TNAG-1710-FCO40-2386-Royal-visits-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-1987 — Page 21

E/CN.7/1988/2 (Part II) page 6

Article 2

First session

16.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE DRAFT CONVENTION

Several representatives expressed the view that the title of article 2 did not reflect the full substantive content of the article and it was suggested that it should be amended to read as follows: "Offences, Sanctions and Jurisdiction".

17. Several representatives emphasized that the limitation clause in the introductory sentence of paragraph 1 should be deleted as such restricting language would have the undesirable effect of weakening one of the basic articles of the convention and was not in conformity with the usually accepted practice in other international penal instruments; the undertaking by States to punish the illicit traffic should be mandatory. Some representatives suggested that the following alternative limiting clause should be used in the introductory sentence: "consistent with the basic principles of their national legal systems", as had been decided earlier with respect to articles 7, 13 and 14, so as to provide flexibility for each State in adjusting their national legislation to the stringent provisions of this article.

18. The view was expressed that only subparagraph 1(d) should be subject to a limitation clause similar to that of article 36 of the 1961 Convention, that is, subject to constitutional limitations, its legal system and domestic law, as the various offences covered under this provision were often open to different interpretations.

19. Some representatives expressed the view that only offences committed intentionally should fall within the scope of the convention and proposed the introduction of the word "intentionally" in paragraph 1.

20. Some representatives considered it preferable to examine first the provisions of subparagraphs (a)-(d) and, on the basis of their subsequent reformulation, to decide what limiting clause, if any, to adopt in the introductory sentence.

21. Different views were expressed regarding the criterion to be applied to qualify an offence as "serious". In that connection, several representatives pointed to the circumstances surrounding the offence, the scale of the traffic involved, the disturbance of social order and the threat to the health of individuals and society as possible factors to be taken into consideration. Several representatives favoured the deletion of the adjective "serious" since minor cases might constitute offences under subparagraphs 1(a)-(d). representative attached importance to its retention as it would serve as an invitation to Parties to provide severe sanctions commensurate with the definite gravity of the offence.

22.

The Group adopted subparagraph 1(a) as worded in the initial text with the understanding that the expression "illicit traffic" was to be defined in article 1 and that the definition suggested by the informal working group in the Commission of Narcotic Drugs. still had to be reviewed by the Expert Group.