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

610 Travaux préparatoires: United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime“[(f) bis ‘Tracing’: the systematic tracking of firearms from manufacturer topurchaser (and/or possessor) for the purpose of aiding law enforcement officials inidentifying suspects involved in criminal violations, establishing stolen status andproving ownership.]“[(f) ter ‘Explosives’: any substances or articles that are made, manufacturedor used to produce an explosion, detonation or propulsive or pyrotechnic effect, except:“(i) Substances and articles that are not in and of themselves explosives; or“(ii) Substances and articles listed in the annex to this Protocol.]”Fifth session: 4-15 October 1999Notes by the Secretariat1. At the Vienna Technical Session on the Firearms Protocol, hosted by theGovernment of Japan on 11 and 12 October 1999 on the occasion of the fifth session ofthe Ad Hoc Committee, extensive discussion took place on article 2 (Definitions) of thedraft protocol. The deliberations of the Technical Session are reflected in the report of theChairman (see A/AC.254/L.86). The arguments that received support concerning each termwere as follows:Ammunition. The definition of ammunition was broadly supported. One participant statedthat the definition was too broad.Controlled delivery. Two participants suggested that discussion of the term “controlleddelivery” should be deferred until the subject had been dealt with in the discussion on therevised draft convention.Firearm. One participant proposed a new definition of the term “firearm”. There were no technicalissues raised that would require new options for the definition of “firearm”. Participantsdiscussed the technical viability of existing options; most participants supported option 1, subparagraph(c) (i). Some participants suggested that the items listed in that subparagraph wereillicitly trafficked, while others noted that those items should not be included in the draft protocolsince they were under the control of different legal regimes to that of firearms. Someparticipants favoured a broad definition of the term “firearm” for the purposes of law enforcementcooperation. With respect to the terms “portability” and “lethality”, some participantscautioned that those terms required a value judgement to be made and might therefore presentchallenges for law enforcement. Concerning the term “antique firearm”, some participantssuggested that a more precise definition was needed to prevent illicit trafficking in those items.Some participants proposed excluding the word “barrelled” from the definition of “firearm”,to allow for more flexibility. Some participants suggested excluding military firearms fromthe definition, since civilian possession of such firearms was already prohibited under theirdomestic law. One participant noted that military firearms often found their way into criminalhands. Another suggested that it would be more appropriate to deal with the issue underdiscussions concerning the scope of application of the protocol. On the issue of airguns, oneparticipant noted that some were of concern because they were readily convertible.Illicit manufacturing. The discussion focused mainly on the difference in the wording ofthe two options under subparagraph (d) (ii). To some participants, the difference betweenthe two options was not clear. One participant suggested that the words “appropriate authority”provided more flexibility than the words “competent government authority”. One participantsuggested adding the word “conversion” after the word “manufacturing”.