View/save PDF version of this document - La Strada International

Part Three. Article 6 483“(ii) Procuring or possessing of such a document for the purpose of providingit to persons involved in the smuggling of migrants; or“(iii) Acting on such a document when such conduct is committed by agovernment official.”France (A/AC.254/L.77)France proposed that paragraph 7 of article 4 should read as follows:“A person whose illegal entry or illegal residence is procured or intended to be procuredshall not be held responsible for an offence established in accordance with thisProtocol in respect of the illegal condition of the person’s entry or residence. Nothing inthis paragraph shall prevent a State Party from prosecuting a person for other activitiesthat would constitute an offence under the domestic law of the State Party concerned.”Notes by the Secretariat1. At the informal consultations held during the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee,with regard to article 4, paragraph 1, many delegations agreed with the proposal submitted byCanada and the United States (see A/AC.254/L.76), except for certain wording such as thewords “international travel” in subparagraph (b) (i), the words “possessing” and “involved” insubparagraph (b) (ii) and the words “acting on” in subparagraph (b) (iii). Some delegationssuggested that merely “possessing” the document should not be criminalized. In addition, therewas a discussion on whether the words “organized criminal group” should be in square brackets.One delegation suggested that the words “transnational organized crime” should be keptin square brackets and that the words “organized criminal group” should be inserted in squarebrackets next to those words. Several delegations suggested that the criminal conduct shouldbe linked to the organized criminal group so that the migrants would not be criminalized andtherefore preferred a proposal submitted by the Russian Federation that read “States Partiesthat have not yet done so shall adopt the necessary legislation or other measures to establishas criminal offences the activities of organized criminal groups relating to the organization,procuring and actual effectuation of the smuggling of migrants”. The proposal submitted byIndia (A/AC.254/L.58) was also supported. Mexico strongly suggested retaining option 1.However, the majority of delegations were in favour of deleting option 1, while one delegationsuggested retaining paragraph 1 of that option. One delegation suggested rephrasing subparagraph(b) (iii) to read as follows: “Causing a third party to use, possess, deal with or acton such a document for the purpose of smuggling migrants”. With regard to paragraph 3, therewas a convergence of views on subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c). One delegation suggested combiningthose subparagraphs. Many delegations were of the view that subparagraph (d) neededto be clarified. There was no objection to paragraph 4. With regard to paragraph 5 (and, inthe case of option 1, paragraph 6), most delegations preferred option 2, while the Syrian ArabRepublic strongly suggested adding the words “and smuggling of” after the word “treatment”in subparagraph 5 (b) of option 2. One delegation suggested that the element of “exploitation”in option 1 should be included in option 2. Regarding paragraph 7, there was consensus thatmigrants were victims and should therefore not be criminalized. It was also agreed, however,that migrants should not be given full immunity. Many delegations supported the proposal submittedby France (A/AC.254/L.77); however, several delegations were concerned about theclarity of the words “other activities” in that proposal. Other delegations suggested replacingparagraph 7 with the proposal submitted by Canada (A/AC.254/L.59), which the United Statesamended by inserting “(a)” after the words “paragraph 1” and by inserting the words “or takingany other action against” after the word “prosecuting”. Some delegations supported a