Excellencies ladies and gentlemen, I know we are all tired by this first meeting, first week of the concluding session. I recall you that we have five days left. And after that next Friday at that this time, the same time we will adopt something. I don't. I don't know what but we will adopt something. So good afternoon. Welcome to this formal session of the ad hoc committee. I would like to brief you on my plan for the beginning of next week. Firstly, I will work closely with the vice chairs from Australia, Japan and Nigeria during the weekend to update the provisions discuss it and agreed at the plenary. Since there are still many pending articles. I will allow them more time on Monday and Tuesday to continue discussion on these pending articles at the plenary to the vice chairs, I would like really to thank you very much, once again for your support and your commitment with the work of the committee. Furthermore, after this afternoon's informal meeting on the use of terms, I will meet with the CO facilitators to assess the progress done to date and consult on whether there is a need for further informal meetings next week. Sergant I plan to present a revised package deal of the chair on scope and human rights safeguards to basically circulated to all delegations during the weekend. By by Sunday night, you will receive it. I will chair the plenary on Monday morning to consider the draft resolution. And I will then hold two open ended informal meetings on Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning to discuss the revised package deal. The vice chairs from Australia, Japan and Nigeria will chair a plenary meeting each to try to advance on the pending provisions on the parts allocated to each of them respectively. Last lastly, on Tuesday night, I will release a revised version of the convention in its entirety for the consideration of the ad hoc committee. Of course, we will continue the discussion on resolution until we will adopt it. This is then my plan for the next steps. Thank you very much. I let now my friend my dear colleague, Akashi what is our vice chair from Japan to continuous cheering disciplinary in meanwhile, I have some bilateral informants. And I think in advance everyone to understand that we have really five days only to finalize our process. And I hope that next Friday, we will be all equally happy. Thank you very much. So I if there is no question I suspend for a few minutes. No more clarifications. It's clear. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon Good afternoon. Excellencies ladies and gentlemen. We're continuing the session we're focusing on the chapters six to nine. On Wednesdays sessions, we had a morning session on afternoon session dedicated to these four chapters. And we had a tremendous progress on these chapters, which are on my count 17 powers and South powers agreed as a referendum. And building on these, this progress, what I would like to try to do within this session is to see if we can agree on other paragraphs and sub powers that have been discussed. Very recently, in yesterday evening session. We had a we had the agreement in Formula agreement, only on two sub powers, yesterday's evening and we're going to show them on screen on screens. The first paragraph or so para rather, that we're going to address is article 57. Paragraph J No. 57.3 I missed it. It's 53 by apologies, article 53 for going back daca 53 para three sub para J Yes.
As long as shown in these two screens, there have been some edit edits to this how para which you can read on red bracket, the wordings were published and disseminate in our leads, etc. But the at yesterday's informals we had an addition replacing that language to add in part public and impart public that's shown on the read. And through the discussions yesterday, we agreed informally with this edited version. But of course, it was greement informally in formal agreement. So any delegation keeps the right to open the discussion around the out paragraph and also on the addition. However, I would like to remind you that the delegations are expected to make only such proposals that are absolutely necessary and without which you cannot accept parts of this text as shown on the screens or otherwise to offer alternative language that is closer to consensus down the current draft as edited. So, I would like to ask a question on this tab para J under paragraph three, article 53. Maybe take it that out of committee agrees with this sub para as contained in the current text as edited. Now, I will open the floor and if any delegation who would like to take the floor please request the floor for the floor. Now I will take some few moments to see if there is no Objection. No. Proposal alternatively, no comments?
I'm seeing no hands raised. No objection, no request for the floor. So what I'm going to do now is to have it agreed. Other referendum. Okay, this will lead us to lead, move to the other agenda item, which is under Chapter nine final provisions. Article 66, paragraph one that we are going to show the paragraph on the screen. Yes. Throughout the yesterday's discussion, there has been no proposals. No comments coming in from the delegations. So, what I would like to expect is, we also have this paragraph paragraph 66.1. As I agree, other friend, but in the meantime, I have the United States on my list. So I will open the floor, and I will give you the floor to the United States.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and my apologies. But as a point of information, there were proposals in prevention last night, I don't know if we intend to go through new proposals today or whether we'll proceed with the rest of the of the document or in your hands, whatever your preference is. Thank you.
Thank you, United States for clarification. Yes. What I'm going to do with you today is to see if we can make an agreement out the referendum on these two powers and assert power. So the rest of the paragraphs will stop errors that are remaining, waiting for, for agreement. Now the referendum will be dealt with on in the next week, informal plenary sessions, as the madam chair explained a few minutes ago. So we were going to do this one for now. Thank you. Now I am going to do just as the same thing, as we did a few minutes ago for the paragraph self power J under 53.3. I will not take a few more minutes than this because this paragraph seems to be a very simple one. So I'm going to ask you this question again for you. May I take it that out of the committee agrees on this paragraph. Paragraph 66.1 as agree on the referendum. I see no objections. I see no request for the floor. So I will take it as agreed are the referendum. Thank you. Now this will leave me to leave my desk and give it to my fellow colleague Vice Chair Briony to lead other chapters discussions so thank you very much.
Colleagues, my session has been concluded. But since Bahraini is now trying to contrast trying to come back to this room, I'll make some requests for you. This is to request to you all delegations to consider and reconsider the current draft, whether or not if you can agree, as drafted, because this is a very important thing for the committee to to make agreement on remaining issues. When I say remaining issues, they are huge. On my count, there are still more than 20 pairs and sub pairs that haven't been agreed out of referendum only on the chapters chapters six to nine. So, again, I would like to draw your attention to the current draft text of the convention are advised one as prepared by the chair. Just see if you can take it as drafted. This is not to say, you know, this is not to force you or coerce you to agree on something, but this is for this for the agreements sake, this is where the compromise say this for the convention as a whole, because out of six, chapters, chapter six to chapter nine, the last two chapters, chapter eight and chapter nine, are something that all conventional international treaties need to have mechanisms of implementation, we need implementation for a convention to be implemented, of course, and we need to do it as international community as ratifying states states parties. And for that, we need the technical assistance and capacity building chapter. And this is something we are just discussing about, and also the chapter six preventive measures. This is something slightly different from the other parts of the convention. Because we are talking about the measures that try to prevent the crimes to be happen even before it's happening. It's better to stop it even before it's happening, is it so we need to focus on those chapters while need we need to have a broader view to see more important issues that are on the table. So now I can give that chair seat to my vice chair, fellow Vice Chair Briony, so thank you very much for listening to my to my pitch. Thanks very much.
Good afternoon, everyone. My apologies. I had heard that you would have needed a little bit more time. And so I am delighted to hear that perhaps maybe you've made some progress on the other chapters. I'd ask the Secretariat to bring up chapter five onto the screen, is it not working?
While I'm putting the plenary text up on the screen, you should have all received an email at a very late hour last night. That included a chairs proposal based on some of the informal consultations and informal meetings that we had last night and I want to thank those of you who stayed very late to help work through some of those issues. I'm not intending to go through that. Now, but I do draw it to all of your attention to have a look at we still have some articles in chapter five that we have not examined in plenary at And I would like to give the opportunity to all delegations to make comments on those articles. Starting with article 42. We've already heard delegation speak to articles 36 to 41, and taken note of your comments in plenary regarding article 4244 and 45. Before we get started, and administrative announcement, there is some text in this article these articles that is in a telex. This text will be the subject of informal informals. On Monday morning, bright and early, I've asked the Secretariat to find a room for us at 8:30am. So you are always welcome to make comments on that text in plenary but I do ask that those of you with an interest in discussing this text more fulsomely to come to those informals on Monday morning, and, if possible to refrain your comments to be quite brief in plenary at the moment on that text so that we can get through. I think we have 10 left to get through this afternoon. Thank you so much. So I open the floor on Article 42. Noting that the italicized text is the subject of informal informals. Brazil, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Pleasure to see you chairing our meeting today. I'll be I'll try to be brief. But I do think that it merits reference here in plenary, we've made this this statement before in informal, informal, then we'll happily participate on Monday about the italic text in article 42.5. We do feel that it's the text as it is, and especially with the current outlook of the chairs proposal, or the chairs package is a mistake that we would be overlooking. Because we'll actually be equating the grounds for refusal of extraditing someone to those of preserving our data. That would not be appropriate, we feel we've been saying that for a long time that we do need to have preservation as easily as possible. And that's why Brazil has tried to include also in the chairs package this, this reference to try to limit the the grounds for refusal of a preservation order to those bare minimum, similarly to what is done in the Budapest convention. And that's a condition for us to accept other parts of the chairs package. Thank you.
Thank you very much Brazil.
I have no other requests for the floor in regards to article 42. We've agreed some of these sub paragraphs already add referendum if sorry. Yes, we're talking about article 42. Sorry. If there are no proposals to make further comments. Would it be possible to put one more paragraph to you? This is paragraph three, which has already been agreed add reference. I'm sorry. It's not in my notes. Fantastic. If we move then to article 43, expedited disclosure of preserved traffic data. I know that Brazil when you were speaking about article 42, I understand that you're also talking about subparagraph two here of article 43. And article and paragraph one here has already been agreed at referendum. But I invite comments on subparagraph two here, United States you have the floor.
Thank you, madam chair that just to go back to article 42. Sorry, wasn't quick enough. First we do here in paragraph eight. The United States would recommend the deletion of this paragraph. If this is the paragraph on extensions, we believe that it's better to be silent on the matter of extensions rather than placing a total. My looking at the right. I think it's paragraph eight, right. Rather than place not more than 90 days here, it may take longer than a total period of 180 days for a mutual legal assistance request to be executed and this text does not leave flexibility for that possibility and may mean that any preserved evidence would be lost after 180 days. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much United States. If no one has any further comments on Article 43 sub paragraph two. I will move on to open the floor on Article 44. Noting in paragraph one, there is some italicized text which will be the subject of informal informal is on Monday. I have no requests for the floor. We have not yet agreed at referendum paragraph three of this article. I invite you have to press your buttons if you want to make any comments on Article One, paragraph three of this article I put it to the plenary that we agree paragraph three ad referendum so great. Moving on to article 45. If I recall from our conversation on might have been Tuesday, there was several delegations in the room who were linking their ability to go along with articles 29 and 32. The permissibility in regards to article 45 and 46. At the moment, we have the word shell in italicized text here. And both articles 45 and 46. I am opening the that is one issue that we still have to decide. And then I also invite further comments on Article 45. To see whether if we keep that italicized text or not the rest of the item article maybe agreed address your opinion and you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. You will remember for the EU and its member states. Those articles 45 and 46, together with article 29 and 30 because they are extremely intrusive, were objected by us from the very beginning in view of the importance for a number of delegation, and as a sign of compromise on our side, we accepted article 29 and 30 and also article 45 and 46 bird as far as article 45 and 46 with the condition that it would be a may instead of a shall in, in those two articles 45 and 46. By this way, it will not prevent countries will want to cooperate on that basis to do so while not mandating any country to be in a position to do it. This is extremely important for the EU and its member states and that change of position that flexibility was conditioned upon the rest of the package and I would like to stress that otherwise we would have to come back to our initial position which is the mayor deletion of those articles. Madam Chair, I believe also that the sentence which is there or whether that are in the possession or control of a service provider located or establishing depth or iterator should be therefore also need to take in this paragraph and should be discussed also in the informal, informal you were referring to on Monday morning. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much your opinion to call the seven. Canada to be funded by the United States, Canada, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, just quickly for Canada. At present and pending the the discussion on safeguards in the can in the convention as a whole. We we reserve on on all of article 45. But, you know, assuming that it does stay in here, we would support the EU proposal to change may, excuse me, change shall to may, in both paragraphs one and two. Thank you.
Thank you, Canada, United States, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The United States can also support the edits proposed by the EU to pair it to article 45, particularly if that helps us reach consensus. Thank you.
Thank you, United States, Switzerland to be followed by Norway.
Chair Yeah, Switzerland to was among delegations that wanted to delete article 45 and 46. So for us, these two provisions depend on how the safeguards will eventually look like. So for now. Yes, we have to wait, how the ongoing discussions will emerge. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Switzerland, Norway, you have the floor.
We also were among those that would like to delete 45 and 46. As a compromise, we can accept changing shall teammate but I think that would also of course rely on that, that we have the proper safeguards in 24, also applying to the international cooperation. Thank you.
Thank you very much. No way I have Georgia to be followed by Egypt.
Thank you, Chair, as delegation, have been reservation on these provisions from the very beginning with cancer, we also support to use proposal for the very same reasons. Thank you.
Thank you, Georgia, Egypt, followed by the United Kingdom.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And let me start started by saying that we've been suffering over the past 15 months at least of the safeguards, compulsive obsessive obsession syndrome, because we wanted this to be in the text. So if we accept that states parties may as well and without any legal obligation on them, why should we have all these safeguards in the text? So I agree with those delegations who said that these two articles are dependent on the safeguards. But I don't agree with watering down the language and the obligation of states to cooperate and combating crimes into May. So please, register Egypt's objection to the proposal to change shall to may in the two articles. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Egypt, United Kingdom to be followed by Malaysia. Thank you, Madam
Chair, just to very quickly registered our support for changing the shell to me in article 45 pero appears one and two and in 46 one Thank you.
Thank you, United Kingdom Malaysia to be followed by Russian Federation. Thank
you Madam Chair. And for the same reason articulated by the distinguished delegate of EU, Malaysia would also like to join the EU and other countries to support us proposal in articles 45 and 46, to change the word shell to me,
thank you. Thank you, Malaysia at Russian Federation to be followed by Israel.
Thank you chair. We fully support the proposal and argumentation put forward by Egypt, because it should be remained and shall not be changed to me. Thank you.
Thank you, Russia, Israel to be followed by Albania.
Thank you, Madam Chair, we would like to register our support to the EU proposal to switch to May in both articles. Thank you.
Thank you, Israel, Albania, to be followed by Jamaica.
Thank you, Chair, also your mayor to start our delegation to support you. Proposal on changing shell to me, thank you.
Thank you, Albania, Jamaica to be followed by Cuba.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just reiterate catacombs position that we are committed to reaching a consensus. And we recall that these provisions have been the subject of contention. So to move us closer to consensus, CARICOM supports the EU's position to change shall to me, thank you.
Thank you very much, Jamaica, Cuba to be followed by South Africa.
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, Good afternoon colleagues. Well, it seems to me that mutual legal assistance is at the heart of a document and treaty like this one. So leaving it up to you in that, or it's a nice thing to do to to assist each other, which is what may would imply, is not in the interest of having a robust document anchored in international cooperation. So I get the point that perhaps this is part of a bigger conversation, including in the context of international cooperation, and such. But it would seem that by attempting to close this paragraph, or to move into a direction of agreement into this paragraph, if it is true that this is part of a bigger conversation, then perhaps we should let that conversation, take its course and see where it lands. Because then we are, while discussing provisions of international cooperation at large, including mutual legal assistance, then we would be already closing things. And I would presume that if this language is so important, for some to put that as part of this meeting, when we are having a parallel discussion on the bigger package, for that same reason, I think we would prefer to keep the paragraph as it was drafted. And again, it this is one of the issues that would allow particularly developing countries to confront the challenge of ICTs. You being used for criminal purposes. So if it's going to be in the realm of just please do it, it's okay. If you don't, again, which is what may would indicate would not be sufficient, in our view, at this stage in either paragraphs. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Cuba. And thank you also for bringing the idea of how this links to the discussion that the chair is performing in informals. Right now, as was raised by a couple of other delegations. I don't want to paraphrase what others have said. But my understanding is, it's the having these articles in at all, versus not having them is part of the broader discussion and the shell versus May, is a separate issue as well. But that is what I've heard. It may be that I have misinterpreted that, and I welcome clarification if anyone thinks that I have I have South Africa to be followed by Mongolia and Iceland, South Africa, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair and good afternoon to all colleagues. South Africa registers its support for the article in its original format. Therefore we join others in supporting the retention for the word shall. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much South Africa. Mongolia. You have the floor.
Mr. Chair, thank you for giving the floor since the first time Mongolia taken the floor. Let me appreciate your work, Madam Chair and the Secretariat has done on this convention. I'm delighted to represent the delegation of Mongolia. And we would like to express our strong support for these protests. And for the direction in that the Madame Chair and US Vice Chair are leading these negotiations. I'm confident that we will find the compromise on the package relate to scope, so that it entertains the above the need to cooperate internationalize to fight cybercrime and at the same time provide for adequate safeguards they regarding the article 45 and 46. We are also support the shell rules which by me in the above article 45 and 46 is same reasons of other countries Thank you.
Thank you Mongolia. Iceland to be followed by the United Republic of Tanzania Iceland, do you have the floor?
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, I'll be brief. Iceland's like the curriculum group and dozens of other UN member states that have spoken so far would like to signal support for me instead of shell in both articles under discussion, and would know the delicate relationship to two other provisions in the draft convention and the wishes to delete these articles. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Iceland, Tanzania, you have the floor.
Give Madam Chair. Zoning stop supports the current text, as it is in both articles, 45 and 46. Just like what has been submitted by South Africa, and others. Thank you.
Thank you so much Tanzania, have Brazil, paragraph Eritrea and the Islamic Republic of Iran, Brazil, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you chair. We would like to support retaining shell, in this paragraphs in these two articles. And just also like to call the attention of colleagues that even though it is or Shah, it would be shocked if you go to articles 29 and 30. There are already many caveats in those articles. They're both related to the technical ability of countries to to apply these measures. It says that countries will determine in their domestic laws, which offenses would be applied applicable to these these articles would be applicable to so it's not like there's no possibility of denying, just because it says sure, it is already there are as many loopholes as there could be if countries are unwilling to do so or unable to do so. So I think we're we could perhaps refocus our discussion instead of just a shall or May, we can actually read the whole text and their relationship to the articles in hand at hand. Thank you.
Thank you very much Brazil for bringing to our attention the interlinkages I do want to give everyone the chance to make a statement though. Paragraph two followed by Eritrea Paraguay you have the floor.
Paraguay supports what was said by the European Union, the US and Canada. When it comes to the change to May, from shall thank you.
Thank you, Paraguay, Eritrea, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, my delegation support the retention of the world's child in article 45 and 46, consistent with my comments during the pre session. Thank you.
Thank you Eritrea, Iran to be followed by Pakistan. Iran, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. My delegation also would like to join other members these who are in favor of retention of the shall in the boss paragraph one and two of the article 45. Thank you.
Thank you very much Pakistan to be followed by Namibia, Pakistan, you have the floor.
Chair. We would also like to join the delegations in support of the attention of the world shell instead of me. Thank you.
Thank you, Pakistan, Namibia to be followed by Vanuatu
Thank you Chair Namibia also support article 45 and 46. In its draft texts is drafted by the chair with the reason given by the distribution, the delegation of Cuba so we are also supporting the inclusion of shell. Thank you.
Thank you so much Namibia, Vanuatu to be followed by Panama.
Thank you, Gia. Want to add to support the UE proposal to amend 45 paragraphs one and two and 46 as well, to make it permissive, and we believe that it was made in the spirit of compromise. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much Manawatu to be followed by Oman, Panama, you have the floor. Sleep and
thank you. Panama's supports the position of the European Union, that is to say, to change the word from shall to may in 4645 and 46. Thank you.
Thank you, Panama, Oman to be followed by Qatar
thank you, Madam Chair, my country supports. Returning shall thank you.
Thank you very much Qatar to be followed by Mauritania.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We are talking about an international potential international convention about the transporter crimes and this could not be achieved without international cooperation. That's why Qatar supports retaining the draft as received from the president from the chair. Thank you. Thank
you so much, Qatar, Mauritania to be followed by the Philippines.
Shukran Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon to you all. We do support retaining shall as presented to us the draft version by the chair in articles 45 and 46. To to retain shall rather than may. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much. Mauritania. I have Philippines, Japan, Tunisia and Nicaragua and Argentina. Philippines. You have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Philippines joins the other delegations in supporting changing shell to me. Thank you.
Thank you, Philippines, Japan, you have the floor.
Thank you, madam. Japan also support EU proposal to change shell to me. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Japan, Tunisia to be followed by Nicaragua. Merci. Madame la.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Given the importance of providing legal assistance in terms of international cooperation, we are in favor of maintaining 45 and 46 as they were originally drafted with the original terminology. Thank you.
Thank you so much to Knizia, Nicaragua to be followed by Argentina. Thank you, Madam Chair. No, Suomen mahalo.
We join other delegations who are in favor of keeping the word shall, as Cooper said, Thank you.
Thank you very much Argentina to be followed by Zimbabwe and Indonesia, Argentina, you have the floor. grasses.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Argentina, finished the sixth session in the code facilitators group. by recommending that the word shall be ready to be retained in these two articles. In the same rationale, as has already been expressed by delegations who took the fall before me, bearing in mind that this, if it has to be an effective instrument, then these kind of measures do need to be forthcoming if they are requested, within clear parameters as could be established. And this is something that would be made according to each state's domestic legislation as well. And this is in line with what the delegation of Brazil as already said, having listened to all the dedications who've taken the floor before me, and trying to strike a balance between the desire for effective measures to be taken, so that we can effectively combat cyber crime and also to strike a balance with human rights and safeguards at the same time. We may wish to refine opposition further. But that is opposition as things stand currently. Thank you.
Thank you so much Argentina and also for reminding us of our history on this issue, Zimbabwe to be followed by Indonesia and Malawi and Zimbabwe, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair for giving Zimbabwe an opportunity to also share our thoughts around this issue. We believe that cooperation is the nucleus, it is at the core, it is central to the efficacy of this convention. And without cooperation in terms of collection of data in real time, we don't see how efficient this convention is going to be. And therefore, Madam che in the Spirit also of cooperation, we believe that we definitely need to take cognizance of the fact that without cooperation, we are actually wasting our time here is member states is phi is dealing with a moving target, which is ICT related crime is concerned. And therefore, we as Zimbabwe would like to maintain the word shall, because it at least gives us that opportunity may actually weakens this provision. Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you so much Zimbabwe, I have Indonesia to be followed by Malawi, Indonesia, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. We will you want to support the original tax to return the workshop. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Indonesia, Malawi, to be followed by Yemen.
Thank you, Chair for giving Malawi the opportunity to contribute in this debate. Malawi support the choice or the use of the word shall noting that the safeguards are already in the same article by subjecting the obligation to domestic law. Thank you.
Thank you very much Malawi, Yemen, and then Ecuador.
Sure, thank you very much, indeed. With regards to the two articles, 45 and 46. In particular, we want to retain the text as received, because there are safeguards and legal restrictions, because it's all pending the national legislation or laws and therefore there is no issue to read to retain shall. Because in the first paragraph, it is as provided for which to the national legislation and with regards to 46. It also pertains to the applicable instruments and their own national laws as well, as well as treaties applicable to them and under their domestic laws. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Yemen, I have Ecuador, then the Netherlands, then Algeria, Ecuador, you have the floor. Gracias.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Ecuador, also believes that in article 45 and 46, we should keep the word shall. We think this would make international cooperation much more effective. For the reasons expressed by Brazil and Argentina. We think that if a given that internal law, legal conditions will prevail anyway, we think that the word shall should be maintained. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ecuador, Netherlands, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Netherlands aligns itself with the statement made previously by the European Union. But maybe to clarify that position a little bit to to explain where we are coming from. As was said before, in the spirit of compromised, we have agreed to the inclusion of articles 29 and 30 in this draft convention. And in turn, we would like to see a May provision in article 45. And article 46. We believe, as has been said before, in terms of the discussion we are having about scope and safeguards that this actually provides for a great example of our collaboration in this room, where we try to find ways in which we can all work together with the same provision. So just to clarify, we're not suggesting at all to delete these articles are these methods of cooperation, we really want to ensure that we can all work together through these provisions. So we're not blocking international cooperation at all rather We want to make it workable for every one of us in this room. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you so much Netherlands, Algeria to be followed by New Zealand. Massimo,
thank you, Madam Chair. On article 45, we would like to support the proposal made by the chair in the draft, that is to say, to keep the word shall rather than change it to me. Thank you.
Thank you very much Algeria, New Zealand to be followed by Ireland.
Thank you chair, New Zealand can support the proposal by the EU to introduce the words may, in both paragraphs and sure I just wanted to clarify and sorry, if I missed it, the status of the text and in italics that's currently highlighted. Is that still the subject of informal discussions? Thank you.
Thank you very much New Zealand. Yes, that's right. I, in fact, have been told by the secretariat that we have secured conference room a bright and early at 8:30am on Monday. For those who want to talk about that italicized text highlighted on the screen, I invite you to come along. I might bring Tim Tims, if you're lucky, Ireland to be followed by Burkina Faso, Ireland, you have the floor.
Madam Chair, this is the first time that Ireland is taking the floor. So we'd like to first of all, thank you very much for all of your hard work. And we fully aligned our position with the EU. And therefore we seek a mate provision in articles 45 and 46. And I'd like to just reiterate what my colleague from Netherlands said that this would be very important for Ireland, we didn't want to see originally the articles 45 and 46. But in the spirit of compromise, we'd like to see this change to a provision so that it would give us the trust and to cooperate with a lot of other states going forward. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much Island Burkina Faso to be followed by Columbia.
Now, thank you, Madam Chair, Burkina Faso believes that articles 45 and 46 should have the word shall not me. Thank you. Thank
you very much. bikina, Faso Colombia and then Senegal.
Gracias. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We reserved our position on articles 45 and 46. Waiting for other articles to be ironed out. But we do think that the original text as was presented by the chair should be should be maintained. That is to say with the word shall thank you. Thank
you very much, Columbia, Senegal, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We strongly support keeping articles 45 and 46 as they were drafted. Because we think that international cooperation to help combat cybercrime is of paramount importance, and therefore keeping the word shall in the text will help us to make this cooperation fully effective. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Sudan, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation sees it of paramount importance to maintain shall, and instead of May in those articles, and as my colleague from Yemen has already said, that shall does not contradict anything because it is already restricted by the applicability of national laws. So if we remove shall and take May, and it is restricted by the national laws, it would be rendered defunct with no impact or legal weight for the provision, because MLA is of paramount importance for the countries but at the same time, it's up to the member states to apply the caveat, which is their own domestic laws and applicable treaties. So that's why you want to retain shall rather than change it to me, thank you.
Thank you very much. I have Molly. Molly, you have the floor.
We thank you very much, Madam Chair. On articles, 45 and 46. We think that the word shall is better. We want to see this convention coming to light and we think that if there has to be effective international cooperation, then it would really, really be desirable to keep this word shall so as to make the word cooperation more effective. We really would think that The word shall should be retained. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Molly. Germany, you've requested the floor.
Yes, thank you. Good afternoon colleagues, I would like to fully align Germany with a statement delivered by the European Union and underline that also for Germany, it's essential to have me
thank you, Germany and Switzerland to be followed by the Maldives. Switzerland, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And sorry for taking the floor again on these articles. But they seem very important to us. So I might take it again. We would like to emphasize here in case that was not clear before that we were we were for deletion originally, and really furthest we could possibly go with this permission is May. So the May is really the furthest we would we would be possible. We will be able to go Thank you.
Thank you, Switzerland, the Maldives. Maldives, you have the full?
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regards to article 45, one and two, we would like to support a US proposal. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Maldives, France, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. France aligns itself with the EU statement. After listening to what colleagues have said we would like to recall the reasons why we asked for the word shall to be replaced by May in articles 45 and 46. The measures that we have accepted in the chapter on procedural measures are particularly invasive. If while we accepted them in the chapter, it was on the condition that some flexibility be left to states on judicial cooperation. As the Netherlands has said, we're not talking about deleting this kind of cooperation, but rather, we want to make sure that we can engage in such cooperation. Thank you.
Thank you, France, Montenegro, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We also align our position with the EU position on these articles and think that at least changing the wording from Shell to me is a measure of compromise. Thank you.
Thank you, Montenegro, Slovakia, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, also back it aligns itself with the position of the EU, and with his short intervention would like to strengthen position of the EU and count itself among the countries supporting changing shell. To me. These are significant interventions to human rights, therefore, the flexibility is essential for us. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Slovakia, Cuba, you have the floor.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. No, I get the point that this is so important that some of my colleagues have needed to make it clear speaking as a group, and also in national capacity. But eventually, we are hearing the same country speaking when EU speaks us EU and then in national capacity. But in any case, I would like to understand a bit more how this provision is invasive. Some delegations have said because of course I've been in and out of the room and perhaps I I have lost part of the discussion. But when this paragraph says governed by the conditions and procedures provider under domestic law, it seems to me that you are very secure against any inclusivity that this paragraph might have. So if from a legal perspective, any of the colleagues that believe that the first three lines of this paragraph is intrusive, can explain how the second line of this paragraph will not be a sufficient safeguard. Another word that we have heard a lot today for our benefit and to see whether we can at least entertain with the idea of transforming this paragraph because it seems rather clear that however you comply with providing mutual legal assistance will be done and governed by your internal law. So that would be helpful for our delegation. Thank you.
Thank you very much Cuba have Sweden to be followed by Austria, Sweden, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We align ourselves to the statement of the European Union. Sweden is a member of the United United Nations and And we believe that we are allowed to speak also in a national capacity. I think that portends opportunity to support the compromise proposal provided by the European Union. And I would encourage others to seek compromises in this instance. And another. We do not want to move backwards in these negotiations. But move ahead. That's why the European Union and its member states changed position on these two articles. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Sweden, Austria, you have the floor.
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to follow up on the question that the distinguished delegate from Cuba asked and given explanation, why, why the that provision, a shell provision would be an infringement. And if we use the word shall in this provision, we commit, we are committing ourselves to an obligation to provide mutual legal assistance for real time measures. And this, we see as a real infringement of sovereignty. And we are not ready to take up this obligation. So I hope this is explanation enough. Thank you.
Thank you, Austria, I have no more requests for the floor. This seems to be quite a contentious point. If anyone would like to take the floor to withdraw their position, I will keep the floor open. Otherwise, I would like to move on Cuba, you are throwing your position. You have the floor?
I just want to indicate that my answer my question has not been answered from a legal perspective. Because we have heard just that we don't like the first part of the paragraph. And that is why we want to be shocked. But no one has explained. And I just want for it to be on record, that there is no legal explanation other than the fact that we just don't want to share the information. Thank you.
Thank you, Cuba, I would like to move us on because I do not think that we are making progress on this very small change. Which not small in substance but small in Word. Debate on the word shall or May. And so I would like to move us down I want to invite any interventions on Article 46 Noting please take it as read that everything is said on shell versus may in 45. We have read into the shell versus may debate in article 46. But I want to give delegations the opportunity to make any other comments on Article 46 at this time. Wonderful, we have no requests for the thought let's move to article 47. Russian Federation you have the floor
Could you put on the screen
it's confusing because it has a footnote in the middle. the last line so the penultimate line of these of this article were asking after the word and to put a slash and then add the word or so and slash or
it would read to them and or under the your domestic laws.
Thank you, Russian Federation. Do you have any thing else you'd like to speak to on this article? I'm seeing no. Brazil you have the floor. Thank
you chairs. Since we are still on 46 I thought I'd make a point. Referring to my previous comment, that we're actually not reading what we are saying that we need to change from shall to may. The last line of this article says is that it's already? Practically a May? Do we actually need to have that discussion? I think it's not really a discussion on the article, it's part of a larger discussion. So, just wanted to point that out.
Thank you so much, Brazil. I have no other requests for the floor on Article 46. So I'd like to move us on to article 47. Now, I'm going to invite comments on Article 47. But I am also going to square bracket part of article 47. The word covered is part of the broader debate happening in the chairs in formals. I am not going to be proposing any amendments or changes to that that's part of a broader issue. So, if you are going to make an intervention, please take it as read that whatever you said in the formals in regards to in the informals in regards to what offenses may be covered or captured, or whether it's article 1616 or 17 or 18 or 19 or anything else. Of course, I will give you the floor, but please take it as read that that is part of what we have discussed and is part of that broader debate. So, if we can leave that debate to the side and to the chairs package, is there anything else in article 47 that people would like to make interventions on I note that several of the paragraphs here have already been agreed at ref I would like to see if we can agree the others address this afternoon. Noting Of course, the chapeau and I believe paragraph a and b of one also include the word covered by the convention. So taking that as read. Have no requests for the floor, noting that whisper square bracketing the word covered established here. I'm not going to put those to you, but I will put the others. So, can I put article 47 Paragraph b sub paragraph small i to the room for adoption add ref so agreed. Can I put article 47 paragraph one subparagraph b small little to to the room to be agreed at referendum? So agreed. Similarly for level three. So agreed. Thank you very much everyone. Moving down to paragraph D. Can I put it this also has the covered by the convention issue. So let's square bracket that. As does f apart from the offenses established or covered by this convention issue, can I take it that no one has any other issues with article 47 when I report to the chair on my weekend Wonderful. Let's move on to article 48. Morning I note that article 48 also has the issue of how we refer to offenses under the convention. Can I take it that no one in the room has any other outstanding issues with this article? United States you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, so this article does not have the covered by or established by language. But just to note that the United States does have the same concerns around scope in this this article and would propose an edit to limit the scope here, you know, as we are going to limit in the rest of the convention. Thank you.
We're just swapping over the projection up here give us a moment.
Note that article 49, the sub paragraphs I believe except for subparagraph. A, have all been agreed at referendum, noting that the chapeau also talks about offenses established in accordance with the convention. Putting that to the side. I open the floor on paragraph one and sub paragraph a of article 49. Switzerland you have the floor.
Chair for giving me the floor. And sorry to take it again. We would like to come back to a very minor technical amendment we raised during the last session which was not included. In Switzerland, for example, an order of country station is not necessarily issued by court, but can also be issued by the Public Prosecutor's Office. And therefore in article 49, paragraph one letter A, we wanted to include after issued by a court we wanted to include or competent authority that was also reflected in the last draft of the sixth session. And if this could be acceptable to the room, of course, and the same amendment would apply similarly to article 50, paragraph one letter B. Both will be after issued by a court should I repeat will be more competent authority. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Switzerland. For that I asked for reactions to that proposal. So that perhaps we can close off this paragraph. I have the United Republic of Tanzania you have the floor.
My apologies. Chief let me take you back to article 48. There is a very minor issue. And it it may not be an issue. I will leave it to the Secretariat, the last sentence in your talk anyone cockatoo uses their singular formulation. But here it uses a plural in terms of investigations. And so in the previous conventions, it would read in both territory such investigation is to take place is fully respected. But I'll leave it to the secretary to see how the reason why. We have a slightly different formulation from Yutaka Newkirk from where this formulation has been drawn. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Tanzania Zimbabwe, you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. I'll be very brief, we support the observation made by Switzerland, because indeed, the institution that issues in order might not necessarily be a court. So we support the observation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much the midway. I'm asking the Secretariat to add this text onto the screen so that you can see it, because I would like to see whether there is any opposition to including this amendment. And if not, I would like to see if it's something we can adopt, but I don't want to take that too fast, and I want to give you some time to see it. Evening I'm seeing no request for the floor. Tanzania, you have the floor.
The proposal made by Switzerland, in Zimbabwe. And it makes sense because it suits the circumstances of both countries which such orders are to be given by the courts of law or other competent authorities. We understand even when it comes to extradition, there are countries which whereby the final extradition order is not given by the court, but it is given by certain designated competent authorities. Thank you, Manager.
Thank you very much United Republic of Tanzania European Union to be followed by Yemen.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So for that, we understand that for article 49 Or as regards the scope, this will be also within brackets and will be discussed at the later stage. And the same for us would apply to article 48 in line with with the US intervention. And as for the the proposal from the Distinguished Delegates, it's something that we will consider Thank you very much.
Thank you, European Union Yemen you have the floor.
We support Switzerland suggestion. So actually, we can do away with reference to court we can just say confiscation ation by a competent authority because that implies also a court in certain cases.
Thank you very much Yemen for that suggestion. I want to give you all a chance to look at that proposal more fully. India you've requested the floor.
Yes, we would also like to see the inclusion of the word competent authority. Thank you.
Thank you India Albania.
proposal so the mother supporting it is do wording to cover all authorities based on domestic legislation.
Thank you very much, Albania. Papua New Guinea, you have the floor.
Chair, Papa New Guinea adopts in support to the Switzerland proposal for for article 49 In Article 50.
Thank you very much happy New Guinea. I understand the European Union has requested time to reserve on this issue. So, we will give you the time to have a look at this more closely. But I am not hearing any opposition at this stage. So I will be hopefully putting this for adoption. The next time we meet the rest of the sub paragraphs of article 49 have been agreed at ref so I would like to move to article 50 noting, Russian Federation, you have the floor
Yes, thank you Chair, just so that we can look at 46 Just to be sure, what did we do with 46? With the red text in 46? The am slash or as we did with the competent authorities, could you also put that in red? Thank you.
It is in red in the real version that I have here, not in the version on the screen moving back to article 50. In Article 50 in the Shippo, we have offenses established in accordance with this convention. So I asked you to take it as read. We have agreed at referendum to paragraph one, but and we have a proposal from Switzerland to add competent authority to paragraph one, B. Paragraph two also includes the phrase offenses established in accordance with this convention. Paragraph three has already been agreed as have all the following paragraphs if I'm not mistaken. Does anyone want to raise any issues aside from the issues around offenses established under this convention and the Swiss proposal in relation to the paragraph one chapeau one B or the paragraph two scheffau. It's been drawn to my attention that paragraph five also has not been agreed ad referendum I would like to put it to you that we agree paragraph five ad referendum so agreed paragraph seven has not yet been agreed at referendum give you a moment to have a look at it on the screen. I put it to you that we could agree paragraph seven ad referendum so agreed. Moving on to article 51. We're getting close you might get an early mark. Article 51. Again, we have here a fence as established in accordance with the convention, taking that as a live issue to be resolved by the chair in her package deal. Does anyone have any other issues with article 51 that they would like to raise? Have no requests for the floor. I would like to take us on to article 52. We have not agreed any of these paragraphs at referendum yet. So I'll open the floor on comments on And article 52 with the intention that I would like to put these paragraphs to you this afternoon to agree at referendum. I'm having no requests for the floor at all on Article 52. May I put the entire article? Egypt you have the floor?
Madam Chair, I think we have repeatedly called for the deletion of paragraph three in its entirety three, paragraph A and B and we have explained many times our position towards this issue. So paragraph three End Thank you.
Thank you very much Egypt.
Can I put paragraph one of article 52 to plenary to agree ad referendum? So agreed. Can I put paragraph two to plenary to agree ad referendum. So agreed. Thank you very much. We have gotten our way through chapter five. Finally, Jamaica, you have the floor.
In respect to article 49, paragraph one subparagraph II, we've listened to the intervention made by the distinguished delegates in respect of the insertion of the words or competent authority. We've looked at other conventions on talkin Ankara and how the language is court or competent authority. However, CARICOM does not support the removal of the word court, because the language used in other instruments suggests that competent authorities are no authority other than the court which we regard as a judicial authority. Further, if we read the entire sentence in its entirety, where it says take such measures, as may be necessary to permit its competent authority to give effect to an order of confiscation issued by a court by a court or competent authority, it's it's it's an elegantly phrase, because the competent authority would be give taking measures to give effect to an order issued by itself. So CARICOM proposes that we remove the words as may be necessary to permit its competent authorities. And then the language of that subparagraph would be take such measures to give effect to an order of confiscation issued by a court or competent authority of an another state party. Something to consider met perhaps other states have other proposals to better phrase that Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much to make on behalf of CARICOM. Right. Delegates we've heard several proposals this afternoon in relation to these articles. Which I think all merit close consideration by all of you. We've had, I'm not going to go through the proposals in article 42. Because that's quite complicated. And I hope you all took notes, but I can't read mine yet, and I will try to endeavor to translate them over the weekend. In Article 43, we've had a proposal to amend the title. We have had a proposal to delete the second paragraph of this article In Article 44. We are going to discuss further the italicized text on Monday article 45 and 46. We've had a very fulsome discussion around terminology there in article 47. Go down, get down, I want to see the whole thing. It looks like the only outstanding issue remains the issue to be discovered, discussed and agreed in the chairs in formals. In Article 48 similarly, the outstanding issue seems to be that to be discussed in the chairs in formals, as well as a potential edit around singular or plural as proposed by Tanzania. In Article 49, we've had a proposal to amend paragraph one, a and proposal to additionally amend that amendment, which I do commend you all to think carefully about, see if it makes sense for you. The similar proposal was made in article 51 day. And the only outstanding issue remaining in article 50 Is that which will be decided or resolved in the chairs informal. Report. I'm sorry, I missed one. We also had a proposal in article 46, too, to add the word or in the last sentence, so that it would not the mutual legal assistance and the extent would not meet need to meet both applicable treaties and also domestic laws but one or the other, or both, adding some discretion to that article.
Jamaica you've asked for the floor.
Madam Chair. I forgive me for taking the floor a second time, but I just wish to correct the record. In respect of the proposal I made about the amendments to 49 article 49 paragraph one subparagraph. Eight. It's for the deletion of the word starting from to permit its competent authorities. It's not the entire which starts as maybe necessary. That's what I said earlier. It's just to permit the competent authorities, which should read more elegantly. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you very much Jamaica. And finally, the other proposal that we have had regarding the articles in discussion this afternoon was the proposal to delete article 52 paragraph three. That finishes my very exhausted summary. Egypt, you've requested the floor.
You very much madam chair on Article 40 See nine, one a. In many of our legal systems, it's not only the court that issue orders, it's also the Attorney General's and competent authority. So we support the addition that we would like to say, or a competent authority so that we don't have the the its competent authorities to give effect to an order by a court or competent authority, a competent authority can clarify the language more, thank you.
Thank you so much Egypt. I have no other requests with law on these articles. It is late, I want to let you go early up. But as I said, at the beginning of this afternoon, I did circulate, I asked the Secretariat to circulate some proposals based on informal negotiations that we had last night. These are not these are from the chair. So these are from me, these are not from this is what I have taken from those informals, to put forward to you as an idea on some of the things that we've been discussing in plenary and informal on a few of our articles that I see as a potential way forward. If the Secretariat could pop it up on the screen when they have it, we did a lot of drafting. It was very constructive last night. And I thank everyone again, for being so collaborative. The proposals that I sent around a little bit later, are a little bit different. One in particular, this is because at about 1130, at night, the Secretary and I realized that we'd missed found a big hole in what we've been discussing. So I would like to put that to you all, so that you can see it. And I invite responses to these proposals. As I say, they are from me, so feel free to rip them to shreds. Constructive criticism is very unwelcome, particularly this afternoon. On a Friday, before we all go and do whatever we need to do on the weekend to get ready for next week. So in article 37, we had a considerable discussion here, at some point this week, on what how this chapeau paragraph one should operate. And we discussed whether we can add more discretion into this paragraph, but also how this paragraph interacts with paragraph eight of a the text as well. Which I know we haven't agreed to address because of this outstanding issue between paragraphs one and paragraphs eight. So if we can have that one put up, I invite comments on this proposal. Moving down to Article, this same article 37, paragraph 18, if we can scroll. So this is the new proposal. It was I think we sent this out at 1130. So please, constructive criticism is is very welcomed. What we have done here is we have Sorry, can I we have listened, I have listened to those who were very much in favor of retaining the words, including any reason for refusal of extradition. And I've also listened very carefully to those who were very keen to delete that phrase. We tried to include discretion into that phrase, but only enough discretion so that it allowed countries to do what they needed to do under their international legal obligations. And we took a proposal by member state, that was to add an additional clause at the end of the sentence, but that added conditionality around this paragraph. However, at 11 o'clock at night, we realized that that conditionality of applying only under existing legal obligations or not providing reasons or the under existing legal obligations, that conditionality as we had been playing around with could be read to imply Um, the conditionality was on the reason for refusal, but also could be read on the requirement to provide a decision. And we wanted to make sure that it was very, very clear that there is a requirement to inform the requesting state party of its decision in regard to extradition. And it is only the reasons for that decision that are discretionary. And they are only discretionary in very particular circumstances, which is if that party is prevented from doing so, by its domestic law or its international legal obligations. I am very keen to hear whether you find the proposals on Article 37, paragraph one and article 37, paragraph 18 acceptable.
Russian Federation, you have the floor?
Thank you chair. For us. It's except the first paragraph is acceptable as it's currently written alongside paragraph eight of this article of this Yes, paragraph 18. We're not so satisfied with. So, if we go back to the discussion that we had, we were saying that a reference generally to international law as a refusal for extradition is unclear. And so we proposed to read more specific and what that should be a concrete international treaty, which is hindering the implementation of a very important international principle must should be there isn't that having just a reference to international for that is is not sufficient, in order to move away from this fundamental principle of international order, have Internet of way of providing committee for this reason. In addition, the National led just domestic law has appeared to which for the requesting state is a closed field, really. It's not transparent for the requesting state. So again, to move away from this from this fundamental principle of international cooperation. But nevertheless, we are ready in order to reach a compromise to accept both domestic or international legal obligations. If we have come after them, and at the end, add which are to be communicated to the requesting party, the requesting state party so after the words legal obligations, we'd have a comma and then add the sentence which are to be communicated to the requesting state party. Thank you.
Thank you so much Russian Federation. We have taken note of that proposal. Given that this is plenary, this is not a drafting group. I'm hesitant to put proposals up on the screen. But I do commend everyone to consider that proposal which has disappeared off the screen. The other screen I was looking for? Yes, that one. Thank you. So the entire paragraph, the entire sentence would read the requested state party shall inform the requesting state party of any reason for refusal of extradition, unless the requested state party is prevented from doing so by its domestic law, or its international legal obligations, comma, which had to be communicated to the requesting state party. I think I have captured that correctly. I have no other requests for the floor at this stage on the article 37 proposals. So I might take you to article 38. This was a compromise proposed by Member State. But I don't I'm very happy to I was very keen to put it in this proposal from the chair. Because it does seem to have been able to garner quite broad support as a compromise. I know it is not anyone's ideal outcome. But I would ask you to consider whether this proposal is something you could agree to. And if now please let me If not, please let me know. I have no request for the floor. I take it that you all love it. Thank you very much proposer of this and also for everyone for showing flexibility. I know that this is a very important issue to many of you. Turning to article 40. We had a long discussion about how the paragraph in the revised draft text the December December, December revised draft text. The first paragraph there was the second paragraph from the text in the zero draft that we examined in August, and that that first paragraph from August was removed. This created some ambiguity on how the article was being read because the second paragraph from August. Now the first paragraph in December was around applying to legal persons and was caged in a slightly different way. So what we have proposed to do and what seems to be acceptable to a majority is to reinsert the old paragraph one from ASC six, keep paragraph one from December. That becomes paragraph two, and the rest of the article then flows. I note I've put a lot of square brackets in the old paragraph one now new paragraph, new new paragraph one. That is because these issues as you all know, are under consideration by the chairs in formals. I hope the reinsertion of the text from ASC six is acceptable. Putting to one side, the bracketed text scrolling down then to I believe it was paragraph 14 In paragraph 14, which talks about what a mutual legal assistance request shall contain, if we could scroll down to put a and f on the screen thank you. We had quite a lot of discussion around nationality versus person of origin and whether or not an item or an account could have a nationality. So very technical and logical. But this proposal tries to pull apart and separate those two issues, to make it more clear, so that the paragraph would now read that where possible and appropriate the identity, location and nationality of a person of any person concerned, as well as the country of origin, description and location of any item or accounts concerned. I think this makes it a lot clearer. And I hope you do too. In paragraph F, we had some concern around sorry. We had in paragraph F, we had some concern around the time period a period being a requirement of the request. So we have separated out here, the time period and the purpose, so that the time period is discretionary. Sometimes it may be appropriate, and sometimes it may not be, or it may be difficult to provide that information. And so have simply separated this into two sub paragraphs, one for the time period and one for the purpose. think this makes it clearer, and lets us move on. And say no request for the floor on anything in relation to this proposal. If we scroll down to paragraph 710, we had a proposal to add additional types of people that this paragraph would apply to that list was longer than the list in front of us. We had some objections to some of those suggestions. The one suggestion that we heard no objection and some support for was to add the word victim here after witness. So we've proposed to include that term. And in article 41, regarding the 24/7 network. We had a discussion around the scope of the 24/7 network. And a lot of discussion has been occurring on scope, in the chairs in formal. So you can see that there is a lot of bracketed text here. But we would propose to go back to the way that this paragraph was drafted in article in our August session, noting that the issues of how we refer to offenses established in accordance with this convention, whether they are covered whether they are established whether they are listed the discussion around serious crime, and the discussion around article 17 are all happening in the chairs informal. And the outcome of those discussions will of course, impact the square brackets of this article. I have a request for the floor Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you chair on the previous article on 4017. Thank you for adding victim to this. But we know also that we asked for such a suspect or accused to be included, whose indication whose testimony is often very important, perhaps more so than the witness sometimes. So we've heard, of course, the concerns that have been expressed by some countries. But we believe that if we read the start of this paragraph, we can see that this is quite a discretionary approach and its paragraph and it's linked to the domestic legislation of the requesting country. So someone who can the person who can whoever can then can ask For the suspect or the accused, and those who can't, won't then request that the suspect or the accused. So the wording of this paragraph allows for this assistance to be refused are not provided or not provided. But if we don't then put it in, then we then at from the very outset, don't have the opportunity to use a request for those people in this in this particular procedure. We know that for countries with common law, perhaps this isn't so crucial, because the testimonies from those victims and witnesses can also be considered as a witness testimony. In our country, that's not the case, though. We need to identify an independent procedural status for these. And so for us, it's important to inclus the accused and suspect to then meet our national requirements for this. And those who don't want that to cooperate, who don't wish to cooperate in this field, then for them. The paragraphs begins with phrasing that allows for them to not do that. Thank you.
Thank you very much Russia for that explanation. I ask those in the room who have proposed objections to the inclusion of the word suspect and accused to think about the discretionary nature of the opening of this paragraph. It was my understanding that to include those terms, would require from some countries significant redrafting of the remainder of the text. And I wanted to keep it simple. But if those who have an issue with suspected accused think there is any way that we might be able to include those terms, I would welcome your thoughts on that. Perhaps not right now but over the weekend. Argentina you have the floor.
you, Madam Chair. Having listened to the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation, given that Argentina had expressed some concerns about the mention of the accused in this paragraph. As the text stands, and on our desire to have an agreement on multilateral agreements, we think that this drafting appears not to be possible to be maintained, as we said yesterday in the informal consultations, without prejudice to that Argentina has been bringing forward investigations against people accused persons sometimes through video conferencing. But we need the Argentinian judge in the case to be present. At least when the hearing takes place. I wish to be flexible and if other delegations because only Argentina has spoken at length about this, if other delegations can be flexible then of course we can work with the delegation of the Russian Federation to try and find acceptable language for this paragraph. Thank you.
Thank you very much Argentina for showing that willingness towards flexibility. It's very appreciated at this time of day
Jamaica you have asked for the floor Jamaica you have the floor.
Thank you Madam Chair. In respect of Article sub paragraph 17 of article 40, I believe, of article 40. I have listened having listened to the distinguished delegate from the Russian Federation and the delegate from Argentina. It's difficult based on our understanding, CARICOM, how the CARICOM jurisdictions work and our understanding of the criminal law system, it would be difficult for us even having regard to where it says wherever possible for us to have a an accused or a suspect appear of via video conferencing. Because when you think of instances where if it is the person who is accused, and he's offered bail, then that member states would not have the jurisdiction to monitor that accused person. If it is at a child starts. And the person is eventually convicted. And he's in another state. Whole that would be difficult in terms of its practical operation. You are tried in one state via video conference, not you're convicted, how that how does the state that you're trying to enforce that penalty, it would be rather difficult and there'll be a lot of resources required of the state that is providing the video conferencing resources. So while it is easier to be done in relation to witnesses, but when you think of criminal law generally and criminal practice and procedure for an accused person and the intention of criminal law, for an accused person to appear via video conferencing, it's it's challenging. So even with wherever possible, it's I can't think of a situation where it would be possible, particular for CARICOM, I don't know if any other member states can give instances where it would ever be possible. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much, Jamaica United States you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be brief, the United States also does not support the Edit to add accused or suspect here. We agree with the distinguished delegate from Jamaica speaking on behalf of CARICOM that adding accused and suspect here raises significant difficulties here. We would also note that this is not agreed language from prior UN conventions like the talk. The United States has no issue with the addition of victim as the Chair has proposed here because a victim is indeed a witness. But we cannot support the proposed edits to add it to the store suspect. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you United States Russian Federation you have the floor
. Thank you Chair in way of response to what was said by CARICOM and the US we firstly we're not trying to be a tie this in exactly with the language of previous conventions. Nevertheless, As time has passed, and we're here to update and progressively develop international law and perhaps then bridge any gaps that slipped through and then have been would then subsequently been identified in practice. In fact, in actual fact, the hearing through via VTC via video conference of the suspect are excused in majority of cases, that's easier that would be easier to help to organize the van for the witness and victim. So although for the for that reason, and all civilized legal systems. The testimony of the suspect, as accused is provided strictly on a voluntary basis. And like the witness, who can then be coerced into this, whereas the suspect an accused can't be. But by way of an example where this could be needed, there are examples such as often constantly come up in practice. For example, the suspect is located on an international wanted list. And does not want to appear on the territory of a country that is investigating them. Or there is a trial underway, but really wants to provide to the court or investigators, that position of their innocence. And then in doing so, we're denying them this opportunity to provide this voluntary testimony regarding their innocence. And rather than instead of that we're not providing anything else other option rather than being good at hiding or running away or fleeing from the country, whether it is holding the esterification, although perhaps, after they've provided these voluntary testimony, but on a voluntary basis. The speaker's microphone has been cut off. Microphone.
Complete your thought.
Though, yes. If they provided a testimony on voluntary basis, then the accusation could be lifted. And then they they would then have to hide from the from the trial that was underway. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much Russian Federation. Costa Rica, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just very briefly. Given what CARICOM said on the US said we could not allow for the accused person to be included in this draft under any circumstances. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Costa Rica.
Cabo Verde, you've asked for the floor. Yes.
Thank you, man. In this parallel 17 consider that there are different legal and judicial systems where the test says judicial authority, it must say competent authority. For example, in Cape Verde, the prosecutor is the competent authority to hear a witness victim and or or or expert when the process is under investigation. And for us, the judicial authority is the judge by the prosecutor and the judge or judicial judiciary authorities. So we would like to have this change over there.
Thank you very much cabability for that proposal, so that would be to after the red text where it says a witness victim or ex By the judicial authorities or competent authorities of another state party. am I representing that correctly?
After experts
we're not changing the text here. I was just making sure that I know. Yeah. So it would be to include
whatever it says judicial authority should be competent authority.
So you're saying replaced judicial authority with competent authority not giving the old Senate judicial authority or competent authority race. Thank you for that proposal. Capriati. Argentina, you have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If delegations don't want to redraft language on this, we would like to keep the original text as in line with the previous conventions.
Thank you, Agent Tina, I definitely do not want to enter a complex drafting exercise at 530 on a Friday evening. Given that it is 530 on a Friday evening, I want to thank you all for your engagement with these proposals. And also for all your hard work over the week on chapters four and five. As I said earlier, and as the Chair announced, we will be continuing discussion of all aspects of the Convention on Monday formally and informally. Starting off at 830 on Monday morning, and then going into other informals. Please look at the website because I hope to take these chapters into some informal informal discussions, as well, to resolve some of the outstanding issues. Before we finish, I'm going to hand over to the Secretariat, Director John Bradley need to make some very important announcements that you all want to listen to.
Thank you, Madam Chair, make this announcement on behalf of Ambassador Mubarak be the chair of the committee. As all member states, delegates may know, there is a serious budget crisis in the United Nations with the regular budget. And so today, the UN leadership decided that there will be austerity measures taken around the world related to building operations. This was just announced this afternoon. It actually has not been formally announced to member states yet, but they will be receiving a message from UN leadership to the President of the General Assembly that I think will be released sometime this weekend. But those measures, austerity measures include any operations meetings, actually, within the building ahead of you and headquarters in New York, cannot happen after 6pm. So that means that we technically cannot have night sessions next week now because of our importance of our session because of the the fact that we're in the middle of our session, and due to some discussions with dgac am here in New York, they have allowed us to take our night sessions next week, which were scheduled from seven to 10pm. In this room, the informal plenaries that we had set for next week in the evenings, just as we've had in the evenings this week, we will they have allowed us to have it in this room between one in 3pm. So that means that we will have in this room in formals in the morning from 10 to one for actually formal sessions from 10 to one informal plenary session from one to three, and then the second formal plenary session from three to six. And I'm sorry that that I have to be the one to to break this news. We literally found out about this this afternoon and we're negotiating a solution. It there's nothing we can do about it and I think it's it's the only choice that we have. The chair asked me to please pass along this message to you on her behalf. And I leave you with Have a good weekend.
