69. There was some discussion in the Group as to whether the paragraph should contain a list of the factual circumstances that could be taken into account by the courts. One opinion was that such a list, which necessarily could be neither exhaustive nor mandatory, was not advisable. Another view was that it could serve a useful illustrative purpose provided it was kept within reasonable limits.
70. The Group agreed to include, as proposed by two experts, two additional circumstances that could be taken into account by courts. The first one,
which had already been endorsed at the earlier meeting, would cover the involvement of the offender in other international organized criminal activities. The other, the purpose of which was to take into account the combination of drug offences with economic offences, would refer to the involvement of the offender in other illegal activities facilitated by the commission of the offence. As regards two factual circumstances already listed in the original draft under subparagraphs (c) and (d), the Group agreed to specify that in the case where the offender held a public office, the offence had to be connected with that office, and to add the use of minors to the victimization of minors.
71. Several representatives proposed that paragraph 4 be deleted as its purpose was not clear and, in the view of some of them, amounted to a violation of the principle non bis in idem. A proposal to introduce a limitation clause in line with that of article 36, paragraph 2, of the Single Convention in order to make the provisions generally acceptable was not agreed upon. It was pointed out that the introduction of a limitation clause would make the paragraph inoperative. One representative, citing the experience of his Government, indicated that the corresponding provision in the Single Convention had proved unworkable. The Group agreed to delete the paragraph.
72.
Several representatives pointed to the difficulties on both legal and practical grounds to which the application of paragraph 5 might give rise. It was noted in particular that certain legal systems did not include the concept of recidivism. The Group agreed to the proposal by several representatives to delete the paragraph and mention instead, in paragraph 3, prior convictions, whether foreign or domestic, among the factual circumstances that could be taken into account by the courts in sentencing for the offences enumerated in paragraph 1 of the article.
73.
Several representatives drew attention to the substantive connection between the provisions of paragraph 6 and those of article 4, paragraphs 6 and 7 which also dealt with cases in which a Party was requested to assume jurisdiction. The Group came to the conclusion that a separate article dealing specifically with jurisdictional issues would be more appropriate and decided to work out such an article.
74.
In discussing paragraph 7, the Group observed that its provisions dealt with two distinct concepts, namely early release and parole, on the one hand, and the statute of limitations, on the other. It was therefore considered more appropriate to dissociate those provisions and break them into separate paragraphs.
75.
As regards early release or parole, some representatives drew attention to the difficulties they had with the provision as drafted. It was pointed out in particular that it did not seem appropriate to require that the