23.
E/CN.7/1988/2 (Part II) page 7
Some representatives indicated that the activities referred to in subparagraph 1(b) should not constitute separate offences but only be punishable as complicity.
24.
Several representatives expressed the view that in order for the activities indicated in subparagraph (b) to be considered as criminal, they had to be undertaken intentionally and with the knowledge of their illicit objective. It was also suggested that it was the prior knowledge of the actual use of materials and equipment for illicit production and manufacture which had to be taken into consideration for the establishment of the offence. Some representatives pointed to the difficulties of implementing the provisions of the subparagraph which dealt essentially with activities related to the preparatory stage in the illicit production or manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
25. The Group agreed that the subparagraph should refer to "controlled substances" thus limiting its scope of application.
26.
The Group agreed to incorporate in subparagraph 1(c) the more comprehensive provision of paragraph 2 of article 3 regarding the acquisition, possession, transfer or concealment of property, it being understood that the latter provision could then be deleted to avoid duplication. It was proposed that reference should be made as well to the utilization of property and that the mention in the original subparagraph 1(c) of the use of such property in the illicit traffic should be retained.
27.
Several representatives pointed to the difficulty of defining and limiting the scope of application of subparagraph 1(c) which, as presently drafted, might be open to unreasonable extensions.
28.
Several representatives proposed that a limitation clause be inserted in the opening sentence of paragraph 2 as it dealt with sanctions which were in the purview of State sovereignty. It was proposed that the provision of paragraph 2 should be made subject to the constitutional limitations, legal system and domestic law of the Parties.
29.
Taking into account the seriousness of drug trafficking offences, several other representatives supported the provision of paragraph 2 as drafted; in their view the measures envisaged therein were indicative of the innovative penal measures which States had to take to deal with drug trafficking. Accordingly the introduction of a limiting clause would reduce the deterrent effect of the sanctions envisaged.
30.
Several representatives expressed the view that the sanctions provided for in paragraph 2 should be sufficiently stringent to have the expected deterrent effect. Severe penalties should be provided for in criminal law commensurate with the serious offences enumerated in paragraph 1. Several representatives insisted that the penal measures envisaged in the new convention should go further than those provided for in article 36 of the Single Convention and in article 22 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. In this connection, several representatives strongly supported the inclusion of pecuniary sanctions and the forfeiture of property and proceeds in the paragraph under consideration.