Good afternoon. Distinguished Your Excellencies distinguished representatives, ladies and gentlemen, you're welcome to afternoon plenary. On the shadow, we are going to look at chapters one, two, and three.
Four this for the sake of making progress in the, for the sake of making progress, I would like us to go back and start from the beginning. We there are a couple of things that were packed this article. Even in article one statement of purpose, we had something that was outstanding. So basically, I would like us to run through this, hopefully, like Crusader delegations have had time to reflect, have had time to consult. And there is room for people who have been have either succeeded in convincing others who had opposition to their proposals, and we can then make progress. All right, so with the kind permission of the room, I would like us to start from Article One, we Article One, a, was a great add reference referendum, B was a great ad referendum see had the issue of and transfer of technology. Let me see what that was the proposal for that. And may I ask the room if we're able to agree with the addition of the proposal and transfer of technology?
United States you have the floor.
Thank you very much chair. Again, we continue to look at this language in Article One. The language is already addressed in technical assistance. And from our perspective, it is posing enough challenges and technical assistance. It makes more sense to avoid repeating these arguments in Article One, subsection C. So the United States continues to promote the deletion of this language. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right. Sorry, just just a minute.
All right. Thank you very much. It would appear that one. Okay, we'll pack that as it is still. It has it's not reaching consensus yet. So we'll move on to the next article. So we move on to chapter two. And chapter two, I would again crave your indulgence is that we go we start from adding Article Six, to look at the some of what we had packed and how much progress we can make regarding regarding that. Okay, so Article Six, paragraph one, a grid add referendum. Now, paragraph two. We had the issue of there was the proposal to add or any access without right on lawfully by Iran. And then there was an alt support To replace dishonest in terms of intention. So I'm just going to turn to the delegations that made these proposals straight up. First of Iran, what is was the level of
discussions regarding the addition of this language and then in the room does the addition as proposed by Iran, do we is it acceptable in Article Six? Paragraph two, please. So first of all, I said the request for the floor from Yemen, Yemen, you have the floor.
Shukran said, Thank you, Mr. Chair, concerning paragraph two of Article Six, it was suggested concerning the offences, and here we're talking about a pure offense, whether there were security measures or not, it will be considered as an offense. Some laws have as a precondition, the presence of security guarantees or arrangements to be able to commit such an offense in a computer. Thus, I don't think there is any problem if the issue is open to the states nationally, to have as a precondition security measures are not Thank you.
Thank you very much. Bernard. Daraa, salaam, Dar Salam, you have the floor.
Okay, sorry. Was that technical problem with the mic for Brene? Okay, well. Oh, all right. Okay, that's withdrawn. Okay. So the United States, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, just as a point of information, and of course, I defer to you, as well as colleagues in the room. But I thought we had left off with this particular list quite a question of dishonesty and whether additional words should be included in article 12. And not six? I I agree, of course, the same language is there. But my understanding was for those delegations that suggested additional language they were look, they were looking at and focused on the mens rea of the fraud. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I remained pretty much in the hands of the room. You know that with that was why we could not agree. Article Six, paragraph two. And we left off with Yes, that was the conversation that
if at all, the issue about this honesty as relates to what's pertinent to article 12. But while the distinguished delegate delegation proposed that did not withdraw that and we, so we battery it, it is for me to get a sense from the room. One, is it something we can live with? Otherwise, is the world the distinguished delegate delegation that proposed this be willing to consider withdrawing if they if they withdraw that then we can maybe agree and move forward. Ron, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Very quickly, we cannot withdraw our proposal. I think we have explained our rationale for our proposals. And I do not intend to repeat those arguments, but it would be very revealing if there is any need to reiterate our position on this. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. So once again, it is it does appear. Okay. There was also the issue of unlawful So one question is to return to original.
Okay, it will appear that we're unable to make much progress with this as positions remain entrenched. I guess again, we'll pack it. And, and and move on. Okay, let's look at article seven illegal interception. Okay, again, oh, it was the same issue of this honest
dishonest or unlawful. So it does appear we, again unable to make progress. Is there any change of positions with respect to Article Seven?
Militia militia you have the floor
okay
sir militia was that in arrow, you're withdrawing the request for the floor. Sorry Mr. Chair, incidentally I withdrawing. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So just so that we know, we have the same issue of this honest. And, again, I can only just make the appeal that well, if this is, again, something that is peculiar either to your jurisdiction or your your language in particular, because I realized that that might be one possibility, the use of words in a particular language may be different. But again, it does not appear because that there is any willingness to shift grounds. So we pack that to Article eight.
All right, at school aid, again, there was the issue of the addition of the word copying. And I know that we had a long conversation back and forth regarding whether copying formed interference. And we left off with the request to the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation to consider if that was something that they could at a minimum, accommodate within their own domestic within the ambit of their own domestic law. If that is if such possibility exists, then it will appear that we can then agree article eight paragraph one, but if if it does not. Again, we'll pack so the the floor is open. Yes, the Russian Federation, you have the floor.
That special? Yes, thank you very much. As of this moment, it still seems to us important to retain this concept. And this article for reasons that we explained earlier. And it's not just the Russian Federation that wanted copying to be included, as I recall. So for now, we believe it's important to retain it in the article. Thank you.
All right, thank you very much. So again, we can doesn't appear that we can make much progress with Article eight either. Right? Article Nine was a grid tan A grid. 1111 paragraph one, a grid ad referendum paragraph two is where we have a lot of red tags again, the issue of this honest what so I will take it that there is no there's also no shifting of grounds of positions with respect to that because that's what we've had up there. Okay.
What else?
Yeah, article 12. How had all the issues. First of all, the issue of whether Taft, the word Taft should be returned in this in this article in the heading of the offense.
Again, we have the separate two positions, set of member, some member states wanted to retain some member states wanted deleted that a staff deleted from the offense. Again, if there is any reconsideration of the various positions, it would be great to hear from the from the member states who are proponents of the two positions. So, do we have any update on on this? Please? I'm in the hands of the room?
Well, I see no, I see no requests for the floor. And so I will take it that those who want to retain there and those who want to delete are still maintaining their position. We also have the issue of and pardon me, the reason I'm going through this is so that we remember more simply some of what the actual issues that are holding us back from making progress. And also so that delegations can speak to one another if it is feasible, with the possibility of allowing consensus to be reached. Okay, so again, you have in paragraph a the issue of copying, is there. All right. Let me see paragraph three. That was the there was a technical added. Yeah, see, in that mirror? Image? Okay. Yes. There was the suggestion by the United States to use instead of the phrase or the word using to replace that with true. Okay, and so through a computer system or an information and so may I ask the room that we is that our committee in a position to agree this technical edit? All right, I see no objection in the room. So we agree to change the word using to the word true. Q.
flag that. Okay.
So the rest of it doesn't seem we can move. Because it's still the same issue of dishonest and whatever. Okay. So, we have come to article 13. Right. This is where we were when we give up lunch.
Yeah, I see the request for the floor by the European Union. You have the floor. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. We are, in general, be expressed ready to be supportive text as drafted. We will just have very few editorial suggestions for the consideration of the room. In paragraph two. We believe it, it might be worthwhile changing the reference to audio content, audio audio material, just to align it with the visual material reference. So this would be just a simple editorial alignment basically. So it would refer to visual material and may include written audio material. That's one suggestion. And another one in paragraph five Just to make it a bit clearer, he would add in the first sentence, the first sentence would read consistent with any domestic or international obligations for material involving children, and then the rest would continue. And then in the last, I mean the end of the sentence, instead of persons depicted, we would suggest to align language and say persons involved. These would not change the substance or of the of the provision just to clarify a bit more of what you intend to capture here. This is what I wanted to just say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. May I ask the room if this technical edits, were in a position to agree with this technique? I did. So was that with one, paragraph one?
Repeat. Paragraph one was?
Okay, I see the request for the fluff from Iran, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you very much. Your Excellency. I think this room stands witness that we have quite in depth discussions and these articles in these in the informal consultations, and I think everyone could could attest that there are many, many other standing issues with with this article. And we do not necessarily see the proposal now reflecting this in this way, necessarily an editorial proposal, we're not in a position to now go along with those additions Thank you.
Oh, okay. For the edit for paragraph two, it's I have the Secretariat, it's, it's up on the screen so that we can look at it. Yes. And, again, my where we have come to the reason I'm taking point by point I know there are several issues with this. And but if we're able to take on each word, each date and possibly find a way to resolve it one way or another, we may make progress. So that's why for something that is for this, again, my question will be
is this a proposal that we can live with in terms of both aligning the text and or does it do damage to paragraph two, as it is? Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, dear colleagues. From our point of view, Mr. Chair, I think that we need first to finish what was raised before before starting on considering new proposals. So we have a proposal regarding the deletion of without right that we didn't finalize it yet. We have a proposal on paragraph one D proposed by the distinguished dedication of Brazil and supported by other than that, we would like to reduce that our support to the Brazilian proposal on one D as introduced during the informals four, paragraph two, we have other proposals that we this delegation had proposed during the previous formal plenary session, and also this delegation on behalf of other countries around 20 countries and supported by others during the last plenary asked for the deletion of paragraph three and paragraph five. So I would highly appreciate it if we can consider first what has been introduced before? At the beginning before going to consider other proposals. I thank you.
All right. Thank you. So what? What does the room want to start with? And I'm asking this in terms of we had the issue. Can you put that up? The do we want to look at the proposal to sort out the issue of without right, there was the proposal from CARICOM. From the distinguished delegate of Jamaica. So on then there was the proposal by Iraq. The Secretariat, we'll put both of them up now so that we can look at it. And like, you all know, I'm in the hands of the ad hoc committee, it is your decision. Any of this that you find agreeable?
is so good.
Okay, Your Excellencies distinguished representatives, ladies and gentlemen. I did make a proposal to take on additional language that and that the aim was to enable us to remove the word the phrase without right at the top of Article attaching one. That proposal was countered? Well, okay, there was an alternative proposal by the distinguished delegate of Iraq, which also seemed to not address all the issues. And then we had this proposal from Jamaica, which we didn't quite get a chance to really look at. So but I for now, I am thinking that these two proposals from the two distinguished delegates maybe I even look more likely to have help us reach consensus. So the question in the room is are we able to look at the proposals are we able to leave with the proposal by Iraq or the one by Jamaica? The floor is open please.
Well, because there are two proposals up there, I can't say May I take it that the room agrees with? So okay, let me ask are we able to leave with a proposal by the distinguished delegate of Jamaica?
Oh, okay, looks like this is going nice.
Okay. No, okay. Singapore, you have the floor please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Singapore supports the proposal by CARICOM. We think it does balances the need for flexibility that some legislations have sought in order to for example, protect law enforcement We need to handle such material, while at the same time avoiding the word without Right. Or the phrase without right, which is, seems to be a red line for for some delegations. Also in comparison to the the alternative proposal, and I'm sorry, I can't recall which delegation put that up. The alternative proposal only refers to law enforcement and other competent authorities. Our concern would be that doesn't cover necessarily the the people who would need to have legal access to see some material in the cost of perhaps assisting victims of such crimes. Thank you.
Thank you very much, that is so eloquently put. So with that, may I ask that? Would it be safe? Oh, okay. Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We appreciate the efforts of our distinguished colleague from Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM, for the good faith and their efforts in bridging the gaps. In our view, however, five all two actually has a very broad scope. The scope of this convention, this draft convention is supposed to be investigation and prosecution and possibly adjudication of crimes referred to an established in accordance with this convention. And I do not think that this is the mandate of this adult committee to address any other matters that falls outside the potential scope of this convention. We heard in the informals, from different delegations, that their main concern is about the actually activities of law enforcement and judicial authorities. I think five Alto is very beyond that, that concern and for that reason, we cannot accept five or two on five also one, we might be flexible, but I have no final instruction on firewalls one two, thank you.
Okay, May I May I, with the permission of the room, this is not mean taking a position, but this is for clarification. In the informal rules in the informal informal rules, and in all the discussion that has gone on around this, it is not it is clear that for several delegations, it is not only law enforcement that will come in contact with some and in a manner that does not, that does, that does not make it the offense itself. So we've heard clearly in the room, that there are situations where researchers there are situations where people who work with victims, they may not be they may not qualify as law enforcement, or other competent authorities, whether they're even civil society, people who are working with victims of this offenses, that medical people there are people who are doing and all such other so if you the issue raised was that if you say only law enforcement, then you will necessarily, for example, be criminalizing a an NGO, for example, that has works with helping victims of this offense. So it is to that extent, and and and the distinguished delegate of Jamaica clearly made this abundantly clear that it was to further balance this out that this proposal was made. Now I've heard that the proposal maybe if it is read as being too broad, would we say that nothing in this article, therefore it's not broadening the scope, it will be simply nothing in this article does not reduce the scope enough for us to live with it. And when I say this, we're trying to find if this formulation is acceptable, we can then take out the word without right and then we can all move on to well try and also tackle the other nitty gritties about this so that like we all have been saying we want to protect children. But we also have I have to have that mutual respect for the different perspectives of different people, different systems. So may I suggest with the permission of the room is slight added to the proposal by the distinguished delegate of Jamaica, to say nothing in this article. So it is not convention when I'm making it that wide but nothing in this article
so the rest remains the same. Is this a formulation we can leave with?
United States you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We very much appreciate the work of the distinguished delegates of Iraq and CARICOM to come up with compromise language. We are concerned with how five ought to read specifically that it's calling out legal defenses and other legal principles in this article and how that would then call into question legal defenses and other legal principles and other articles related to domestic law. And at the same time, referring to generally other legal principles seems to allow the entirety of article 13 to be discretionary under domestic law, which seems to defeat the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish as well as all of the the other long debates we have had of trying to come up with with language that we can agree on for the other parts of this article.
Yeah, man, you have the floor.
I do Mr. Chairman. believe that this article would be acceptable if it avoids controversial issues and I believe if we can amend the first five all to one. Instead of saying adopts we say chooses or opts for will I think we will solve the problem thank you
a segment who are Ruka and the whole Alanna beta did melody Dr. Ho, Murata and okra Hatha and Ashtanga Yoga
namaste
sorry there's no translation to the English language
Mr. Chairman, I said that the proposal by Iraq is acceptable to us as for controversial issues, any controversial issues particularly in the legal field such as this in five Alltwen can be avoided if we start the chapeau with a word consider not adopt consider so on So, and then it would not be mandatory or restrictive we only replace adopt with consider thank you I hope it's clear now
okay, um The thing is that I don't know maybe it's again it's a language issue because there is no adopt in the English
and English text. So in that article, so.
It looks like a session for SIG chapel. Okay. Sorry
Okay, oh, the chapeau of paragraph one, okay. shall consider adopting, but sorry, the distinguished delegate of Yemen. So that for clarity purposes, okay, you're talking about the chapeau of paragraph one right?
Lankan hidden figural Hola, Al Kelemen? Hola. Yes, yes, the first verb and the first sentence, instead of shall adopt, we would say shall consider, and I believe that will take care of it. Thank you. Okay,
Hassan. All right, Australia, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the distinguished delegate of Yemen for that suggestion. Unfortunately, I don't think we could support that change. I think that would potentially change the entire article to being discretionary. You may all have May, rather than shell, unfortunately. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. Let's, let's again, go back to let's go back to what the distinguished delegate of Jamaica proposed. And again, I'm gonna ask the room. It. You see, the thing is, if we say, so, first of all, we're talking about broadness. So if we don't know if the room accepts, in the first line, the change from convention to Article, that's one, if we change that, then we shall now come down, shall have shall affect the principle or any applicable legal defense regarding the conduct, so we changed the words controlling, I don't know if that works, but but we have what I'm suggesting is the deletion of the of all other legal principles. So if we delete that, then we are not we would receive the whole argument around what are the legal principles, so it further narrows it down to what we're talking about. So up there, it will now read nothing in this article shall have shall affect the principle that any applicable legal defense defenses regarding the conduct referred to in article 13. One. I think it would be better to specify adequate dating one is reserved to the domestic law of state party, and as such offenses shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance with that law. So does that help us? Go got it? Possibly it okay. The Russian Federation, you have the floor?
That's for sure. Yes, thank you very much. First of all, we're hearing all the arguments that have been made here in the sense that we risk not covering certain areas where certain materials could be used for illegal purposes. Therefore, I think the usual reference to domestic legislation could solve that problem. Take Iraq's proposal as a basis, but removed from that purposes and subtract salaries and aggression
over this article do not prejudice, the lawful exercise of functions in accordance with domestic law.
Taking over in this way, we indicate that additional functions can be included in accordance with domestic legislation. This would cover Health care mentioned by many here, and all the other various areas, because the use of such materials does a lot does have a lot to do with domestic legislation. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I was asking for the floor before the intervention made by the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation. And I would highly appreciate it if the chair can reflect the the Russian proposal on the on the screen that would be very beneficial for us. The second point, Mr. Chair, unfortunately, we are not in a position to accept the the the proposal made by the distinguished delegation of Jamaica on behalf of CARICOM because of its broad scope, even after changing the world convention to to Article still, it's we are not addressing the issue of the that we are dealing with the investigation and the prosecution of the of the of the crimes. The second point, Mr. Chair, and I hope that you know, from listening to the room, Mr. Chair, I think that the exception or the caveat that is needed by some distinguished delegations will not will not surprise them will not surprise them any and you know, and from our point of view, Mr. Chair that I think that it is possible, just to delete the word without tried in in the shadow of paragraph one, and bearing in mind that we that we are dealing with this term on a case by case basis, not to, to go again and reopen what we had agreed at the referendum in this regard. We are dealing it on a case by case basis, Mr. Chair, and we we know that the caveat that all delegations are proposing will not be accepted to either sides of the of the room. So, just for the consideration, Mr. Chair, and again, I would highly appreciate if we can see the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation. Thank you.
Before I yield the floor to Mauritania, the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation, does that reflect correctly what you proposed
thus possible toliko?
Yes, just a slight editorial edition of functions with sound better I think.
Okay, so that the the proposal reads the provisions of paragraph one of this article. Do not does not okay, do not prejudice the lawful exercise of functions in accordance with domestic law. Okay, before I know there's a request for the floor from Mauritania but just before I yield the floor to Mauritania please highlight this proposal this what I just read out now. Is this proposal agreeable that we can take out the word without right up in the chapel and then we have this in
okay, I yield the floor to Mauritania.
Shukran see the rise.
Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm good afternoon everyone. We understand the concern of Egypt it brought to our attention
serious proposals, and we subscribe to those proposals made by Egypt. So consider them paragraph by paragraph Thank you
Okay, their colleagues, their distinguished colleagues. We're trying to find a way around this. We have we have had different proposals. Okay, Uganda, you have the floor.
Chair, I would suggest that the use of without rights is important to some jurisdictions, but also some jurisdictions find it. Difficult to adjust to it. So maybe using the word or instead of and to replace and be accommodative. All the jurisdictions in the first paragraph may be helpful. If you if person controlling Yeah. Instead of saying and that is when committed intentionally or without rights, so it could accommodate the interests of all the jurisdictions that have challenges with both. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The distinguished delegate of Uganda era appear that we have gone past that road, that junction, because
the proposal to add or lawfully or unlawfully didn't fly. However, what may I ask
the room, please highlight the was the proposal by the Russian delegation, I will ask the Room to Read this. And if we read, read this five B's all too. And it reads the provisions of paragraph one of this article do not prejudice the lawful exercise of functions in accordance with domestic law. So the if this formulation is this proposal is agreeable to the room. We can then remove the word without with a phrase without right up there. But then the concerns about law enforcement is then covered under this proposal as a middle ground may I take it that the ad hoc committee can consider and agree with this proposal? The United States to follow by the year, the European Union, United States you have the floor?
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I believe we would need some more time to evaluate that because I as as it reads, I'm not completely sure what lawful exercise of functions means. I understand what we're trying to get at. But I am not sure how that that reads with with this article or, or with the rest of the articles. Thank you.
European Union, you
have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fortunately, we are also first of all, we appreciate all the efforts to provide a solution here. We will also need a bit more time to consider what's on what's on the screen. But we are very serious concern of departing of the logic of the other provisions where we mentioned without right and here we will not mention it but mentioned something else which mean would mean the same thing as the reference is to be that right? So what kind of message would that send in terms of the implementation? We are not yet sure. So we would we would need a bit more time to consider this. Thank you.
Thank you Jana kingdom. Yeah, the flop.
Thank you, Mr. Chair a, as others. I mean, we are one of the delegations, also the support the retention without rights. So we're very appreciative of the efforts to try to find a way forward. But like others have just said before me, these alternative options can have broad implications. And it's not clear how there'll be read across the rest of the chapter to where we also speak about without rights, but we don't have this additional explanation, if you will, as we do here. And we also would share concerns around the phrasing around lawful exercise of functions and what does that mean really. So our opposition continues to be that we support it as as originally drafted, but happy to keep discussing Thank you.
Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you, horsehair. Basically we have the same concern Thank you. So yeah, we can consider the old proposals right now. But still, we need to more time to understand what it means, actually. So yeah. And And another issue is that we don't want to change the logic of the whole articles. So we have to keep on thinking about it. Thank you.
All right. Thank you very much. I guess there is nothing more to do here. You guys will continue to Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I also appreciate the efforts of the distinguished delegates of the Russian Federation. As I mentioned, we need to check the proposal, our distinguished colleague from Iraq, and also the Russian Federation. But I could say we might be flexible if we could refer to law enforcement and other competent authorities for the reason that we should specify who might for lawful purposes, access to such material. And in our view, the only segment of the public authorities who might be entitled to do that, or those authorities will tend to fight this crime. So now, I do not think that there would be civil societies for example, engaging in this actually kind of axis, as it was mentioned in this meeting today that there might be civil societies who might also be part of this investigation or prosecution, I beg to differ. I do not think that civil societies without prejudice to the contribution that they could have doing supportive fighting described, I do not think that they would be engaged in acts referred to in paragraph A or B for the purpose of fighting this crime. So we still think that we should need to clarify what we're referring to. And, as I mentioned, the scope of this commission is clear. We are not mandated to address a broad range of activities that might in one way or another relate to this convention, regarding the position of some Distinguished Delegates just now, who mentioned that they could they, they, they see broad and political implementation implication from these proposals. I could say that the term without right, in our view has broader implementation. And it's not really clear what we mean by without right. What I suggested was that when we say without, right, it seems as if there is a right to do that. And we do not think that there's any right to engage in such activities, I think.
Thank you very much. I don't know whether this will help. But all right. I guess there is nothing more to do here. I should. I should just let that be. We'll take it. We're not able to work on this. But just before I move away from this, again
with respect to the formulation, the proposal by the distinguished delegate of Jamaica, and the last proposal by the Russian Federation, all we're trying to do here is find accommodation. But my my question, my thought was, and this is a question I want to put to the different people in the room. And you know, this has, the question is were arguing this phrase is, what the implications will be.
Yet, we all say we want to protect children. And we all say that we subscribe to the fact that there is diversity. And in that light, I'm finding it difficult to understand how it is to then I understood I understood the rationale about not wanting to freeze without right because it does imply that someone can say, Okay, this is the right, okay to abuse a child. But when we have a formulation that speaks to law enforcement and other parties, again, I will think that if we and then this is rooted in your domestic law. So I would think that, again, to say no, even in your domestic law, you cannot do this. I think that that is going beyond the mutual respect for one another. I thought that the concern is, what is not what will appear to be totally at odds with your domestic law. So to the extent that it is possible, to make an exception for law enforcement, for the jurisdictions that require it, because they have a different legal system from yours. My humble appeal, because of how much time we've spent on this topic, and really, I think it's just something simple, really, is just about it is root as formulated. Right now it is rooted in your domestic law. So is it not possible that we can take this as a middle ground, and then do whatever we want? In our own system, domestic systems, at least the phrase without right is not going to be there. And to you recognize that, okay, this is a law enforce. And please recognize that if in your jurisdiction, you feel that it is only law enforcement that interacts with victims of child sexual exploitation and abuse. I don't know if you've actually had real experience, practical experience dealing with this subject matter. But
I can dare to say that it is not only law enforcement that has interactions with victims of child sexual exploitation. And I would think that there is somewhere here where the rights of victims in this convention where
we address also the rights of victims. But having said that, up just so that we reflect upon it we will move on to something else. What was the next thing on whether the next thing that we have? Okay, was there any other provision in article 10? That is outstanding?
Sorry, I,
there's a request for the flub by the distinguished delegate of Egypt. Before I yield the floor to you will, I need to also address some of what I have just said also speaks I know that the other issue with adequate testing was the request for the deletion of paragraphs three, and five, by the delegation of Egypt. Okay, three to five entirely three. But, again, everything that I just said with respect to how we consider the formulation, the proposal by the Russian Federation, and the fact that if I ever everything I just said is also applicable to this request to delete these paragraphs again, this same diversity the same, the differences in legal systems and all. So if you now insist that what is applicable to you must apply to others.
Maybe I don't know how it works, I actually must commend the diplomats, but I'm not a diplomat. So I think I'm finding it difficult to understand this, where I say, This is what I want. In my place, I do like this, and you must also do it like I do in my place.
So again, the issue is an overwhelmingly so within the room. There are several delegations who raised specific issues regarding the matters addressed in paragraphs three, four, and five of article 13. So if they're not relevant to you, if within your domestic jurisdiction, they're not applicable, I would think that it will be okay to enter a reservation when you ratify as you ratify or sign on to this, but to then say that for people where this is a an issue is an applicable and practical consideration, that they cannot, they should not even address it even in their own jurisdictions. Again, I find it difficult to understand. So my appeal, can we please have some level of accommodation so that we can move ahead, no matter how we want to protect our children, you have a responsibility to protect your children within your shores within your country, you cannot add do not think, in rest. As far as we have also taken on at school for of this convention, you cannot go and dictate how another person makes the rules to protection of children in their own jurisdiction. I don't know if this makes sense. But again, that's my appeal. I we've been on this for so long. So I don't know anything. I don't know what else to tell what else to tell you guys. Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair for giving Egypt the floor. And definitely this delegation will not try to impose anything to any on any distinguished delegation, we are respecting the sovereignty of other member states. And I'm confident that others will respect the sovereignty of other states. And I hope that while I am not trying to impose anything, too on any country, others will not impose their ideas on us, because here we are talking about the common or the least common denominator in this regard. Mr. Chair, this delegation is not doesn't have the intention to say that what is our in our domestic law must be imposed on others. This is not the case whatsoever. And I am really disappointed that you're the chair of the of this session has interpreted our intervention in this regard in this way. Because from the very beginning, this delegation and other delegations, as well include those delegation, we have 20 Member State has joined the statement of the that was delivered by the the, the head of the Egyptian delegation last last week. And it's not only the Egyptian delegation who talked about this issue, and other delegations. Thankfully, I had expressed their support to this. So it's not the Egyptian proposal anymore. In this regard, Mr. Sherr, we had highlighted the importance of the consistency with the Internet, our international obligations, we are not talking about domestic law. Mr. Chair, we are talking about our obligations to international human rights and applicable human rights instruments, including the CRC and its applicable protocols. In this regard, Mr. Chair, I would read refer to the optional protocol of to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of the children, child prostitution, and child pornography, which has a near universal membership Mr. Chair, and it explicitly prohibits any form of production, position or distribution When of child sexual abuse or exploitation material, having that in an international instrument Mr. shelf that has near universal acceptance doesn't mean that this delegation wants to impose what in its domestic law on others. I hope that it is clear. The second point, Mr. Chair
Thank you very much. Okay. I, I see no other requests for the floor you if Okay, Egypt, you have the floor.
In paragraph three, we had exceptions of the application of Article of paragraph one and paragraph two. And in this regard, Mr. Chair, we cannot in this convention contradict our obligations in in the CRC. So, what we are asking for that, let's be consistent to what we had agreed upon in the in the CRC in this regard having this mean implicitly that there is it is optional to the member states to, to criminalize, you know, materials that depicts or describes or represents a real child or visually depicts child sexual abuse or child sexual exploitation. This is not we are not mandated to do so we are not mandated to contradicted the CRC. This is for art, paragraph three, for paragraph five Mr. Chair, and they hope that the distinguished colleagues read it carefully. Here we are talking about child sexual abuse the article itself, but paragraph five is talking about something else. It addresses the non criminalization of consensual sexual relationships, which is not the Mend which is not in the not nothing is we are not addressing this issue whatsoever. Mr. Chair, we are not addressing the non consensual agreement, non criminalization of consensual sexual relationships. So, again, Mr. Sherr. Our proposal in this regard is let's delete paragraph five because it is not relevant to article 13. It is not relevant to article 13. We are not imposing anything on anybody. And I hope that having this it might impose something on others. Mr. Chair, as simple as that. I thank you.
Thank you, Libya, you have the floor. Not Hamas, Ramalingam.
Well, good afternoon. My delegation joints, the proposal made by Egypt, which spoke on behalf of Egypt and other countries. My delegation subscribes to the Egyptian proposal. So it will be a proposal made by 21 countries, not just one. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. So I have two questions to the room. The first one, what is the reaction to the proposal by Egypt to delete paragraphs three, and five? Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Of course, we support the proposal of our distinguished colleague from Egypt for deletion of three paragraphs three and five. We do also cannot accept the paragraph, paragraph four in its current formulation. And I have to reiterate our position on on paragraph also paragraph two of this article. And as it was reiterated, it's not just one or two delegation. There are many delegations who do not see these provisions consistent with their domestic legal system. The problem is that this draft article was presented to the room and we saw that there are quite different views on this article, we could, you could just see that there are distinguished colleagues who fully support this article as drafted. And we could see that delegations, including my delegation, which cannot accept this formulation. So when we look at the text just right now, Mr. Chair, you could see that our proposals have not even been accommodated nowhere in this article, yet, we are being asked to show flexibility to accept something that is quite in contradiction with our domestic legal system. So if you're speaking about respecting the cultures and legal specificities of member states, we should we should do that in a way that could be acceptable to everyone in this room. And I do not want to go again in the discussions as to why we do not see that article. paragraph three, four and five, are not appropriate in this draft article. But I could say And suffice to that, that our view, as we reiterated many times, is that we should have a zero tolerance policy for this crime for this heinous crime. We could not actually allow any exception or any loophole for criminals to pursue their illegitimate intents and victimize innocent children, I think.
I have the request for the floor from Oman, Saran, Arab Republic, Jamaica, Qatar, Australia. But before I give begin, I run through that list.
I recall, too, that there was a proposal there was a proposal. Can you highlight it? It was by Pakistan and the holy Sea, which was the it was an attempt to see if we could reach a find a middle ground. That proposal I want it is highlighted. highlight that? For five, yeah. Okay, so that proposal is reflected as five ter is on the screen. The My question to the room is, if we look at this proposal, does it will it serve to help us or will it serve to increase the level of flexibility and help us towards finding consensus? So that's also the question in the room. I now yield the floor to our man.
Shukran. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that the Egyptian delegation addressed the issue in details to ensure the protection of children. This is the objective of all countries. To protect the child, we reiterate our support to the proposal of Egypt to delete the third and fifth articles.
Syria, you have the floor Please say the right thank
you Mr. Chair. We in turn support all of the concerns that the delegation of units have has expressed in details we associate ourselves by not accepting the current drafting, especially our articles, or paragraphs three and five. international conventions must also be in line with the rights and cultures and laws of countries. This is provided for even in the international conventions on human rights. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Jamaica.
Thank you Mr. Chair. Jamaica on behalf of the 14 member states of the Caribbean community cannot support the deletion of paragraphs three, four round five.
Thank you very much Qatar, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We support the proposal of Egypt and the Arab statement that preceded by deleting the the articles three and five. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Australia, have the floor.
Thank you Chair, just having listened to the room for the last 34 minutes or so, around this, from our perspective, and I think this was mentioned by Austria numerous times that this offense is about setting a minimum. And it really also aims to provide flexibility learning, as you've indicated, Chair for a range of countries to apply this to their domestic legal system. And the idea that somehow by providing that flexibility, we're going against a zero tolerance policy is is frankly, something I disagree with paragraphs three through two, five really are trying to avoid the application of a very, very serious criminal penalty applying to appoints legitimate sexual exploration of children. And to be very, very frank, again, exposing children unnecessarily to the criminal justice process will have significant impacts on young persons. So the idea that we somehow should should have no flexibility just astounds me. And when we think about paragraph five, and its relationship with the article, I would remind delegations that the article two sets out that the age of a child is 18 years or below, of course, it's subject to some discussion in the terminology group. But I do think it's important that that remains here, especially where we have some delegations who may have the age of sexual consent much lower than the age of 18. And we need to provide that flexibility. And if we, if we can't provide this flexibility, I feel like we will just won't be able to have article 13. And what isn't very unfortunate circumstance that we would have to be able to not have child abuse covered in this convention. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Sudan, you have the floor.
Shokran say that race.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We call for the deletion of the paragraph three and five, our position is clear, as expressed by the Egyptian delegation, as well as in the joint statement, this does not represent part of our domestic law only, but it's part of our values, the values that the Arab countries call upon not only the Arab countries, but the Islamic countries, so they have to be taken into consideration. It's an essential part and it's a red line for Sudan.
Thank you very much. Cameroon, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving my delegation the floor. My delegation has closely followed proceedings with a great deal of interest. This debate has been great waiting on for some time, my delegation would like us to bring the debate up a notch. We're not talking here about civilizing civilizations, or issues of relativity. What we're trying to do is ensure that the law of treaties is respected. But wherever the law of treaties is concerned through the Vienna Convention of 1969, everything's clear. If you look at article 18, who stops who is forbidding us from voiding a treaty of its meaning, that's what's important. If you go to 53 of the article 53 of the law of the treaties in that convention, who says that you can declare something void. If you look at article 13, this same point is rage raised. There is the imperative of just cogent raised here. So we're not talking about issues of relativity, of imposing perceptions, or imposing anything on domestic legislation. Rather, we're ensuring that we're enforcing the Vienna Convention on the Law of the treaties which was ratified, ratified, adopted and ratified, indeed, by all states here so we can't move ahead unless we accept it unless we accept that after having have adopted something, this treaty or this convention there are things in it that declare it void. That is clearly stated that any treaty, when agreed upon is declared void if it runs counter to the principle of just cogens just cogent restricts the contractual freedoms of states, you can't do what you like you can't leave it up to all states to legislate as they see fit. No, just cogens recalls a to us what our obligations are. Thank you.
Thank you, Egypt, you have the floor to be followed by Mauritania. After this two speakers, I plead with the room to close this matter. Please, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I just want to reflect on some of the interventions. First, I would like to align myself with the intervention made by the distinguished delegation of the Cameroon. Secondly, regarding the issue of the definition of the child, and this is a very important issue, Mr. Sherr, which is very related to the current discussion. This delegation and other delegations during the use, the informants of the of the group of years of terms had proposed that let's be consistent with the CRC definition. And they read child shall mean any human being below the age of 818 years, unless, unless, under the applicable law to the child majority is attained earlier, unless, under the applicable law of the to the child majority is attained earlier. And this is a very important issue, Mr. Chair, because when we are in our definition to the child we had underscored and the highlight and recognize that the majority be a majority for having a contract contractual obligations being a majority of joining the law enforcement or the military being a majority for having a sexual relationship. It's up to the domestic law to define that. It's up to the domestic law. So we are by having the definition of the child in the CRC we are solving the problem that we are trying to have a caveat here in paragraph five for it. So instead of complicating issues, let's have the definition as stipulated in the TRC. And the problem for all of us in our point of view will be solved because we are giving the fleet needed flexibility for the consensual sexual relationship to the domestic law. As simple as that. And we at the same time, we are inconsistency with our obligations under the CRC Thank you.
Quick before I yield the floor to the other speakers who have requested the floor I'm gonna ask the question Is this the proposal for example that the distinguished delegate of Egypt has put out is he does is that something that we can take on and remove the provisions in paragraphs three paragraphs four and 503 Lemons What does three say again?
Oh, okay.
Yeah. Okay. So my question is, you know, if we is how to find a way around this, and it is in this regard that I'm gonna put up, whereas that this, there was a there was an ad Time to abridge. Yes, what is highlighted on the screen, nothing in the present convention shall, and then saying it should be broader. Do we see nothing in this article, if it's going to raise up issues of the broadness, we can limit it to nothing in this in this article, but shall affect any international obligations, which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of the child. Now, if this serves,
fine, if we want to go further, and this is, I'm kind of hoping that distinguished colleagues will
fine tune this, if we need to go further. But since we already have the definition, in the CRC as read out by the distinguished delegate of Egypt, if we simply reference that, then it takes on the understanding that for those places where there is a universal acknowledgement that while the age, a child is anyone under the age of 18, in some places, it is possible to reach just like it's spelled out here at the age of legal age to engage in sexual activity, even when you're under 18. So maybe, instead of spelling or and I recall, the distinguished delegate of Brazil had also mentioned, he tried, he tried to formulate something along this lines that we should be is of the CRC I know it. i The exact formulation is what we tried to capture as the five tire which is reflected on the screen. But my question, is this something that we can that the ad hoc committee is willing to consider? That's one, too, if you're willing to consider it, then is this formulation enough? Or do we need to replicate the language in the CRC here, but considering that we are already we already have obligation to sign up to the CRC? I thought that it, there will no longer be the need to replicate that same language here since you already have it. And it's part of a member states obligations. But those are my questions. I hope that those who have requested the floor will also move away from the Elia point of reiterating what you support and what you do not support. Again, it is your inalienable right. But it is not helping us to find the solution. I would appreciate if the room is willing to answer these two questions, and I'm in your hands as to how we proceed. on that account. I returned to the list for the for the to those who requested the floor, Mauritania you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To answer one of the two questions posed.
We support the duplication of the definition of child as provided for in the CRC, since it is an international convention, and an instrument that was discussed and agreed upon. Thus, adopting such a definition is better than attempting to find a new definition. That was the result of the informal deliberations for there were two attempts, one supporting reaching a new definition and another to refer to the initial definition and the CRC. So this is an answer to one of the two questions you asked. Turning to our position visa vie this article under consideration, especially paragraphs three and five. We reiterate the call to delete both paragraphs based on what has been stated previously which were repeated by more than one delegation. In particular, What has been stated by the Egyptian delegation? Thank you.
Thank you, Syrian Arab Republic, you have the floor.
Chakra. Thank you, Mr. Chair for giving me the floor once again. In answer to your question on the definition of child in the CRC, and what has been stated by our colleague and brother from Egypt, we'd like to stress that the TRC have adopted a comprehensive definition. 196 are parties to this convention today, those who believe that this definition has been ratified and adopted universally, and it is almost a conventional egg agreement on defining the age of child when this age was selected, it was aimed to provide protection. So the aim was to ensure the protection of child taking into consideration his utmost interests. Thus, we supported this definition as provided for the CRC Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much.
Now, two things. The definition of a child that is in this revised draft text of the convention, is actually what is used in the tip.
And in the use of terms, there is, of course, the issue of defining who a child is. And I do not think that there is a deviation from that. So, based off of that, I'm going to read to ask this question again. If we take that into consideration, would it suffice to use the language highlighted here, and if fog, if you add to clarity, we can directly reference container to say, conducive to the realization of the rights of the child, as maybe we cross reference the CRC to add clarity. Now, in that regard, it is then possible. And, you know, I'm sitting, I'm just trying to find a way of how we can do it, how we can accommodate each other. Right? So if we do that cross referencing, it then means that for those who don't want to see explicit reference to consensual legal activity on our law, it's basically it's akin to the same thing. And then when states are criminalizing you, it still says consistent with your domestic laws. So is that something that we can will that fly, please, jump back Jamaica, you have the floor.
Instead chair, we have listened to the views in the room and against the background that we do not seem to be making much progress with article 13. We can withdraw or proposal which was five bisol to three. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. The United States you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, to address an earlier question of yours about five tear. We appreciate the language in there and we support its concept however, we do not believe it's comprehensive enough to cover the concerns that are addressed in paragraphs three through five. We also cannot support the definition of the CRC. Not only did it not Consider international criminalization in the drafting of that definition. But importantly, it did not consider cyber crimes. It was drafted in 1989. It was not considering the ideas of what we are talking about here, it was drafted, did not consider cyber crimes or an offender can abuse a child in another country without leaving his home country with just being behind his own computer. It didn't consider Child Sexual Abuse material that can travel from one country to another and go from being illegal to legal based on a changing definition of the child in a blink of an eye. There's been a lot of talk about a zero tolerance for this crime, but allowing a definition of a child that can be set at any age without even a floor of a particular age based on the country's decision of what majority means, which also depends on how majority is being used. It is allowing the, it is not creating a zero tolerance of this crime, but is creating a complete variable of this crime. This allows a country to set the age at for example of a child under 10 years old. So an 11 year old child no longer has the protection of article 13. That means this, this child could be coerced into producing Child Sexual Abuse material and be held criminally liable for it without the protections of articles four and five. If it's produced without consent, or if it's distributed outside of some type of consensual relationship, it would be criminalized under this article. Articles four and five are trying to create a zero tolerance for this crime for all those under 18 With a few exceptions that are specifically meant to protect children. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. All right. Let's do this. We pack articles dating. And unless someone comes up with a magical solution, I guess I don't know how it works. But we will just be listening to I agree, I support and I don't support. All so let's try something different. Okay. I'll move on to let's move to article 22. Let's see if we can make a difference. All right. Article 22. All of it. Okay, all but paragraph D is a grid add referendum, and was the reservation by Australia, the EU and its member states. I do not know if we're in a position to consider this. If it is something that we can get some feedback whether the ad hoc committee will be in a position to consider and agree this ad referendum or the reservations still stays. The floor is open. Australia you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair. If we can have a little bit more time with this. That would be very much appreciated with the indulgence of other delegations. Thank you.
Sorry, pardon me adding to that.
If we could have a little bit more time to work through that. That would be appreciated. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. Again, there was some of the Yeah, which
are the article we had 2621
Paragraph six
May I ask the room if the ad hoc committee is in a position to consider and agree? Paragraph article 21 Paragraph six ad referendum please
Okay,
I do not see any objection. And it is so agreed.
Okay
yeah,
Okay, Your Excellencies may I request with your kind permission that we look at article 21? paragraph four there was the issue raised around fog around that paragraph. May I ask that with a slight change? Is it is it on the screen? Can you okay? I am, I intend to suggest a small edit, which hopefully would should make this paragraph more acceptable with so I will ask the Secretariat to put this up for your consideration?
Yes, highlight that.
So, article 21 paragraph four is highlighted on the screen.
The, the proposal is to move to rephrase it as as follows. So, it will now read each state party shall ensure that any person prosecuted for offenses established in accordance with this convention enjoys all rights and guarantees in conformity with domestic law and consistent with the international obligations of the state party, including the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defense.
May I ask if the ad hoc committee is in a position to consider and agree this paragraph four ad referendum? Okay. Yes, and this amendment is an amendment proposed by Madam Chair as
Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Since this proposal has been proposed, just now please give us more time and we will try our best to at the end of this this plenary reflect our view on this amendment in paragraph four. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much the United States you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, just the same request from the United States. Thank you. Okay,
thank you very much, Egypt. You have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that this paragraph, we consider it within the context of the package regarding the reference to human rights in general in the in the envisage convention. So I think that we might come back to consider it at a later stage after seeing the the entire package and how it will land. Thank you.
You're not acting dumb. Yeah, the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're also in a similar position as many other delegations we support the paragraph as drafted but we need to consider it further as it's linked. Discussion of scope and safeguards. Thank you
Okay, thank you very much. Let's see what are those? Whatever piece of business may we conduct successfully? Okay, Egypt, you won the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that paragraph seven will be considered at a later stage because it has the details. are friends established under this convention? But there is another proposal, Mr. Chair, to add the word applicable before the word protocols in the last line to add the word applicable before the the word protocols in the last line, thank you
let's see what it looks like
all right. Again, I just want to ask the room up, that's the proposal to add the word applicable before protocols. Is that something that the room is willing to live with? Is there an app? Is there a change that we can live with?
Oh, okay.
All right. Do I take it that that is acceptable to the room?
Yes.
Okay, so we affect that change? Thank you.
Because there's nothing better because we have T offense established.
Okay, my my other question, staying with paragraph seven. We may ask if the ad hoc committee is then in a position to consider and agree. Paragraph seven ad referendum please.
This issue or that issue? Okay. Offense is the problem. So we might have What did he want?
All right. So I see no objection in the room. So I may I take it that we can mark paragraph seven as agreed ad referendum. And it is so agreed.
Yeah, any other thing that we have left? I mean, all the other sentences. Agree we agree.
Okay, may I wait with the permission of the room ask you to look at article 20.
And I asked if the ad hoc committee is in a position to consider and agree, ad referendum article 20 as it is.
I see no objection, and it is so agreed on referendum
and also 21 paragraph one. Isn't that already agreed?
All right, with your permission may ask us to move to article 21 paragraph one.
Don't get too ambitious.
May I ask the ad hoc committee if we're in a position to consider and agree? Article 21 paragraph one ad referendum please. I see no objection. So agreed. And I thank you for your kind consideration. Article 21, paragraph two. What was it?
Yes, article 21, paragraph two, there was the it. It's also a tiny bit. Right. The issue of instead of me putting shall, is that something that we think we can show flexibility on at this point? Yes, the Russian Federation, you have the floor. Especially you,
thank you very much. It still seems to us that since this paragraph is about the Critical Information Infrastructure should be made mandatory. Through the use of the word shell, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, maybe I don't have the energy to try to work through this. Let's try. Article 21. Paragraph three is the ad is ad hoc committee in a position to agree. Article 21, paragraph three ad referendum, the United States you have the floor.
With apologies, Mr. Chair, going back to paragraph two, the United States has edit to offer at the end of the paragraph. We believe that critical infrastructure is the more commonly understood term. And so I would propose the deletion of information there. Thank you.
Thank you very much. So is is that an edit that the ad hoc committee is willing to agree to? Many I have the floor.
Don't have a comment on Article Two. In fact, I have one technical request. If it's possible, can we ask the secretary to regularly update the revised draft convention so we can see which articles are agreed in other referendum. And since we also refer to Article four, to paragraph four, article 21, I just have one small comment in the third line when it says and consistent with the obligations of the state party under international human rights law. Since we're still discussing, and you also presented the proposal by the chair, I would just simply proposal, so to consider this possibility to just to delete the end because if a state party has an obligation of under international human rights law, then basically it cannot contradict its own domestic law. So the I don't see the point of putting end here thank you.
I'm Joe just for clarification. Let me say that whatever you see, whatever is added on the screen, is just those bits were either technical ideas or proposals that we hope can drive us to consensus. And if you notice, for any suggestions that we've put up there, if it is impossible to reach consensus as it is deleted, and we return to madam chairs text. All right. So that haven't been said, I yield the floor to the Russian Federation.
Especially Thank you very briefly. I'd like to react to the suggestion were heard. Unfortunately, we cannot support it. Deleting the word information is not acceptable to us. Well, then the the phrase critical infrastructure, as we understand it would broaden the scope, including physical buildings, structures, and so forth, which contain the critical information infrastructure, infrastructure, the buildings are protected by other acts and other ways. They're not within the scope of this convention. So I think we should only apply it to the Critical Information Infrastructure, networks, systems, and so forth things we address in this convention. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Agree. All right, may I? So let's return to article 21. Paragraph three may ask the ad hoc committee if the committee is in a position to consider and agree this paragraph ad referendum.
I see no objection in the room, and it is so agreed at referendum.
United States is this with respect to paragraph three? Okay. All right, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With your indulgence. I saw you're moving on to paragraph four. We have a couple of points there. First, we could be okay with the chairs proposal that you mentioned earlier on international obligations. But secondly, we also have a proposed edit for the very end of this paragraph. With respect to the words rights of defense. Rights of defense is not terminology that has an understood meaning or scope and international human rights law. From this, it's unclear to us what the intent is to capture here more broadly all rights related to defense protections, including fair trial guarantees or if this is trying to focus on for example, the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of one's defense. From the context we believe that it is meant to be the former so we would propose here including fair trial guarantees instead of the rights of the defense as for clarity and for consistency with wording typically used in international instruments thank you
thank you very much. The distinguished delegate of the United States may I therefore ask the room if this technical I did is agreeable to the room and just help us confirm that that's the correct for the the data as you want it to be as the United States you have the floor just so that we get that correct and then the room can react if that is something that's agreeable. Yes,
the Edit would be so it would read including the right to a fair trial and fair trial guarantees.
All right,
thank you very much. Well, is that is it edit agreeable to the room okay. He If you have the floor
Thank you, Mr. Chair and thanks to the distinguished delegation of the United States. We will get back to you Mr. Chair regarding this proposal, we have to check it first before giving an opinion on thank you
all right, thank you very much.
Okay
excellencies Distinguished Delegates, may I, with your permission ask us to consider the ad hoc committee can agree. Article 21 paragraph five ad referendum
I do not see any objection to that. And it is so agreed ad referendum.
We don't have anything else standing on a thread
right. Okay, I see a request from the United States you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Going back to paragraph two, the United States in the spirit of compromise and to reach consensus can drop our edit of removing information so that we can hopefully adopt the paragraph agreed ad referendum. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Feels good.
So with that, may I ask the ad hoc committee to consider and agree article 21 paragraph to add referendum?
i Oh, okay. Sorry, the Russian Federation, you have the floor
I just wanted to remind us that we still believe it's important to put shell at the start of this paragraph. Also introducing such circumstances covered by this paragraph should be done in accordance with domestic legislation. Of course, each state will make its own decision as to how these measures are to be introduced. Within shall still leaves enough room enough li wave for each state to take measures in line with its internal principles. Its domestic law. Thank you.
Okay,
thank you very much. My question to the room is the addition the change in the use of the word shall Is this acceptable to the room please. Because there is a maid down there also. So. I mean, this is something we can live with. Right. Okay, I see no objection to that. So. Ah, okay. No, that was okay. The year the United States you have the floor. Thank
you. Sorry, Mr. Chair. No, I'm sorry. We're not able to go along with this at present. We need to reserve on the fun. Thank you.
Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you the chair. Yeah, we also have stupid reserve right now. Thank you.
United States In the United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're also in a similar position we will need to reserve for now but Our preference would have been for it as drafted but we will reserve for now. Thank you.
Australia, you have the floor.
Thank you chair as similar to others before me, we'd like to reserve our position on this, we would generally prefer the original wording, as we think that any consideration of aggravating circumstances of course, should be a matter for domestic legal systems. But we need to have a bit of a think about how that formulation may be impacted. Thanks okay.
Okay, Your Excellencies Okay, I'm gonna ask. I'm gonna ask the Russian Federation, just, you know, I've been asking this question a lot. So it's kind of, you know, what I'm going to ask, is this something that?
You know, we, you can leave with me since, looks like several other delegations seem to think that a matter of aggravating circumstances is all something that is left, better left to your domestic legislation. And if
in that light, you can phrase it as you want, because actually, it's it's actually a discretionary thing. So I was just thinking that along those lines, would you? Is that something you might want to consider? Yes, the Russian Federation, you have the floor?
Yes. Thank you. I was expecting this question.
As far as I understood, the comments made by the distinguished delegations who spoke before me, they reserved their position, they haven't actually objected to this language. So why don't we give them time for reflection? Since the paragraph does contain words in accordance with domestic law, as may be necessary? Do we really need to reiterate yet again, that this is at the discretion of states? I'm not sure. And if we look at all the other paragraphs, we do say shall So even for the sake of you and you, for me to was still think this paragraph should say shall as well, it's not because we're clutching at words. This is about the Critical Information Infrastructure, and the legislation of practically every state contains provisions regarding Critical Information Infrastructure. This is too important to say May thank you.
Thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation.
All right, we will move on. We have please at paragraph eight. Okay, with your kind permission. May I ask the committee if the committee is in a position to consider and Gree paragraph eight of article 21 ad referendum please.
Okay,
I do not see no objection to that. And it is so agreed.
All right. Thank you very much. Your Excellencies distinguished delegates. I think that's as much as we can get in, get done in article 21. Let's look at let's look at Article 19. All right. Can you put it? What? What? Let's see. Where's that from? 19? One. Okay, it's showing complete. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Australia, you have the floor.
Thank you chair. If we could just go to article 22. Very briefly, as you had reserved our position on that yesterday, or last week regarding article 22 Paragraph sub two D subparagraph. Two day, Australia would support deletion of subparagraph. Two D of article 22. Australia is concerned that as drafted subparagraph, two d is vague and broad. We are concerned that it provides a very broad basis for expert states to exercise jurisdiction. And this is not something that is grounded in well accepted principles of jurisdiction. It is also unclear what it is intending to capture by this basis of jurisdiction. In Australia's view, much of the conduct that could be committed against a state party already captured or addressed by other sub paragraphs in articles 22, one and 22. Two, which are more strongly grounded in well accepted principles of jurisdiction as a matter of international law. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much. The European Union,
you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, we also share the concerns just expressed by our distinguished delegates from Australia. I mean, in the context of avant garde, this made sense to include, then, in autocracy, this this ground is not there. And we also wonder about its relationship to to the cyber cyber domain. And how is it relevant in this context sense. As I was pointed out, he also believed that the other grounds would would cover this, but it would also join Australia and its concerns thinking.
Thank you very much. Right.
So let's move on to article 19.
Oh, is that was that an error or is okay. All right, article 19. Is on participation and attempt. May I ask the ad hoc committee if the committee is in a position to consider and agree? Article 19 paragraph one ad referendum?
I see no objection. It is so agreed.
May I also ask the ad hoc committee if we're in a position to consider and agreed and agree. Paragraph two of article 19 ad referendum?
I see no objection. Paragraph two is so agreed.
All right, paragraph three. May I ask the committee? I may ask the ad hoc committee if we're in a position to consider and agree. Paragraph three of article 19 ad referendum. I see no objection. So agreed.
Thank you, thank you very much for your kind consideration and your cooperation in this regard. May I ask us to look at article 18. All right. May I ask the ad hoc committee if it's in a position to consider and agree adequately 18 on liability of legal persons. Paragraph one. Are we able to add agree this add referendum I see no objection. And it is so agreed 60
Okay, thank you very much. At least we've now let's see we have article 16.
Sorry, just a minute.
You so put that up 16.
Okay. Your Excellencies Distinguished Delegates matters because to go back to article 16 article 16. Paragraph one is a great ad referendum already, but we have some work on paragraph two. I see the request for the floor already from the United States. So you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to look at paragraph yes to be best. The United States has concerns about this proposal to add language here that a state party may require a certain degree of seriousness for the predicate offenses. We're concerned about language imposing this additional seriousness requirement on convention offenses. similar language is not in untuck, or the UNCAC money laundering articles. And we are concerned about the potential difficulties that this could cause. We have heard that this proposal relates to domestic law implementation concerns. And we would note that under Article 51, paragraph one, that provision states the parties shall take necessary measures to ensure implementation of a party's obligation under the convention in accordance with fundamental principles of a party's domestic law. Our broader concern again here with this tubist language is that imposing an additional seriousness requirements not found and other money laundering articles and other criminal justice instruments may be contrary to existing international standards. And we are concerned about setting precedent along those lines. The preference from our experts would be to exclude this new paragraph. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you very much. All right. I I will think that Well, I don't know what the consultations are. But
the rules still remains that proponents need to reach out and convince their colleagues about their proposals.
We will let me try and that while that is still being considered, let's look at
Wow, everything is red.
All right. Let's take it from a let's start from a let's see what we can do, right. For the purposes of implementing or applying paragraph one of this article, each state party shall include as predicate offenses relevant offenses established in accordance with articles six to 15 of this convention. This is purely a tactical edit. You know, and my question to the room is, can we is this something that we can we can live with? Okay, I see no objection. So we take it that Oh, Egypt. Okay, Egypt, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair ICQ endogenous this article, especially this paragraph is still under consideration. Thank you.
Okay. All right.
Okay, same applies to B. C. Okay, so let's move to
paragraph C, sub paragraph C of paragraph two. May I ask the ad hoc committee if the committee can consider and agree ad referendum subparagraph C of paragraph to highlight
Okay, I see no objection to that. And it is so agreed.
Man, I ask the ad hoc committee if we can agree subparagraph D of paragraph to ad referendum? I see no objection. And it is so agreed.
May I also ask the ad hoc committee if we can I agree subparagraph e ad referendum please. I see no objection to sue agreed?
Do this?
Place
all right, Your Excellencies I would your permission ask you to ask the room to consider subparagraph F No, there was the request to delete subparagraph f by the Russian Federation and Iran.
I would ask I'll first of all go directly to them. Of course, there was also the other delegations that thought it should be returned as drafted. So, I'll go first to you do you is that a change in position and is this something that you can withdraw or it remains the Russian Federation you have the floor?
Thank you very much. This photograph is still incomprehensible to us. In our opinion, knowledge and talent and purpose always inferred from Objective factual circumstances. So, my saying may be inferred, we seem to imply that it can be done otherwise, not from Objective factual circumstances. We need an additional clarifications as to the value added of this paragraph. Without it, it is quite clear that knowledge content of purpose should be inferred from Objective factual circumstances. So the paragraph seems to us redundant and the use of the phrase may be could be even misleading or confusing. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As we mentioned in previous meeting that regarding for the part subparagraph F We do believe that they in paragraph one of this article, every elements, mental and physical of the this offense has been elaborated properly. And so a part subparagraph elf would be redundant is the one with the other words, sir. So, my delegation would like to propose to deletion for the unification of this article, this Parsa paragraph with the paragraph one of this article. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. Okay, Yemen, you have the floor?
Sure, couldn't come here. Cuz Alika. Thank you. We wish to delete this paragraph F. Because we view it as a repetition of paragraph one of this article. And here, we're talking about the motivation behind a crime. And indeed, paragraph one refers to intention and motivations. So there isn't really any need for that paragraph F. And we call for its deletion. Thank you.
Good, United States, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The United States preference would be to keep this language this language is from on talk. And we would not want to create any negative inference that knowledge intent or purpose required as an element of an offense in this convention could not be inferred from Objective factual circumstances. So we would prefer to keep this as already agreed language from on top. Thank you. Okay.
I will move on. But I was just going to ask the question to the room. Again, yes, this is a great language and don't talk. But is it absolutely irrelevant rows here? And if we were to delete this, will it in any way
in hibbett respective law enforcement officers from carrying out the jobs? So, again, I would I think that it's basically elementary
that this issues around knowledge, intense
things that are so well established principles of criminal law that even without putting it here, we can die I'm I feel almost certain that there will be no country that will not
put this into consideration. So again, in the spirit of
not
spending so much time arguing over things that we can live with and things that don't really inhibit us. May I one more time out the room if we can leave with the deletion of subparagraph F. Okay, Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in our consultations with in our expertise in my capital, that they recommended us to regarding for the deletion of this subparagraph although that and the other hand, we have very eager to save the accurate language not only in unpack and UNCAC but also regarding for the different deliberations within the our lightwind that they'll delegations. So so let me inform you, Mr. Chairman, that we changed our mind and so we showed The flexability about this mother. Thank you.
Thank you very much Mauritania.
Shukran see the rise.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My delegation proposes retaining this paragraph because it is in sync with the Convention on organized crime, transnational organized crime and talk. And it is also
it also serves as the foundation of intention behind a crime. It's that and that's an essential component for judges to consider. This component is perhaps not so important for other agencies responsible for implementing legislation, but it is a crucial component for judges, judges who issue rulings. As such, this is how judges are able to identify intention. And this is what judges used to infer intention based on circumstances. Thank you.
Very well, you have the floor. To enter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our country wishes to support retaining the last paragraph of Article 16 Because it makes it possible to use evidence into in a similar way to how it's used in other conventions. Thank you.
All right. What, oh, Yemen, you have the floor shouldn't say the race? Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. We have interpreted this paragraph from a legal standpoint. However, this paragraph should be deleted. That is because its meaning is contained in a paragraph elsewhere. However, if we retain this paragraph, there will be no problem with that fact. Because it will be necessary to deduce intention or intent or knowledge. Knowledge is part of intent. Intent contains two component knowledge and will we should have referred solely to intent here. It's not necessary to repeat the meaning of this paragraph, because that already features in paragraph one. Thank you. Well,
thank you very much the distinguished delegate of Yemen, you know, if you give me one small flexibility, I'll hold you to it. So I looking at that you indicated your flexibility with
whether we return it or not. And I thank you again, tremendously with that. It's okay, it's only the Russian Federation. Now. That's the ones that deleted. Now, in the light of
keeping, you know, we've made very high water of language as a gradient on talk. And so it's a known targets and UNCAC. So will it cause so much damage if it is left here? Also, my question really is, um, you know, I mean, your hands. Alright. You want Delete? You want retain me, I'm just here, whatever you guys agree. I'll ride with you. But so I explore both sides. Okay. And considering that you're counting on the flexibility of the, as shown by the distinguished delegate of Iran, Yemen.
i It is in that regard that I returned to you, the Russian Federation, you have the floor.
That's possible.
Thank you. As I said earlier, we simply think this paragraph was redundant. And these things are obvious. But we have heard the arguments put forward by other delegations and would be prepared to agree. If other delegates Asians believe that this has a certain meaning and should be here. We are prepared to be flexible in that regard.
Thank you very much with that, oh, now, okay. Yeah, man, you have the request for the floor, you have the floor place. Now I'm Paula Wagner Kalama orthogonally. And I like
to make one thing clear if I may, we can retain paragraph F. However, there is a problem. In this paragraph. When it comes to knowledge or intent, it is as if the two are on an equal footing knowledge and intent. However, in reality, knowledge is one component of intent. As I said, intent comprises two components knowledge and will desire to commit an offense. And we're here we've only referred to intent without talking about the desire to commit an offense. That was my comment. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much, the distinguished delegate of Yemen we have to end this meeting, you know that there are austerity measures in place. But just one last thing. I am still holding, is it okay to still hold you to your flexibility because if we do as a as a good night gift, we can actually agree at a referendum. But I saw paragraph F. So may we do so? I I see no objection in the room and it is so agreed. Thank you very much. I will yield the floor to the Secretariat for an announcement now. Secretariat. You have the floor please.
Thank you chair. The Secretariat would like to inform all multi multi stakeholders that due to austerity measures announced last Friday. They are kindly requested to leave the premises that is the UN Headquarters premises at 18 hours promptly. Thank you Mr. Chair.
