Iran Endorses Efforts to Conclude Int’l ICT Convention

The Iranian UN ambassador, Saeed Iravani, delivered a statement before the ad hoc committee on elaboration of a convention on countering the use of ICT for criminal purposes, held in New York on Monday.

The full text of the statement is as follows:

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Madam Chair,

At the outset, we would like to express our appreciation for all your efforts during the previous sessions of the Ad hoc Committee. We also thank the Secretariat for its dedication and tireless work in preparation of this meeting.

We trust in your able leadership and professionalism in improving the text of the Convention to effectively prevent and combat crimes committed by the use of ICTs that meets the expectation and addresses the concerns of all participating states. We reaffirm our commitment to work closely with you to address existing concerns and reach consensus on the outstanding issues in the draft convention.

Madam Chair,

We take note of the joint statement delivered by Egypt on behalf of many delegations, which resonates with the common objective of all states in reaching a consensus-based convention. We concur with the very essence of the said statement, pointing out that still some very important outstanding issues remain to be discussed to reach a desired and acceptable text and move towards consensus.

The important mandate conferred upon the Ad hoc Committee as per resolution 74/247 is “to elaborate a comprehensive international convention on countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes”, this should be the central focus of the present meeting; addressing issues that are outside the scope and purpose of this Convention would deviate us from our common main goal which is to provide the international community with a sound and robust international legal framework to counter crimes committed via information and communications technologies.

On a general note, we are concerned to observe that after extensive negotiations and strong opposition to certain provisions due to their inherent flaws within the draft text, such provisions have been reinserted into the text again. Equally, we are concerned that constructive proposals presented by my delegations, together with other like-minded delegations on certain provisions, have been ignored and deleted in the current text. We will continue our active engagement in the works of the committee to ensure that the final text addresses the serious concerns of my delegation and many like-minded delegates.

Madam Chair,

Distinguished Delegates,

We reiterate that the very nature of the Convention and the purpose envisaged for it requires a technical approach akin to that employed in drafting the UNCAC and thus to avoid the duplication of work and avoid addressing matters that, in principle, fall within the purpose and scope of human right treaties. The UNCAC, UNTOC and other relevant treaties, to which nearly all UN Members are parties or signatories, do not include human rights provisions. The established practice related to the UNCAC and UNTOC in not involving in human rights throughout their elaboration does not prejudice the importance of human rights obligations; rather, it signifies the very simple fact that criminal justice conventions focus on specific technical aspects of fighting crimes, and that it remains for other inclusive intergovernmental bodies to address human rights obligations in this area.

Along similar lines, we concur with the view of many delegations regarding the negative impact of the inclusion of certain provisions under the guise of human rights obligations on international cooperation in fighting the use of ICT for criminal purposes. Such provisions, which are not even commensurate with international human rights law, might be considered as an attempt to rewrite human rights obligations while we do not have such mandate or authority. This would only defeat the purpose of the Convention and risk it venture and being dragged into politicization and selectivity of few; it would hinder cooperation and prevent us from protecting the human rights of victims of ICT crimes as well as the society as a whole in the face of criminals who are relentless in employing legal loopholes to victimize people.

Madam Chair,

We believe that the current article 14 is not sufficient to protect our children against the horrendous crime of child sexual exploitation online. The main goal of the Article is to counter child sexual exploitation and prevent children from falling victim to the hands of criminals. There should be no exception which would allow for the commission of any form of child sexual exploitation or otherwise normalize such criminal conduct. However, Paragraph 3 of Article 14 manifestly defeats the purpose of the Article and visibly justifies child sexual exploitation when it is not related to a real person. The central element in article 14 is the protection of “children” not the form of the content; thus, it is surprising to us that few delegations are trying to create artificial boundaries of real and non-real material in this regard.

Misuse of technological advancements and materials depicting child sexual exploitation using technologies such as artificial intelligence tends to normalize child sexual exploitation and increases the possibility of perpetration of such crimes. Limiting the scope of the Article to real persons or only visual material is not the appropriate response; we should not signal to our children that there is an exception in fighting this heinous crime. We reaffirm our principled position that child sexual exploitation should be prohibited in all its forms, and Paragraph 3 of Article 14 should be deleted for that matter.

We reiterate our concern on the current formulation of Article 16 which did not take into account the position of many delegations who proposed or otherwise supported a paragraph to make this Article acceptable in the domestic laws of many countries. During the previous meeting of the Ad hoc Committee, my delegation and like-minded states proposed and supported languages that provide latitude to differences among various legal systems without undermining the purpose of the Article. The inclusion of a caveat paragraph, as my delegation suggested before, is the minimum requirement for this Article to gain support and consensus.

Madame Chair,

For the sake of brevity, we reserve our position on some other provisions of the draft convention, including further considerations on the above-mentioned Articles. We will reflect them in the course of this meeting.

In conclusion, I wish to assure you of my delegation’s full support and cooperation to conclude the comprehensive Convention during this session. We are committed to working together to reach consensus and present a draft convention with robust provisions that could ensure an effective fight against the use of ICT for criminal purposes.

I thank you, Madam Chair.