The first two days of the concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime were filled with intense debates and various proposals on the updated draft of the convention. The discussions reflected the different perspectives of participating countries and civil societies, highlighting the need to balance security, human rights, and international cooperation.

Protection of Children: Amendment of Article 14

One of the most debated points was Article 14, which addresses the protection of children against online exploitation and sexual abuse. There was a request to modify the term “child” in paragraph 1, replacing it with a more precise definition in paragraph 2, which defines a “child” as “anyone under 18 years of age.” This amendment seeks to align the convention with other international standards and provide stronger legal clarity.

Austria specified that the term “under 18 years” was not sufficiently accurate, considering that in their country and others in the region, citizens have different rights from the age of 14. Sierra Leone promoted a more specific definition, suggesting replacing “child” with “citizen with legal responsibility.”

Country Positions on Key Articles

Iran supported a clear and consistent definition in Article 14, while Ecuador called for reducing asymmetries in the capacities to implement the treaty and opposed the inclusion of new crimes in future revisions. Chile prioritized children’s rights and, although not taking a strong stance on Article 14, supported Costa Rica’s proposal to include a section on political crimes, which also received significant backing from other countries. Costa Rica proposed including a definition of political crimes in the convention to address these offenses in the context of cybercrime, a controversial proposal as some countries struggle to reach a consensus on an equitable and universally accepted definition.

Two blocks of states must align a unified stance regarding Article 14, “Offenses related to online material depicting child sexual abuse or exploitation.”

Debates on Article 40 and Other Key Articles

Article 40 deals with mutual legal assistance. India requested the removal of the numeral 22, which states there is no obligation for mutual legal assistance if the request is made for discriminatory purposes. India argued that this numeral could be problematic in its application.

Panama and Malaysia also discussed Article 6. Panama supported the robustness of this article and Article 24, which addresses the prevention and combatting of the use of ICT for criminal acts. Malaysia suggested changing “law” to “treaties” in the text.

Russia supported Mexico’s proposal on ratification proportions, emphasizing the importance of universal application of the convention, although expressing difficulties with Costa Rica’s proposed definition of political crimes.

Norway opposed real-time data collection and intrusive measures, proposing to transfer certain provisions to Article 35, which addresses the protection of personal data. Egypt, representing several countries, supported paragraph 1 of Article 6 but rejected the expansion of Article 24 and any additional mention of human rights, considering them redundant.

Requests for Clarification and New Proposals

Canada requested clarifications on Article 4, which sets out the general principles of the convention. They expressed support for Mexico’s proposals on ratifications and paragraph 2 of Article 6 and agreed that the convention title did not capture all the nuances of the text, supporting Costa Rica’s suggestion.

Singapore shared CARICOM’s stance on not specifying rights in paragraph 2 of Article 6, while Nicaragua supported Egypt’s position on international cooperation, rejecting conditions and emphasizing the need for funding from developed countries.

Iceland rejected Article 4 and supported the current wording of Articles 6 and 14. Angola highlighted the protection of human rights and individual freedoms as essential, though recognizing redundancies in other mentions.

Armenia emphasized the importance of human rights safeguards to achieve consensus, supporting Articles 6 and 24. The Dominican Republic highlighted the importance of the title regarding its future implications, proposing to include the parenthetical part of the title in Article 2 and supporting Articles 6 and 24.

Pakistan proposed that cybercrime is not a universally defined concept and suggested adding incitement to hatred and religious violence. They also called for changing the gender perspective to the empowerment of women and girls, supporting paragraph 1 of Article 6 but not paragraph 2. They proposed adding “mens rea” in Article 7, which addresses criminal responsibility, and called for additional safeguards in Article 14.

Conclusions from the First Two Days

Australia rejected the annual review and supported the positions of Brazil and Costa Rica on Article 14 and political crimes, respectively. Qatar insisted that mutual cooperation should not be obstructed by using human rights and considered existing conventions on children’s rights sufficient.

Several countries, like Egypt and Syria, requested the inclusion of terrorism as a serious crime in Article 14.

Article 6 is fundamental as it establishes the obligations of States Parties to adopt measures to prevent and combat cybercrime. India preferred to keep only the numeral 1.

There are three approaches regarding Article 6:

• States agreeing with the current content of Article 6 with its paragraphs.
• States requested the removal of paragraph 2 of Article 6, arguing that this convention’s focus is on cybercrime, and the sections on human rights are covered under specific and pertinent regulations.
• States suggest expanding paragraph 2 to detail more human rights considerations.

Regarding ratifications, there are two different blocks concerning the number of ratifications needed to approve the document. Mexico emphasized the need for at least 60 ratifications with more than two-thirds of the membership to avoid the regionalization of the convention, supported by countries like Slovakia, Fiji, Costa Rica, Portugal, Montenegro, etc. Meanwhile, countries like Venezuela, Iran, Vietnam, and Egypt agreed to maintain 30 ratifications as the necessary amount to agree on the text.

Peru urged the inclusion of cooperation and knowledge transfer between member states. Additionally, for Article 17, they proposed including digital assets.

The first two days concluded without final decisions but established a framework for future negotiations, highlighting the priorities and concerns of the participating countries. Discussions are expected to continue, seeking a consensus that balances cybersecurity, international cooperation, and the protection of human rights.