish delegates delegates of the United States and Mexico in relation to increasing the threshold to 60. The number of countries required to ratify the convention before it entered enters into force for the reasons given by the delegate of Mexico. And lastly, one or two does not support the proposals made by the distinguished delegates of Pakistan and Iran in relation to articles 5456 5556 and 57 and expresses their preference for their current language of your further revised sticks. Thank you very much. Madam Chair. Merci beaucoup,
Australia very much Australia.
Thank you Chair Australia remains fully supportive of the inclusive references to stakeholders throughout The convention, including in chapters seven and eight, for example, Australia supports retaining article 57 Paragraph seven in full. The valuable contributions of diverse experts help states states parties to implement the convention and to get closer to the goal of combating cybercrime. For the final provisions chapter, we join the EU CARICOM and others in retaining article 60, paragraph one. And Australia supports Mexico's proposal for article 64. Thank you.
Thank you, Yemen.
Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be very brief. For article 54. We started with consider, and therefore we consider that we should keep the text as it as as for preventing crime. And this regard, we consider that in line three, we need to keep the prevention preventing and countering and we believe that this should be included wherever this idea was mentioned in the convention. And sometimes we are referring to combatting and not combating and preventing and I believe that this that both terms should be retained. Thank you, Jen. Tina. I see. And
thank you very much, Madam Chair with regard to article 61. Referring to effects of the convention, my delegation would like to support what was said by the distinguished delegate of Brazil. Because there are no legal there are no legal reasons to include a provision of this kind with regard to article 64 entry of into force. My delegation feels the debate on the number of ratifications for entry into force of a convention, that should be a universal convention is not something that has been dealt with for the first time in this organization. The debate about universalization of convention of this time has been discussed at various times. So we think it's important to recall the precedence of UNCAC and untuck. In this regard, it's important to be constructive and flexible, and therefore we support the drafting proposal that has been made. Thank you,
Eritrea.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Eritrea has opposed the proposal by the delegation of South Africa to remove the phrase were possible. In paragraph one of article 54. On paragraph seven of article 57 by delegation support, Egypt and many other delegations remove the agreed referendum on entry into force by delegation supports your proposal on Article 65 on amendments, my delegation support three years. Thank you.
Thank you, Honduras. Gracias.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to article 64. My delegation would like to state that with Mexico's proposal is very relevant here. And that's why we support that proposal. To increase the number of ratifications to 60 for it to enter into force. We think that that will guarantee more robust cooperation in this delicate area. Thank you. Thank you, Venezuela.
We support South Africa statement on behalf of the African group with regard to the transfer of technology in 57. One with regard to the number of speaker corrects with regard to 57 Seven, Venezuela would prefer the parameters that are used in UNCAC and untuck. That is an inter governmental mechanism where other interested parties have a role, but we don't feel that that goes as far as the scope in article 57 Seven that power raft cannot be considered agreed because it was never agreed with regard to the entry into force now. We support the proposal from China. That refers to the figure of 30 states. Thank you. Thank you Republic of Korea.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving me the floor. My Intervention is brief. With respect to article 64, paragraph one, on entry into first republic Korea support the current text of 40s Country countries as a threat hold. But having heard the Mexican delegations proposal, which is considerable, we will keep listening other delegations reaction and get back to you. Thank you.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Thank
you, Madam Chair. When it comes to article 57, era seven. With the report, we support the removal of the paragraph that comes after regional organizations and many member states have highlighted the reasons behind that, including the rationale provided by Egypt. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I just want to support the proposal made by Egypt on Article 57.7. And then, madam chair on 64, my delegation, want to join the list of other delegations who are in support of your text as it stands. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Algeria.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My delegation would like to support the statement of distinguished delegates of South Africa made on behalf of the African group regarding the deletion of the word in where possible and article 54. And we would like to support article 64, as drafted on the father of its revised text. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Paraguay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief article 61. We support results proposal for the same reasons, and article 64. We continue to support the proposal of 40 countries. And since it's the first time, last time we'll be taking the floor, I think we would like to thank you for your efforts and that of your team. Thank you very much.
Muchas gracias.
Thank you very much, Pakistan.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With regard to article 54, paragraph one, we would like to join others calling for removal of the term where possible. The African group, and many others have commented on this and Pakistan would like to join the list of speakers with regard to that. Madam chair with regard to article 64, we like to thank you that you hear the voices in the room, there is the voice of increasing the threshold, there is a voice to decrease the threshold. But we believe that you have maintained that delicate balance by limiting it to the 40th instrument of ratification. So we'd like to support the formulation. And as proposed in the further revised draft tech, thank you very much. Thank you very
much Pakistan, Egypt.
Thank you, Madam Chair, very briefly, Egypt would like to align itself with Brazil and Argentina regarding the deletion of paragraph one of article 60 For the reason that they have illustrated on Article 64. Egypt aligns itself with Pakistan. We were in favor at the beginning Madam Chair for having a 30 ratification as a threshold but listening to the room, we can go along with with 40 is proposed by the chair, taking into consideration madam chair that we are here asking for a conceptual convention. So everyone here in Charla will, will agree on a conceptual text. So that pre empting those who are very eager to expedite the international cooperation, it's something that it's not understandable for us because this will mechanism will apply only to the state parties. And once we have a consensual text, I think that let those who can expedite the ratification process, have this important instrument to start international cooperation on preventing and combating the use of ICTs. for criminal purposes. I think
Armenia
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be very quick on Article 64. Initially were supportive of the text as drafted. But we also heard Mexico and understand the rationale behind their proposal. And we could also consider supporting the increasing the number of the threshold. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Georgia.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize for taking the floor on these chapters. Again, we would like to add our voice to you in Australia recently supporting article 60 paragraph one, on the effects of the convention, it's essential provision for us, without which we can may not be able to join this convention. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Parga, Paraguay KB, IBM, Uganda. Thank you chair. Since ratification defines the international act where states indicate consent to be bound by the Treaty. Uganda believes that delegations participating in this process but appreciate the need for consent for timely implementation of the Convention given its importance in fighting crime, and more so cyber crime and the need for mutual legal assistance for cases that have been that may come up anytime the number of sets presently participating in the negotiations appreciate the need for the conversion and definitely above the number of 14 therefore retention of the number at 14 article 64. One is appropriate. And Uganda, further aligned. Further Uganda aligns herself with a segment meant on made on behalf of Africa group in respected deletion of the words were possible in article 54. Thank you.
Thank you, Senegal.
Senegal. Thank you, Madam Chair. We agree with the proposal made on behalf of the African group to maintain the entry into force at the 40th ratification. Thank you very much Papua New Guinea.
Madam Chair, Papa New Guinea, on Article 54. One as it relates to the proposal by a rather the chairs text as it is, we would prefer not to hear where possible in the text. And secondly, on Article 64. Originally, we had suggested to support the threshold of 40 ratifications, but having considered the issue and haven't had the room, we are flexible to go along with 60 verifications. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Bosnia Herzegovina.
Thank you very much for the tread. We support proposal by Mexico on Article 64, increasing the ratification threshold before entering into the force. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Yeah.
Very well. There are no further speakers on my list. So we have finished item three, the review of the text of the convention. We now can see that we have not yet been able to reach consensus that everybody wanted so much. Personally speaking. I have met a lot with a lot of delegations, who very clearly indicated to me that they wanted to continue to discuss because they feel that we are close to consensus. And within the bureau, we have addressed this issue and after having consulted with the members of the Bureau. I'd like to put to you the following question. During the past two weeks, we have worked tirelessly all of us to reach consensus on the draft text of the convention. And I thank you all for your efforts to reach this consensus. However, I understand that more time is necessary to reach consensus on the key issues. Yesterday's and this morning's discussions have confirmed my belief that not all members of this committee are convinced that the text should be adopted at this stage. However, I understood as I was saying that there is a consensus among member states that this convention is urgently needed and that all delegations wish to continue to fine tune the text and agree on the last outstanding provisions. So with the Bureau's support, I would therefore propose to the committee to suspend the session and to resume it at a subsequent date to finalize the text of the convention. For this purpose, I would propose to this committee to consider and approve a draft decision of the General Assembly, which was prepared by the chair with the assistance of the Secretariat, and which would be annexed to the report of this session and submitted to the President of the General Assembly. The proposal for this draft decision is contained in document, a stroke, a seed 291 slash l 13. And that has been circulated by the Secretariat, I would now like to ask the Secretariat to put that on the screen this draft decision. If you have any editorial comments to make or linked to the translation of the decision in various languages, then I would ask you to contact the Secretariat directly by email. Given the time constraints that we have, as you can see, it's 12/5 D eight now. I'll give you a few moments to get the document and to read through it if you weren't able to see it previously. And I'll explain it a little in this draft decision, which is simple, and of a technical nature. The General Assembly would decide that the concluding session be reconvened, and it would request that the ad hoc committee conclude its work and provide the draft text of the convention to the General Assembly. In accordance with this draft decision, the resumed concluding session would be held with the same modalities of all committee sessions held to date in cluding, the concluding session before moving on, I would like to invite delegations to consider this technical proposal for the purposes at hand and to refrain from suggesting text on issues that we know by now may not gather consensus at this stage. But we all hope that we will be able to achieve that at the resumption of the session. I would now like to give the floor to the secretary attic for an announcement lady, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Secretariat would like to inform the that draft decision a slash ac dot 291 slash L, DOD 13. And today's program budget implications and was circulated to member states in the morning in an advance an edited version. Should the committee adopt decision a slash ac dot 291 slash L dot 13. Additional resource requirements would arise under the following sections of the program budget for 2024 in accordance with a document shared with member states. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much lady. So the floor is open, I hope to agree to the decision to resume our work once that decision is taken by the General Assembly. And I met with the president who said that he will make an effort to support us
by the parole,
no one's asking for the floor. No requests Thank you very much. I think that's a wise approach and talking about wisdom
and referring to the celebration today of the new lunar year I'd like to be inspired by the wisdom of Asia and introduced to all countries and peoples that are celebrating the new lunar year. I will. I'm wearing some red to bring good luck as well. So let's all be tolerant. And let's all love each other. Thank you very much for that support. We haven't finished yet we haven't finished yet. So we've completed the agenda item three. Thank you for that. Now we move on to agenda item for a draft General Assembly Resolution. Given the decision that we've just adopted, you'll understand that under this agenda item, draft resolution of the General Assembly is the title. And given the decision, as I say that we've just taken to suspend the concluding session and resume it at a later date, I propose to also postpone the final decision on the draft General Assembly Resolution in order to submit the draft text of the convention to at a later stage, as well, as we've just decided, may I take it that the ad hoc committee agrees with this proposal? Are there any requests for the floor? No, thank you very much. It is so decided I declare agenda item for closed adopted. Yeah, listers time listening Stein.
Thank you so much. And Madam Chair, I'm very sorry to hold the room. I just want to make a quick statement regarding the decision we just took. And because we're disappointed that we were not able to agree on a positive outcome within the time that was allocated to us, we would have preferred to reach an agreement. And we want to thank you for your efforts in guiding us through these discussions. Given where we are at the discussions, Liechtenstein understands that the decision to extend that a committee so that we can ultimately arrive at the well founded and broadly support the convention is right. This is an important treatment, and it is essential that we are able to agree on a text of a quality that is required for it. However, at this stage, I must emphasize that this is a particular difficult decision for a small state with limited capacities and human resources such as such as Liechtenstein. As a small state, we have been actively involved since the very start of this negotiations. But this renewed extension has significant impact on our financial and personal capabilities to continue to cover these negotiations. We clearly did not make good use of our time, and we don't have anyone to blame but ourselves. Thank you very much.
Merci beaucoup.
Thank you very much Liechtenstein. That is true for the vast majority of countries. And I would even add that even the wealthiest countries, even for them, it's not normal that we cannot abide by our timeline. But that is in all of your hands, you're all responsible for the situation. But I will still say that we should not be pessimistic. I think that at this stage, the adoption of the decision to postpone the conclusions of our work and to continue to hope for the adoption of a convention on cybercrime by consensus. This is already a very ambitious hope. This is a step in the right direction, because we've come a long way, as you know. So I would like to say that personally, as chair, I have seen a gradual improvement in flexibility toward one another. And I hope and I believe that at the closing session, at the resumption of the closing session, we'll be able to see even more flexibility. So that's what I wanted to say, at this point. Thank you very much. I thank all of you. And also, I'd like to add that I sincerely thank the governments who supported the progress that we've made, and to my government as well, because it was not at all easy. Given as you know that the UN does not cover the post have a chair and the team. I only have one person supporting me and Secretariat as well. So I'd like to thank Secretary out as well. And I think my superiors as well, for standing by my decision to be as neutral as possible, this has not been easy. We've had a great deal of pressure from all sides. But my government supported me in the choice to be transparent, neutral and inclusive. So I thank my government for that. I now give the floor to the chariot, which has information to provide to you before suspending our work for the lunch break.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to the draft report for the concluding session of the ad hoc committee, the Secretariat would like to draw the attention of delegations to the fact that all parts of the draft report with documents symbols, a slash ac dot 291 slash L dot 12 a slash ac dot 291 slash L dot 12 slash addendum one and a slash a C dot 291 slash L dot 12 slash addendum to have been made available on the website of the session. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Merci beaucoup. Lissa Katana. Yeah, thank
you Secretariat. It is now 105. So we must suspend our work for this morning and we will resume this afternoon to finish with our agenda. Thank you.
