As delivered by Bjørn Berge, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Excellencies,

Dear colleagues,

It is a pleasure to see you this morning –

To discuss the right way forward for the international community in tackling the menace of cybercrime.

Let me begin with some clear facts.

In 2023 there were more than 343 million victims of cybercrime –

Data breaches were up by 72% from two years before –

And phishing attacks – the most common form of cybercrime – was estimated at a total cost of more than 10.3 billion US dollars.

And as the years go by, and the online environment expands, and new technologies emerge –

So too do new forms of cybercrime.

Theft and extortion have been joined by various kinds of sexual offences and victimisation.

And the financial, security and emotional costs of this are enormous.

So what we are facing are cross-border problems that require cross-border solutions –

And helping to find them is precisely the role of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and its two additional protocols.

As you may know, next month, we expect the United Nations General Assembly to adopt its own draft treaty –

A UN Convention on the Use of Information and Communication Technologies for Criminal Purposes.

So, this morning I like to focus on three things.

First, to remind all of us why the Budapest Convention is unique in its scope, content and impact.

Second, how this compares to the new United Nations treaty –

And third, what the interplay will be between them, and how we can ensure that this is a success.

So, what is it that makes the Budapest Convention so special?

As the first and only legally-binding treaty in its field –

It identifies concrete measures designed to help national authorities to counter crime, protect victims and prosecute the perpetrators –

And its substantive criminal law provisions are designed to apply both to current and future technology –

And as an open convention, it has a global reach, ratified by countries not only in Europe, but around the world.

Probably one of our most successful conventions, it has now has a total of 76 states parties from all around the world –

And 20 more have signed it, and been invited to accede.

In addition, more than 130 countries have so far used the Budapest Convention as the blueprint for domestic legislation –

And our Cybercrime Programme Office in Bucharest is currently co-operating with a wide range of countries –

Helping them to ensure that their laws are aligned with the Budapest Convention and meet rule of law requirements.

On top of this, its Second Additional Protocol–

Opened for signature just two years ago –

Addresses the challenges posed by obtaining
e-evidence between jurisdictions.

This Protocol will no doubt make cross-border co-operation on electronic evidence both easier and more effective –

With a system of safeguards also in place –

Including a detailed article on the Protection of Personal Data.

47 states have so far signed it, of which two have ratified.

I hope that others will follow suit quickly –

So that it can enter into force as soon as possible.

But what about the UN’s draft treaty?

In fact, the Council of Europe contributed to the work of the Ad Hoc Committee that developed it.

In doing that, I believe that we have ensured it will be consistent with the Budapest Convention –

And include the minimum of human rights and rule of law requirements necessary.

This is in large part thanks to the participation of our experts in treaty consultation sessions –

And the work of our Cybercrime Convention Committee to ensure a common position among the parties.

As the draft stands, many of our objectives have been achieved.

There is broad consistency between the two treaties –

With the core concepts of the draft UN treaty drawn from the Budapest Convention –

And supplemented by the provisions of UN treaties on organised crime and corruption –

Though none of the modern tools in the Second Protocol to the Budapest Convention have been included in the UN text.

But there are also other reasons for concerns.

Yes, the safeguards we argued for have been included –

But several states have objected to them and said that they will not accept any monitoring of compliance –

And the draft UN treaty risks being misused to target individuals, the private sector, media and civil society.

We can also note that important provisions are also broader or more vaguely defined than their equivalents in the Budapest Convention.

In short, compliance with conditions and safeguards is essential –

But might prove challenging.

Finally, the third question - how will these two treaties function alongside one another?

And what will be the value of the future UN treaty, given that it draws so much from the Budapest Convention, as well as existing UN conventions on crime and corruption?

Also, what synergies might be feasible between the Budapest Convention and the UN treaty?

To what extent could the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Programme Office and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime work on joint capacity activities to support both treaties?

And could our Organisation even contribute through capacity building or other means to strengthen human rights safeguards in countries that are parties only to the UN treaty?

Dear Ambassadors,

These are only some of the considerations that you might reflect further on this morning.

Of course Alexander Seger is here to give you the appropriate answers to these questions, and whatever other matters you think should be explored.

The floor is open to you.

I believe it is in all our interests to ensure the strong, effective and multilateral architecture that fights cybercrime effectively.

Thank you for your attention.