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

Part Four. Article 8 651“(b) Require 13 appropriate markings on each imported firearm 14 [following itsimportation for the purpose of commercial sale within the importing country, or permanentprivate importation], 15 permitting the identification of the importer’s name andaddress [and an individual serial number if the firearm does not bear one at the timeof import] 16 [so that the source of the firearm can be traced]; 17 and“(c) [Require] 18 the appropriate marking of any firearm confiscated or forfeitedpursuant to article VII of this Protocol that is retained for official use.“[1 bis The firearms referred to in article II, subparagraph (c) (ii), of thisProtocol should be marked appropriately at the time of manufacture, if possible.]“2. States Parties shall encourage the firearm manufacturing industry to developmeasures against the removal of19, 20markings.”Notes 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, regarding subparagraph 1 (a) of article IX, there were no objectionsto marking firearms at the time of their manufacture. Some participants suggestedthat the markings should at least contain the name of the manufacturer, the place of manufactureand the serial number of the firearm, as those were essential to law enforcement.One participant suggested that ammunition could and should be marked. Regarding subparagraph1 (b), some participants recognized the value of marking firearms at the timeof their import, while others questioned the modalities. In particular, some participantsdiscussed at what point the marking would be done, that is, before or after import. Oneparticipant noted the challenges facing the European Union, given the treaty on the freemovement of goods in that region. The practical challenges and the necessity of markingat import were also discussed. Criminal liability for unmarked firearms was also raised byone participant, who noted that the importer was criminally liable for unmarked firearms.Regarding subparagraph 1 (c), some participants questioned whether marking was13Many delegations, including those of Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, New Zealand, Portugal, the Republic ofKorea, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the representatives of the Customs CooperationCouncil (also known as the World Customs Organization) and the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), supportedthe requirement of marking at the time of import. China and France were of the opinion that further considerationwas needed.14Japan 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).15Addition proposed by Japan and the United Kingdom (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1), supported by Croatia, thePhilippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. The Holy See, New Zealand, Nigeria, Qatar and the Republic of Koreaexpressed their preference for not including this phrase so that marking would be required regardless of the purpose of import.16Addition proposed, as indicated above, by the United States (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1). The Holy See proposedthe deletion of this phrase.17Addition proposed, as indicated above, by Japan and the United Kingdom (see A/AC.254/5/Add.1 and Corr.1). NewZealand requested clarification of the word “source”.18The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia supported the requirement for marking confiscatedfirearms. France was of the opinion that further consideration was needed. The Netherlands proposed replacing the word“require” with the word “ensure”.19The importance of there being an inexpensive way of marking was mentioned by Pakistan. Saudi Arabia made asuggestion to include a reference to “forged or counterfeited marking”. That suggestion was supported by Colombia.20Other issues discussed in relation to this article included: (a) a need for an international database on firearm manufacturers(suggested by Argentina and supported by Colombia, Ecuador, Nigeria, Portugal and Ukraine); (b) a need for auniversally compatible marking system (suggested by the Netherlands and supported by Portugal, Switzerland and Ukraine);and (c) a need for marking ammunition (suggested by Colombia, Turkey and Ukraine). While expressing its support formarking, China expressed the view that the difference of marking methods in each region needed to be taken into accountin developing this article.