During the recent sessions of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Cybercrime, several countries have presented significant proposals seeking consensus on the list of crimes to be included in the international legal framework. The debate has been intense but focused on finding a balance between different perspectives, highlighting the importance of international cooperation to effectively address cybercrime.

Proposals on the List of Crimes

Egypt, Brazil, India, and Pakistan have been prominent in recent discussions, proposing various approaches to defining which crimes should be included in the international framework against cybercrime. These proposals aim to harmonize national laws with a global framework to ensure a coordinated and effective response to cyber threats.

Debate on Articles 14 and 16

Syria, representing several countries, has expressed strong opposition to the normalization of child sexual exploitation under Article 14, paragraph 3. This stance is supported by our organization. Additionally, Syria supported the acceptance of paragraph 4a of Article 14 but rejected subparagraph B.

Regarding Article 16, Syria emphasized the need to consider differences between national legal frameworks, suggesting the elimination of phrases that could be interpreted as restrictive. They also proposed adding a new paragraph 5 to Article 16 to ensure that no provision is interpreted in a way that contravenes fundamental rights.

Comments from Rwanda and China

Rwanda indicated that the current wording of Article 14 is ambiguous and requires revision for greater clarity. China, on the other hand, expressed its support for Syria’s proposals, reaffirming the importance of a coherent and uniform interpretation of the articles under discussion.

Recent Developments

Ad referendum approval was achieved for Articles 1 k, l, m, as well as Articles 2 a, b, and f. India’s proposal to include critical infrastructure in paragraph O of Article 2 received support from several countries, including Vietnam, Yemen, Egypt, Nepal, Zambia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, and Russia. However, it faced opposition from New Zealand, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland, who argued that this is a cybersecurity issue, not a cybercrime issue.

Discussions on Article 6.2

During the afternoon session, Article 6.2 was intensely debated. Mexico advocated for keeping the article unchanged, a position supported by the European Union and Chile. CARICOM proposed eliminating paragraph 6.2, while Syria and Egypt presented a united front. The United Kingdom showed its support for Canada.

The Congo expressed concern over the use of the term “gender,” suggesting “equality” instead and committed to sending a written proposal. South Africa, Costa Rica, and other countries expressed disappointment over the exclusion of Costa Rica’s proposal on political crimes from the final package. Additionally, 75 countries supported Mexico’s proposal to increase the number of ratifications from 30 to 60, lamenting its exclusion from the final document.

Review of the Provisional Convention Text

For a detailed review of the provisional convention text, you can access the document here.

We will continue to provide updates on the crucial decisions made during this final phase of the deliberations of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Cybercrime. At the start of the session on 05.08, there was considerable tension due to numerous meetings over the weekend among delegations.

Summary of Agreed Articles Related to the Text

• Art 54 (Technical Assistance and Capacity Building) paragraph 10
• Art 57 (Conference of the States Parties to the Convention) paragraph 2
• Pending Chapters 6 – 9 of Article 1
• Art 27 (Production Order, still under discussion; an agreement was reached on Friday 02.08, but unfortunately, it was reopened on 05.08)
• Art 2 (Terms of Use): Agreed paragraphs a, b, c, f, g, i, j, k, l, m (Terminology)

The president informed the delegates that they would have the final draft text by the afternoon of 06.08.