The convention of cyber crime is the first international
treaty seeking to address cyber crime and internet crimes by harmonizing
national laws, improving investigation among nations. It was drawn up by the
council of Europe in Strasburg with the active participation of the council of
Europe’s observer State Canada, Japan and he USA. The convention and its
explanatory report was adopted by the committee of ministers of the council of
Europe at its 109th session on 8th November 2001 and was
opened for signature in Budapest Hungary, on 23 November 2001 and it entered
into force on 1 July 2004.
As at September 2, 2006, 15 States
had signed, ratified and acceded to the convention, while a further 28 states
signed the convention but not ratified.
On March 1, 2006 the additional
protocol to the convention on cyber crime came into force. Those states that
have ratified the additional protocol are required to criminalize the
dissemination of racist and xenophobic material through computer systems.
The convention is the first treaty
on crimes committed via internet. Its principles objectives and aim can be seen
through three ways which are;
1. Harmonizing
the domestic criminal substantive law elements of offences and connected
provisions in the area of cyber crime.
2. Providing
for domestic criminal procedural law powers necessary in the area of cyber
crime for the investigation and prosecution of such offences as well other
offences committee by means of a computer system or evidence in relation to
which is in electronic form.
3. Setting
up a fast and effective regime of international co-operation.
The convention addresses issues of substantive and
procedural criminal law, which member states are obliged to take measures to
implement in national law.
The comprehensive nature of the convention, as well as
the geographical spread of its signatories means it’s likely to remain the most
significant international legal instrument in the field for the foreseeable
future.
However, criticisms have been directed at the cyber
crime convention from different quarters for the following reasons.
1. The
lack of transparency in the drafting process has been a source of frustration.
2. Criticism
has come from human rights groups for alleged incursions on individual’s rights
and absence of sufficient protection.
3. Providers
on communication services have complained about the burdens placed upon them to
assist law enforcement agencies.
Notwithstanding the above lapses
noted, the convention remains a starting point in this regard
1. Council of Europe’s Convention on Cyber
Crime (Prudgapest, 23 Nov.
2001: TS 185 (2004) and Explanatory Report available at http://www.coe.int and http://abalt.org visited June 20,2011.
2. Ibid.
3. http://www.the
commonwealth.org visited June
12, 2011
RELATED ARTICLES