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

634 Travaux préparatoires: United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime“(a) Illicit trafficking in firearms, ammunition [, explosives] [and other relatedmaterials]; [and] 14“(b) Illicit manufacturing of firearms, ammunition [, explosives] [and otherrelated materials];“[(c) [Illicit] detention 15 and use of [illicitly trafficked or manufactured] firearms,ammunition and other related materials;]“[(d) Importing, exporting and manufacturing of any explosive bomb, incendiarybomb, gas bomb, grenade, rocket, rocket launcher, missile system or mine withouta licence or authorization from a competent authority of the State Party;] 16 [and17, 18“(e) Obliterating, removing or altering the serial number on a firearm.]“[2. Subject to the respective constitutional principles and basic concepts of thelegal systems of the States Parties, the criminal offences established pursuant to paragraph1 of this article shall include participation in, association or conspiracy to commitsuch offences, attempts to commit such offences and aiding, abetting, facilitating[and counselling] the commission of said offences.]“[3. States Parties that have not yet already done so shall adopt the necessary legislativeor other measures to sanction criminally, civilly or administratively under theirdomestic law the violation of arms embargoes mandated by the Security Council.]” 19Eighth session: 21 February-3 March 2000Notes by the Secretariat3. Delegations based their comments on the text of article 5 of the revised draft protocolcontained in document A/AC.254/4/Add.2/Rev.4, which was virtually the same asthat contained in document A/AC.254/4/Add.2/Rev.3. The only difference was the dele-14After some discussion of a proposal to combine subparagraphs 1 (a) and (b), it was decided at the fifth session ofthe Ad Hoc Committee that separate provisions were needed to clarify that compliance would require the enactment of twodistinct offences, rather than a single combined offence. The insertion of the word “and” would depend on whether subparagraphs(c), (d) or (e) (or any combination of those subparagraphs) remained in this paragraph.15A number of delegations expressed concern or uncertainty about the meaning of the word “detention” in the Englishtext. Botswana proposed that it should be replaced with the word “possession”. Other delegations expressed concern thatdealing with possession was beyond the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee or that simple possession offences might notbe treated as criminal offences (as opposed to administrative or regulatory offences) in domestic law. Others argued thatpossession offences were needed to control illicit trafficking and were therefore not beyond the mandate of the Ad HocCommittee and that they would be an important tool in combating transnational organized crime. Some delegations voicedsupport for including the word “possession” but wanted the word “use” excluded. Several delegations voiced concern thatdomestic legislation implementing this requirement, if not properly worded, might include innocent possession of illicitlytrafficked or manufactured firearms. Switzerland pointed out that that possibility would be eliminated by the reference to“illicit” possession or detention, so long as that word was retained.16This addition was proposed by Norway at the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee as a consequence of its proposalthat subparagraph (c) (ii) of article 2 (which included these devices in the definition of “firearm”) should be deleted.A number of delegations expressed support for this proposal as a compromise solution. Others maintained that the textshould be deleted entirely as it went beyond the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee. Several delegations continued to supportits retention in article 2. A number of delegations reserved their position pending translation of the proposed texts.17The Republic of Korea proposed that this text, presently in subparagraph (e) (iii) of article 2, should be inserted inarticle 5. The proposal was supported by Botswana and France.18At the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, the United States proposed that a provision criminalizing activitiesrelating to the “brokering” of transactions otherwise designated as illicit in article 5 should be inserted here (seeA/AC.254/L.84 above).19At the fifth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, the majority of delegations argued that this provision was an armscontrol measure and not a crime control measure and, being beyond the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee, should be deleted.Several delegations argued that, to the contrary, the breaking of United Nations arms embargoes in conflict situationswas an activity likely to be engaged in by transnational organized criminal groups and should therefore be dealt with in thedraft protocol.