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

650 Travaux préparatoires: United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime“Option 1“(b) Require appropriate markings on each imported firearm permitting the identificationof the importer’ s name and address 3 [, and an individual serial number ifthe firearm does not bear one at the time of import]; 4 and“Option 2 5“(b) Require appropriate markings on each imported firearm following itsimportation for the purpose of commercial sale within the importing country, or permanentprivate importation, so that the source of the firearm can be traced; and“(c) Require the appropriate marking of any firearm confiscated or forfeitedpursuant to article VII of this Protocol that is retained for official use.“[... The firearms referred to in article II, subparagraph (c) (ii), of this Protocolshould be marked appropriately at the time of manufacture, if possible.] 6“2. States Parties shall encourage the firearm manufacturing industry to developmeasures against the removal of markings.” 7Rolling text (A/AC.254/4/Add.2/Rev.2)“Article IX“Marking of firearms 8, 9“1. For the purposes of identifying and tracing firearms, [referred to in articleII, subparagraph (c) (i), of this Protocol,] 10 States Parties shall:“(a) Require, 11 at the time of manufacture of each firearm, the appropriate markingof the name of its manufacturer, its place of manufacture and its [serial number];123Japan suggested that there was a need to define the period for marking imported firearms (e.g. the period duringwhich they passed through customs or during which they were legally obtained by the final recipient) (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1and Corr.1).4Addition proposed by the United States (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1).5Alternative proposed by Japan and the United Kingdom (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1), which was taken fromthe action plan recommended by the Senior Experts Group on Transnational Organized Crime.6Additional paragraph proposed by Mexico (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1).7South Africa suggested including the words “developing effective and inexpensive measures to mark firearms” (seeA/AC.254/5/Add.5).8Germany entered a reservation on this article to allow for more specific comments to be made as negotiations proceeded,pending further study. However, the importance of this article was stressed by many other delegations and therewas general agreement on both the need for marking and the inclusion of the article in the draft protocol.9The United States suggested that inputs should be sought from experts on the technical issues, including those onmarking, which was supported by Australia, Ecuador, Norway, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Tunisia andTurkey. The United States stressed that discussion by experts would not be a drafting exercise. Cuba suggested that theexpertise developed in the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms established pursuant to General Assembly resolution50/70 and in the Department of Disarmament Affairs of the Secretariat might be also utilized. The United States suggestedthat inputs should also be sought from relevant non-governmental organizations and the firearm manufacturing industry.10Addition proposed by Mexico (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1), supported by the Holy See.11The requirement for marking at the time of manufacture was generally agreed upon.12On the type of information contained in the marking at the time of manufacture, the United Kingdom proposed toinclude “the year of manufacture”, and suggested to clarify the meaning of the words “place of manufacture” (seeA/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1). Argentina proposed to include the “model number”, in addition to the serial number. NewZealand proposed to replace the words “serial number” with “unique identifier”. China proposed to delete the words “nameof manufacturer”. Switzerland suggested that the marking requirement should not be overloaded.