مارش 5 بارت 3

The lead examiners decided that a technical mission to Mexico is not appropriate at this stage. They believe that the main issue is the lack of political will to address the problem of foreign bribery. They propose inviting the future government of Mexico to present an action plan in a year's time to address the recommendations and the lack of enforcement of foreign bribery. Mexico agrees with this proposal but suggests presenting the action plan in June instead of March to allow more time for preparation. The lead examiner clarifies that the action plan does not require new legislation but can start immediately. They agree to present the action plan in March 2025 and invite the ambassador to present it. The discussion then moves on to the enforcement of the foreign bribery offense in Luxembourg. It would consider sending a technical mission to the country, but after further consideration, we, the lead examiners, do not believe that a technical mission is the appropriate measure at this stage. And while we agree that there might also be a technical gap, the main issue seems to be, first and foremost, the one of political will. And considering that general elections will take place in Mexico next June, we propose to invite the future government to present an action plan in a year from now on how they intend to push the envelope on two key recommendations, as well as to provide a diagnosis on the lack of enforcement of foreign bribery in Mexico. In addition, we propose to invite Mexico's ambassador to the plenary to share this action plan with the working group next March. We believe it would send a positive signal on the new government's commitment to fight foreign bribery. Thank you. Thank you, Slovenia. Mexico? Yes, I mean, just to say also for taking account on the time that we have now today to discuss this, we basically, I mean, we basically agree with what our colleague has just said. I mean, we agree this is basically not the time to make a technical mission to Mexico. We are going to have elections this year. These are going to be in June. It's a good idea to present for the next government to come up with a plan on how we can deal with these two recommendations and with enforcement issue. So basically, we agree. The only thing that I'm not completely sure is if it's a good idea of to present this in March, because the government is going to be just forming itself. I think if we can have two, I mean, for the second session of the year in June instead of in March, it will give us a bit more time to prepare this roadmap with a new government. That would be basically my only concern. I don't know if any of my colleagues, because we have colleagues in Mexico from Fiscalía and from the Public Administration Service, if they want to add something. Thank you, Mexico. I can't see hands online, so if anybody from Mexico online wants to chip in, just start talking. Okay, nobody's taking the phone. My only question then to, just a question first, if I may, please, Sevinio, and that is, when do you think, following the election, a new government will actually start working? Well, that's the thing. It takes time. I think they come in in September, but, I mean, nominations and we're going to have also parliamentary elections at the same time. And so one of the recommendations that we have is about the law. And so it's going to be a new parliament. It's not sure that we're going to have exactly the same people that were pushing the whistleblowers law, that they're going to be in the new parliament. So, I mean, I'm not sure that just five months is enough to prepare this plan. That's our position. Thank you, Chair. Maybe just a commentary. This is not the work, the lead examiner did not propose, let's say for Mexico to prepare a new law. This is just an action plan. So the work on this action plan can start right now on many of these issues. That's what we believe. And I think that one year is a long enough run to do something like this. Even with the elections, let's say, hopefully everything will be okay until September. So everything will be in place in September. That still gives Mexico maybe five months to work something out. And we're talking about action plans. We're not talking about new legislation. We're talking about the diagnosis of lack of enforcement and such things. So basically something that they can start working on right now. Thank you. Thank you. I tend to agree because when I first saw this, I thought next March is a year from now, which is a long time for an action plan. So granted that you've got the elections and the working group will be giving you leeway to June and then actually to September for the new government to come in place. But to go to 18 months from now for an action plan would seem excessive. So I just thought March would seem proportional as it's an action plan. We're not asking you to actually do the law. We're asking you just to have a plan to do the law. So is that acceptable? Thank you. Mexico has indicated it's okay with that. So that's an agreement that Mexico will report back in March 2025 with an action plan and will invite the ambassador to present the action plan to the group. Thank you very much. And I appreciate that. Just give me one second while I work out the choreography of what happens next. Okay. We can keep going until six. So I'll ask Luxembourg to come back in. It's a long afternoon. So if people want to stretch your legs, you've got like the five minutes it will take us to reset up Luxembourg. But we're going to restart with them as soon as we can. Thank you. Okay. I want to particularly quickly because I know that Gregor said that we had still half the Luxembourg report to do. We've got more than half the Luxembourg report to do. And we should try and finish at six. And if it's not finished at six, we will be begging the papers of the interpreters to carry on until half six. But we can't go beyond then. And we have to have the interpreters because it's your language. So Luxembourg, please, are we ready to restart? And I'm doing enforcement of the foreign bribery offence. I'm doing paragraph 86 to paragraph 110, oh, 109 plus commentary. So any request for the floor for paragraph 86? I'm so sorry. Yes. So 109 plus commentary. Luxembourg, please. My apologies, Mr. Chair. I'm a bit confused. Could you just please repeat which chapters? I wish I had to hurry along because we do risk running out of time today. So we're doing paragraph 86 to 109 plus commentary. Thank you very much. Can we then start with the one point that we wanted to raise? Just give me a second. This is on paragraph 90. So paragraph 90, I'm just waiting for it to be on the screen. So there's a follow-up issue for 13A requiring to see. Well, we think that the issue for follow-up here was clearly explained during the on-site visit, and we think that it is also reflected in the report. We also find that representatives of the public prosecutor's office confirmed that a proof of a corruption pact is no longer required, as we can read in the paragraph. And there is also a decision handed down by the court of appeal that confirms that. Other case law is also confirmed here, and we believe that there is a form of confusion here. So I'd like to give the floor to my colleague so that he brings some clarity on this issue. Thank you. Yeah, so this is a fundamental issue because these texts comply with the text of the convention, really, insofar as the proof of a corruption pact is no longer required, and it has been quite a while now. There was this reform in 2001 that was adopted, and since then, there have been some shortcomings with first-instance jurisdictions. But we have this decision from 2018, which is mentioned in the report and by the evaluation team, and this brings full clarity to the issue because it establishes the intent element and by establishing that there is no need for a corruption pact since 2001. This is very clear, and it's established very clearly. But in paragraph 89, explains how the law is applied by jurisdictions as per a case law, and what you have to know is that the law is also applied in interior jurisdictions. So in judgments, we have the obitua dicta and the ratio decidendi. In the obitua dicta, the issue is that in some judgments, we find a mention of a judgment from 1988. So this precedes the reform of 2001, and there is a reference made to a very ancient law doctrine, French school, that does mention a corruption pact, but this is a paragraph from that judgment. And then the Court of Appeal is very clear. It is an error, in fact, in assessing the motivation of the judgment, but what appears very clearly is that after this unfortunate paragraph, judges enumerate the conditions, the legal conditions, to incriminate corruption. Three conditions are given in this regard, and in these three conditions, at no moment is the corruption pact mentioned, which means that judges end up giving a solution that is fully compliant with the Convention, and there is not a more restrictive interpretation by requiring, for example, a corruption pact. So in the first instance, on the one hand, we have a quote of a judgment from 1988, and this is still first degree or first instance jurisdictions, and after having quoted the 1988 judgment, there is a mention on how the law is applicable with the three conditions. Firstly, the status of the person as a public official, the fact that you have to award or offer an advantage, so these two possibilities are covered, and then the objective is to gain an advantage. So these are the three conditions that are required by the Convention, and these are the three conditions that are given by the judges. And we have the mention of this judgment, which is, I think, more of a historic nature more than anything else. It is true that in some cases, judges do seek to know if there has been an advantage that was given against the bribe, and they do not seek to establish that in order to prove that there was a corruption pact. In fact, what they are trying to do is distinguish this from a similar offence, and if I am, for example, a public official working for the tax authority, and that I know that you owe such tax, and I decide to not make you pay that tax, this is a type of bribery without a counterparty, without an advantage that is offered. If I do have an advantage against the fact that I exonerate the person from paying a tax, then we have an act of bribery in the sense of the Convention, and that is why jurisdictions seek to know if there was an advantage that was obtained through the bribe. And the case law mentions this, and the report as well. If there is no corruption pact, and there is no advantage, the author of the proposal is still considered guilty of the act of corruption. So, in the end, the result is there. In the end, the offence is implemented or enforced as requested by the Convention, whether there is a corruption pact or not. Judges do not look for a corruption pact. Judges are looking for whether there is an advantage that was provided or not. I hope this was clear, but just to sum things up, we have case law from our Supreme Court in Luxembourg, which establishes that since 2001, a corruption pact is no longer a required condition. This is what we find in paragraph 89. It is in the last sentence, the corruption pact is no longer a necessary condition. But then we go back to the decision of the Supreme Court because some first instance jurisdictions have chosen a sometimes unfortunate drafting for their judgments. Thank you. Thank you, Luxembourg. Can I just clarify one thing here? Are you asking us to remove a follow-up measure from the work that is in the commentary before paragraph 100? That's correct. Okay, so there is no obligation on Luxembourg to do anything for the follow-up. This is just a flagging for the working group for the future that we may want to look at it again in the future. So, there's no recommendation, there's no additional work, it's just a flag for the future. And if I read paragraph 90 correctly, it says here that the prosecutor and academic have pointed out there's a possibility the courts may still look for a pact. And we don't have any more cases around it to establish whether they will or not. So, all we're doing is saying, we as a working group want to keep our eye on this. That's all we're doing. Keep our eye on it for the future in case there is case law which goes in the wrong direction. And on that basis, I think we can probably live with it. I'm hoping, and I know that the lead examiner wants to come in, but in the interest of time, I'm trying to see if we can settle this one. No, we fully understand it just because it's factual, not correct, what is written in point 90. So, it's not, I understand that this is not the point where we will have a recommendation, but we see that what is in point 90, it is correct that perhaps the evaluation team has the impression that judges in the first instance, in the first not appeal, judges. So, perhaps we could specify this. And then, in the drafting, if you see, when you have in French, it's the second sentence before the last sentence. However, it would not be necessary to prove all the elements of the agreement in detail, but rather to demonstrate, and it should describe, to demonstrate an advantage that was obtained instead of an agreement constituting the purpose of the bribes. So, what changes would you like to be made to paragraph 90 then? I'm sorry. So, however, it would not be necessary to prove all the elements of the agreement in detail, but rather to demonstrate that an advantage was sought against the bribe or the offering of the bribe. For the moment, it reads rather to demonstrate an agreement constituting the purpose of the bribe. But in fact, what we need to demonstrate, that would, sorry, is this a translation issue? Is the French version okay? Is the French okay? Then, we'll take it away to make sure the two translations are, I mean, it happens that the English translation isn't in line with the French one. If there's an inconsistency, just ask us to align the two. No, no, we changed and he wants to change the French. We read the French report, so we wanted to change it in the French report and then. We'll change in both. If we're making the change, we'll make the change in both. Okay, but we're leaving the follow-up as it is. Yeah, okay. Catherine, online, please. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I hate to wade in on this point, but I do, I was going to question whether it should actually only be a follow-up and whether it's partially implemented, but having heard our Luxembourg colleagues, I do think redrafting is necessary because reading this report, particularly paragraph 91 at the end, it says, given the lack of clarity around this, the working group will have to follow up as practice develops the extent to which the courts require proof of a corruption pact and how detailed such proof should be. So, from that language, it really sounds like the lead examiners at least think this is still a viable concept in French law in the courts because they're asking us to follow up on the details of the proof. And this was something similar with the French review that from the very beginning has been a critique of the law because it's adding additional elements of proof than what's required in Article 1. So, if this sentence is not correct, that, you know, Luxembourg is saying this is not the case and this does not have the possibility of showing up in the lower case law, then that's good. But if it does have the potential of showing up in the lower case law, then I'm afraid it's only partially implemented because it's still part of the law. Luxembourg, please. Thank you very much. Let me clarify again. I'm trying to be very clear. The law, as it stands, is reflecting Article 1 of the Convention. So, it's very clear. We do not need, since 2001, so it's a long time ago, we do not need a pact of corruption. So, we don't have to prove it. So, we don't have to prove it because we don't need it as a characteristic of the offense. And that is what the Court of Appeal of Luxembourg, the highest jurisdiction, is telling the judge in the first instance. But in the case which was brought before the Court of Appeal, the result of the first instance judgment was also fully compliant with the Convention because it was an obitua dicta which was not correct. The ratio dissidenti was correct. So, you have, I tried to explain that the obitua dicta was a historical mention that in 1988 a judgment said what corruption would be in general. And there you have, indeed, the pact of corruption back in 1988. And then the judge, in first instance, moved forward and said those are the conditions now for corruption. And there are three conditions. And in those three conditions you do not have the pact of corruption. So, it's not a problem of law. It's not a problem of implementation of the law because our higher court and our first instance court applied the law correctly. It's just in an obitua dicta because they took, perhaps, they read the history of the corruption of hands in Luxembourg, they have a paragraph on that. But this is not the ratio dissidenti. So, basically, the point 90 could be forgotten for Luxembourg. It is only, only, I think, it only consumes the reader, the point 90, because we have a law very clear, we have a code of appeal very clear, and we have first instance not looking in the three conditions if there is a pact of corruption or not. So, I think, also, the jurisprudence, the case law is clear. So, I think that, only thing we can add is that in some case where we have two possible offences, corruption or concussion, that's what I explained with this tax, this example about tax offences. Then you have to search if there is an advantage for the bribe. So, you bribe somebody, do you receive something? If you give an advantage to somebody, do you receive something or not? And the mere proposal is already incriminated as corruption. So, if you expect an advantage, and the advantage can be very broad. It has been very accurate, the mention in the report that this advantage can also be to expect someday in the future to get such an advantage because of a bribe. Yeah. Okay, thank you Luxembourg. Looking at the examiners, I suppose the question is the second sentence in paragraph 91, the lack of clarity around the concepts in case law. Does that sentence emerge solely as a result of the sentence in the previous paragraph where you said that the prosecutor and academic have questioned whether the courts will still be looking for a pact? Are the two linked? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. So, we share many, many things with Luxembourg, like the use of Latin. I don't know how our interpreters translated opita dicta just by saying it in Latin. And we have this difference that is made between these two offenses, concussion in French and corruption and bribery. And thirdly, which is a difference we also share, and thirdly, we have this issue when we look at the development of case law, especially with regards to bribery. We thought that we had reached an agreement that we deemed fair and acceptable by making this an issue for follow-up or an item for follow-up. This was also the case in other reports in order to be fully reassured about this. And the case law is the case law of the Court of Appeals. And we were, of course, convinced that the decision that we have been talking about would make it possible for us to clarify the situation. But we thought that this agreement would help us overcome the situation that we had found during the Phase 3 report. And what we decided was to have a follow-up to simply look at the development of things. So unfortunately, there aren't that many cases of foreign bribery. So this means that we have to look at a case law for cases that take time to develop. And this doesn't only pertain to Luxembourg. It's also the case for other countries. And as I said, it's the case in Luxembourg also specifically because there aren't that many cases on this issue. So just to say that we thought we had found balance in making this a follow-up item, especially after we had listened to different opinions during the on-site visit. Now, of course, opinions do not have the same value as a decision of the Court of Appeals, but they were nevertheless opinions that were expressed by professionals. And once again, thinking of the countries I know best, these are also issues that are open for Italy, for example, where there are judges and prosecutors who, while being aware of the Convention and its requirements and the recommendations of 2009 and so on and so forth, there are judges and prosecutors who have doubts. These are opinions that can be found in my country as well. They have doubts on the requirement or not of a corruption pact. So the idea for us is to simply follow up on this. We're not asking you to necessarily keep us informed, but it is what for us to do and to keep an eye on this. I believe this is a good balance going from a starting point that was more difficult for Luxembourg, but, of course, plenary will decide on this. Let's see if everyone agrees on this balance that was found. Thank you. Thank you, Italy. I think perhaps one of the issues here is the black and yellow sentence. The English, and this may just be the English translation, is quite stark and perhaps is suggesting there's a stronger issue than perhaps there is, and that might just be on a language thing. Can I propose where we say follow up as practice develops, we change that to follow up as case law develops, and then where it says to which the courts require, if we just add the words may require proof, we're just making it clear that we're not expecting them to do it, but there's a possibility they may in the future. That just softens the wording a little bit to make it seem that, yes, we've recognised in the previous paragraphs that Luxembourg is making the case that this will be okay, but there's been some suggestions it may not be, and therefore we're just keeping our eye on it. I think on that basis we'd probably be looking to move on if we can. Luxembourg? May I make another suggestion? I'm looking at the English text now. I'm sorry, I lost track of the sentence. It's the last sentence. We just adapted. I'm sorry, I will switch to English. It's easier. So we appreciate the changes made, but we feel that we should also delete the, and how detailed such proof should be. Well, while as we have explained, we don't agree with this statement, we feel that it is very clear what the legal situation is. From what we understand, what the evaluators are trying to convey is that they want to follow up whether this proof of corruption pact is required at all or not, and the question is not how detailed it should be. But again, for us the situation seems clear, but if we are already making these changes, we would appreciate and take out the, and how detailed. Why don't we just delete the word after the word develops, follow up as case law develops, and then we're broad enough to decide at the time to consider what the case law is. We're going to have to write something in the list of follow-up issues, so let's keep maybe the first part as suggested. Well, I think... Sorry, we're just discussing because this has a knock-on effect for the little paragraph I in the commentary before, just commentary after 110. So, we're running out of time already, so let's stick with the wording here now, but this is another comment to take away, and then we just need to make sure that the commentary in the follow-up after 110 to 109 matches whatever's agreed in 91, and let's move on. Catherine, please. Yes, thank you. I agree with Luxembourg's change, but yours is fine too. I had a comment on paragraph 92. Sure. And this is just a clarification. The first sentence says that Article 252 lists the categories of foreign public officials that can be prosecuted for bribery in Luxembourg. I think what it's meaning to say is it lists the categories of foreign public officials that can be considered as such for purposes of prosecuting a foreign bribery case in Luxembourg against a Luxembourg company or individual, but I just wanted to check. It looked to me like this paragraph is about the definition of a foreign public official under Luxembourg law, and it's about the active bribery offense of such officials, but this first sentence makes it seem like we're actually prosecuting the officials themselves, which some countries do, but I don't think that's what was meant here. So just clarifying this first sentence. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. I wonder if that's a translation issue, and if not, perhaps we can clarify that this is the definition of foreign public official for the purposes of the foreign bribery offense. Yeah, it was a consuming sentence in French. Okay, so we'll align the translation. Thank you very much, Iris. Anything else up to the commentary after 109? Okay, then we should do the... Excuse me, can I just... I didn't understand what we are going to change on this sentence now? We're going to align it with the French translation. Apparently it's not... Okay, moving on from then... Excuse me, Chair, can I just make a comment? Go ahead, Issa. Thank you. In the commentary after 109, I'm sorry, but in the third paragraph, I understand the point made by the, I think, by the lead examiners, and that we feel like the use of a different offense may point out that there's a problem with the current offense, or what we need in order to, or what Luxembourg needs in order to prosecute an offense of foreign bribery. But we don't... For me, it's hard to understand exactly what Luxembourg has to do to comply with this recommendation, because we're recommending that they examine the possibility of criminalizing in a sufficient, broader manner. We don't say exactly what... I didn't see any... Maybe I missed it, but in the report, something analyzing why they've been doing this, if this has to do with the level of proof, or a specific element of foreign bribery that makes them go to a different offense. I mean, we speak a lot about the fact that they do this, and what the problem could be, but we don't analyze why. And then, so what do we expect them exactly to do? So, I think, if I understand correctly, there's two points you're making. The first one is about the recommendation itself, about examining the possibility of criminalizing foreign bribery, and the second is whether there's enough detail as to what the issue is. Is that correct? The thing is, just to examine, it feels like something that... I don't know how we would even check if... I don't know if Luxembourg understands exactly what we expect of them, and if we know what we'll... What are we expecting after they examine this, since we don't... Unless we're asking them to examine why they have to... Their prosecution results in a different offense, and then come with answers to that, or... I mean, how would we know if they examined it, and what kind of offense we're expecting them to have here? I think it's a really good point. I suppose the question is, if we have this one case where Luxembourg has used the trading and influence instead of the foreign bribery offense, the question then is, does that mean there's something wrong with the foreign bribery offense, which isn't wrong with the trading and influence offense, that meant that you used that one instead? And I think that's what they're examining. And if so, should they be fixing the foreign bribery offense and not relying on another offense? I mean, the suggestion was to replace the word examine with consider. I think what we're doing is actually considering whether there are any deficiencies in the criminal bribery offense, which means that other offenses are more preferable. That's what we're really doing here. And I don't know if that's the case. This is just limited on the facts that you use trading and influence, or whether this is symptomatic of a deficiency in the foreign bribery offense. So can you take that away and discuss amongst yourselves, and then come back? Because I do agree that the recommendation needs tightening. Yes, on this point, I agree with Israel. I also had a question on paragraph 102, if they're taking this back. There's a sentence at the end that says these alternative offenses must be applied in accordance with functional equivalence, which doesn't seem to be met, either in terms of the scope of the acts of foreign bribery that should be covered, or in terms of the applicable sanctions, which must satisfy the conditions of Article III of the Convention. So I just had a question for the examiners. Here it looks like in certain cases, Luxembourg isn't able to use the foreign bribery offense because it's not broad enough to cover influence. So they're using their trading in the influence offense instead. The problem with that is it's resulting in lower penalties than what we would consider effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. But they're not saying, I guess, that they're treating in the influence offense is their foreign bribery offense. So does it, therefore, fall under the Convention to the extent that we should say, oh, the trading in the influence offense must comply with the Convention? And I'm just wondering if, as a legal matter, that's right. Maybe this should just say something like, nevertheless, the working group is concerned that a country must still have effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions for the crime of foreign bribery, period. Whether or not they're using trading in the influence or foreign bribery or what have you, the bottom line is we want the sanctions to be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. So I agree with Israel that it's not exactly clear how we want them to consider broadening the foreign bribery offense. But I also raise the point that, to what extent do we, as a working group, then have authority to tell them what they have to do with their trading in the influence offense, which is a different offense? Thank you. I think the point, thank you, Yuris, I think the point now is if they're using the trading in influence offense as an alternative to the, you know, as a foreign bribery offense as well, then it needs to align with the Convention. But if they're using that as a way of giving less sentencing or penalties for what should be a foreign bribery offense, then that would be an issue. So is this one to take away? Is this an immediate response you've got, lead examiners, as to what you actually want to see here? Thank you, Chris. I share your observation that this was the case in other reports, meaning that trading in influence is sometimes used as an alternative to foreign bribery. And in other circumstances, other reports, as you rightly pointed out, this was highlighted. The fact that the definition should be wide and broad enough, which is why we introduced this text here. Understood. And I would just say then instead of going back to the Israel points as to this, we need to take another look at the wording here. And I wonder if we're perhaps pulling our punches a bit and saying we actually have recognized that there is a deficiency in the law around the foreign bribery, and that should be fixed, rather than just examining it. If we've identified it, let's be more assertive on it, perhaps. But if we think it's just a question of still analyzing it, then let's say that as well. Okay? So we'll look forward to seeing how that changes. And I've just wanted to get the pages mixed up, jumping back and forth. Okay. So we were up to the end of paragraph 109. Okay. Luxembourg, please. Hi. I'm very sorry to come back again, but it is not clear to us how you want to adapt this text and what exactly is expected now of Luxembourg. Now we're actually confused, so if you could clarify. Thank you. Yeah, this is one for you to discuss with the lead examiners afterwards. But the point being is that if you're using the trading and influence offence as an alternative to foreign bribery offence, and that offence is lower or not as strict as the foreign bribery offence, then you either need to broaden out the current offences of the foreign bribery to enable it to be used effectively rather than trading and influence, or you need to bring trading and influence up to the same standard as the foreign bribery offence so that it isn't considered to be a weak alternative. Basically, if you're going to use an alternative, it's got to have an equivalence, not a weaker one. But how you want to address that I think you need to discuss separately. Okay, yes, the U.S. please. Paragraph 108 under dolus eventualis. I had a question. Sentence one there says the working group has repeatedly asserted that the intent element of the foreign bribery offence should also include dolus eventualis or willful blindness and goes on to note that this is important in intermediaries and subsidiary situations. Is that our standard? Are we holding the standard that high that you must have the intent element be willful blindness? Because that seems quite high and I'm not sure that that is what the convention necessitates. But I just would like some clarification and if that is not what we're meaning to say, I propose perhaps striking or reforming that sentence. Thank you for the question. Looking at late examiners, I understand perhaps the same concepts appeared in the Italian report. Thank you, Chris. We thought we were in a position to affirm that this was in the standards of the working group, the dolus eventualis and willful blindness. I believe that this is mentioned in other reports and of course I'm speaking under the control of the secretariat who probably knows this better than me, but I'm sure we can find this in other reports. Thank you. Looking at the Italian report, it's listed in Latvia, it's listed in Finland, and it's listed in Costa Rica, so it does have precedent. Thank you for the clarification. Luxembourg, is this a new one or an old one? It's an old one. Okay, moving on then. We're going to Investigation and Prosecution Framework, Paragraph 110 to the commentary after Paragraph 140. Any requests for the floor? I'm sorry, I didn't understand if you said 114 or 114. I was going to ask about the commentary after 129 and maybe because we're not an EU country, but I just wanted to ask the late examiners if this thing we're talking about with the EPPO is something that's special to Luxembourg in any way, or this is a recommendation you think should be given to every EU country? This is a novelty. The EPPO has been established and is operational since 2021, so this is new for all countries participating in what technically is an enhanced cooperation. So, 22 countries of the European Union are participating in this, so this is not introducing new standards as such. It's really establishing this cooperation through the EPPO, which has a jurisdiction over the cases of foreign bribery, and this could, of course, constitute a case of positive development because it's a specialized structure and it will cover bribery and foreign bribery affecting the interests or non-financial interests of the European Union. So, I think that we will find this mentioned in other future reports, but again, this is a new structure and a novelty. We don't have much experience yet on this, and this is why we consider that it's important to follow up on this great novelty in the European Union. It's quite a peculiar experience that we find nowhere else other than the European Union. But so, if I understand correctly, there's no special characteristics in Luxembourg that makes us recommend what we recommended. It's just something that, because this is new, we think we should follow up with any European Union country which is working with the EPPO. We enter into some technical issues. For certain EU countries, the introduction of the European Prosecutor's Office is more relevant, rather, because they had to change the legal system involving the juge d'instruction, the instructing judge, and this is true not only for Luxembourg, also for Spain, for France, etc. So, we have specific countries for which this innovation, this new reality, is more relevant than for others. This is why we have mentioned here for Luxembourg. Might it be easy to say that we recommend the working group follow up on how the EPPO affects practically the operations of law enforcement in Luxembourg on the ground, or something like that? Would that be clear as what we're trying to do here? I wasn't drafting. I was suggesting, perhaps, if you could take a look at that. It should be just so that we can consider how the changes that flow from it, rather than putting any greater strain on Luxembourg as a result of it. It's almost for our learning, isn't it? Sorry, I have one more. In 137, in the last sentence, we say, in its future evaluations, the working group should focus on the practice of criminal policy directives. It seems to me like the word focus is a little too extreme here, because this is something that we should maybe look into or follow up on in our next evaluations. But focus, at least it reads to me like the whole evaluation should focus around this. It seems like too strong a word. A good point to just follow up. Happy? No. Okay. VRS online, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just had some very small comments after paragraph 127. In the second paragraph, it's a little confusing, and maybe this is a translation issue. But it says, in this context, the lead examiners recommend that Luxembourg clearly define economic and financial justice, including the investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery. I'm not sure what else we're including there. What is economic and financial justice? Maybe that's the unit that you're referring to. That's the office that's talked about up above that handles these cases as part of the prosecutors. In the next little Roman numeral two, it says urgently carry out a comprehensive review of how economic and financial justice is organized. So maybe that's like the economic and financial justice unit. But I'm not quite sure how to fix the first Roman numeral two reference to economic and financial justice. Maybe you're talking about define how the unit should address this. I leave it up to lead examiners. And then just a very minor point up above, it says pragmatic and innovation solutions seem to be favored, such as recruiting law clerks. I would just move that parenthetical up to after pragmatic. It is pragmatic to recruit law clerks. But a lot of us already have law clerks. So maybe that would just go with pragmatic. Thank you. Thank you, US. Luxembourg, is this on this point? Portugal, is this on this point? Another point. OK. So the first one is the small Roman numeral I at the bottom of page 47 on the English version. And it's saying the phrase economic and financial justice. Is that the right phrase? No, we're checking right now the French version. It could be law enforcement bodies in economic and financial crime. But it's not quite clearly defined. So that's not right, though, is it? We can't clearly define economic and financial justice as a priority. Clearly make the pursuit of tackling economic and financial crime as a priority. Yes. So clearly define economic and financial crime, including investigation of economic and private as a priority. OK. Can we suggest clearly identify that economic and financial crime, including the investigation, prosecution, and fire and bribery event is a priority? Maybe tackling? OK. Identify that tackling economic and financial crime. And then that's if it works better in English, if it works in the French. Ensure that tackling, rather than clearly identify. So we're just aligning now the translations. Ensure to clearly identify. Yeah, but that doesn't... Then we can just say clearly identify. Clearly identify, yeah. Ensures. Yeah. It's not a word for word translation, but I think it has the same impact. OK. Thank you. Sorry, was that the only point on this one, or did you have another one? No, that's the main point for me on this one. I mean, I'm just wondering if we want to say particularly foreign bribery as a priority. If you look at the paragraph above, which I think this is springboarding off of, it's stemming from recommendations where we're saying that criminal policy clearly identifies the investigation and prosecution of foreign public officials as a priority. So maybe particularly or something. That's our bailiwick anyway. So replacing the word including with a word particularly. Yeah. OK. And then we've got economic and financial justice in the second two as well. Yeah, that needs to be changed to economic crime. I think that's the unit. Maybe there you're meaning to talk about comprehensive review of how the unit is organized and the resources it is allocated. I think we're talking about the economic and financial unit of the public prosecutor's office. Yeah. We think it's actually a review of how they tackle economic and financial crime more broadly, and the resources it's allocated to tackling the crime. So it's not a unit itself, it's more a concept. But you're right, the wording doesn't quite get us there. So we don't need to draft it now, we can fix that in the drafting. OK. Luxembourg, is this on this commentary or is it a different commentary? This commentary? OK, go ahead please. Thank you very much. We consider of course that this is a priority. It is a priority to enforce this type of offences. But I'm going to give the floor to my colleague for more detail. There are several memoranda on bribery and the fight against bribery coming from the general prosecutor's office. And we have one memorandum on the laundering of bribery proceeds, among others. So for us, it is already clearly defined as a priority. The only issue here is the lack of resources. Now I don't know if the mandate held by the OECD implies that you can have an influence on decisions made at the organisational level, at country level, within the public prosecutor's office. Could the OECD suggest that there be a financial prosecutor's office, for example, in Luxembourg? We already have judges and prosecutors that are specialised in a financial department that is very clearly defined with conditions and criteria on knowledge and expertise for people working in this section or department. So there are specialists, but if we are being asked to establish something that is different from the public prosecutor's office in Luxembourg, I don't know if that's what we're being asked to do, but the resources issue is a real one. Now, thank you, Loxa. In terms of it being a priority, I think this goes back to the very point we had at the beginning of the reading, that there is a perception that when a laundering is given the main priority, not that you don't give a priority to it, but there may be, you know, we talked about the word detriments earlier, and I know that's probably come out now. But I think it's recognised that they want to actually say, no, this is a priority. And ultimately, there's a lack of cases. And so as part of that, we're recognising that there's the resources Luxa, but maybe alongside resources is organisation as well. So I think what we're asking you to do is to review it and come up with the way, the best system you can come up with that will lead to more cases. And then when you report back, you will report back on the review. And if you say that the organisation is adequate, then, and it's producing results when you've given more resources and stuff, then you'll get this one. But I think it's part of a review. It's not just looking at money. It's looking at resources. It's just to look at actually the way it's organised as well. Is it as good as it could be? So propose we move on. Protocol, please. Thank you, Chair. In this point, precisely, just two minor points that I would point out, because this is a recommendation. So in the beginning, in line two, we have mentioned to financial justice system. So I suppose this should be amended. And then we have that phrase that has been addressed by the United States already about the pragmatic and innovative solutions. I would, of course, speak to that as well. But I would separate the recruitment of law clerks from innovative solutions. It is a pragmatic one, but not a very innovative. So I suppose that we should address this. Thank you. Portugal, is that okay? Okay. Thank you. I've got a comment on the same paragraph as well. It's at the end, in little Roman numeral 2. These services can recruit and retain the necessary staff. I think the report is suggesting that there are circumstances and issues that have arisen as to why there may be low staff retention in the unit. But I don't think we can measure the success of a unit on the retention of staff. Because I noticed in my old unit, in the joint anti-corruption unit, we're always losing good people, and we're losing good people because they're being promoted. So a measure of whether a unit is successful can't be measured on how we hold on to staff. It can be, though. I think the point here is we're trying to address the circumstances which might make people want to leave early. And if that's the case, can we just reflect that in the drafting, please? I think on that one, if we've identified that there are problems, then we need to address the problems. But it's just not measured about whether people stay. Luxembourg, please, on this one? Okay. Are we happy to change? Okay. Thank you. Then Luxembourg. Thank you very much. Once again, we'd like to address two paragraphs. First, the 123. Just to clarify one sentence, which as it currently stands does not exactly reflect the reality. So paragraph 123, when they talk about recruiting the attachés de justice, the référendaires de justice, this is between 2022 and 2023, the judicial administrative authorities recruited 25 junior judges and prosecutors, or rather 50 attachés de justice, so junior judges and prosecutors. So this 50 was the maximum number. And so this sentence should be amended in order to say rather initiated the recruitment of 50 judges and prosecutors, 26 of which were successful. Thank you. Is this right now, Luxembourg? Okay. Thank you. Did you have another point? Please go ahead. Yes, thank you very much. The second point is at paragraph 135 on the practice of written instructions from one prosecutor to another. And there is one sentence that is not acceptable to Luxembourg. It's just a question of wording towards the middle of the paragraph. The sentence that says the interpreter is looking for the spot. Could you just pause for a second to allow the interpreters to catch up? They were looking for their own progress. Could the English sentence be read out perhaps? Could you perhaps read out the English sentence? In the English version, if I may, yes, that's right. This is a bit problematic because it would be a bit not very appropriate when you consider the prosecutor general office issuing such order. Because when they issue such order, it's quite rare and it's never unsubstantiated or inappropriate. I would suggest to delete the sentence and to replace it with it in French. It must be attached to the case file, which would guarantee transparency. I think we're making that change now, so I hope that... Thank you, Luxembourg. You've got your flag up. Any more on this? Okay, thank you. We're fast approaching six o'clock, so the next half hour. It would be good if we can, because I know that the prosecutors cannot stay. Yeah, okay. Interpreters, an extra half an hour, please. Would that be acceptable? One moment, please. It is possible. Thank you so much. You are, of course, invited to happy hour tomorrow, and maybe we can, if we see you there, then all the interpreters, of course, and perhaps we can make it up to you then. So, thank you. But we can't go on with interpreters beyond half an hour, so can I ask that interventions be made only when they're strictly necessary and make them brief, please. Thank you. Luxembourg? Thank you very much. I would just like to mention on this point that two of our colleagues have to leave in 15 minutes to catch the train back to Luxembourg tonight. But we can, of course, still try to continue, but it would appreciate to finish a bit earlier. Thank you. Well, we have to finish the reading at some point, and if we don't carry on, then we're going to have to reschedule tomorrow, and your colleagues aren't going to be here. So maybe they'll be here online, but we've got a full agenda tomorrow. So let's see what we can do today, and then we'll revisit it shortly. Okay, so any more comments up to the end of the commentary after 139? In which case, I'm going to open up paragraphs 140 to the commentary after 159. So 140 to 159 with commentary. Luxembourg, please? I just wanted to check if Mr. St-Anne is online from the Direct Contribution Administration. Thank you for confirming. We would like to discuss an item at paragraph 147. Where some additions were made on the base of our discussions in the preparatory meeting yesterday, specifically the sentence at paragraph 147. Before we added the sentence, it said that as far as cooperation between tax authorities and financial institutions is concerned, there is no general legal provision authorizing tax authorities to demand information from domestic financial institutions. And we'd like to add with regards to taxpayers. We believe this is important to specify. After the words, domestic financial institutions, comma, with regards to and taxing taxpayers. And thereafter, we added another sentence on the tool exchange of information mechanisms that allow financial institutions to ask for data. Well, we would like to add, on the other hand, to the beginning of that sentence. This would make it improve legibility and say that there are other exchange of information mechanisms. And after this last sentence, we would like to add a reference to our legislation on the common reporting standard. We believe this would be very germane. In this paragraph, to show that there is actual exchange of financial information with regards to international cooperation. So, I'll read the sentence. Furthermore, within the context of the implementation of the amended law of December 18, 2015, on the common reporting standard, the ACD does automatically exchange information on financial accounts held by Luxembourg financial institutions by Luxembourg residents for tax purposes among participating jurisdictions. We believe this provides a more complete picture of exchange of financial information. This is okay for the lead examiners. Does the French translation adequately reflect what you're asking for? This is okay for the lead examiners. Does the French translation adequately reflect what you're asking for? This should say NCD, not ACD. We can write the common reporting standard, if you like. Thank you. We'll fix that and we'll also fix the English translation of that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a comment on another point further on. I do note the GDPR section and that there's a follow-up there, which is great. I just wanted to confirm that the lead examiners had taken into account Article 26 of the recommendation and whether or not they think it might be necessary. One of the recommendations in there is that member countries with applicable data protection rules provide guidance to companies where appropriate. Sorry, which part do you want? Sorry, the GDPR section after paragraph 150. Okay. There's a recommendation. It looks like the lead examiners say that there often are difficulties with foreign bribery investigations and such rules, particularly with internal investigations, and there is a follow-up at the end, which is good. I was just asking the question of whether the lead examiners had considered the part of the recommendation on data protection. The 2021 recommendation has a whole new section on it, and whether they wanted to pick up any of the language there. In particular, there is this third part of it, which talks about countries that have such rules providing guidance to the private sector on processing of data in conducting any corruption and related due diligence in internal investigation processes. Is this something that was considered? I'm very happy with the follow-up as is, but I was just asking. Back to you, Les. Lead examiners. Merci, Les, aux États-Unis. Thank you to the U.S. Certainly, we kept top of mind the 2021 recommendation, but we thought it was too early to address such a recommendation to Luxembourg and therefore we made it a follow-up issue because we were not in a position to implement this recommendation, so we made it a follow-up item. But, of course, the 2021 recommendation was definitely taken into account. Thank you, lead examiners. Thank you, lead examiners. Are there any other questions on this section? It's up to the commentary after 159, I think I said. Okay, moving on. International cooperation. This is 162-209 plus the commentary. I've got one thing I've spotted in paragraph 188. And the commentary after 188, I mean, in the middle, and it says the lead examiners recommend that Luxembourg, by all appropriate means, and we think that's a translation issue, it should be by any appropriate means rather than all. And there's a couple of times that emerges, so if I could ask you to check that. Any appropriate means, I believe, is the recommendation language. And making public information by all appropriate means would be a little bit excessive. And could we just do a word search, because I think that phrase may be used more than once, so if we could just check that that's picked up elsewhere. Any comments from the floor? U.S., please. So the commentary after paragraph 175, it talks about creating joint investigation teams in the middle of that paragraph. And it's a follow-up to what's in 175 itself, Luxembourg authorities had refused to set up a joint investigation team. In 175 it mentions that. We would ask that language be inserted, and I'll provide the language that I would recommend, but we can be flexible. Not all countries, in particular the United States, we are prohibited by law by having certain joint investigations. And I won't get into the reasons why. So we just would like to have the record reflect that Luxembourg consider creating a joint investigation team where permitted by law, which would contemplate that certain jurisdictions have those limitations. Thank you. Thank you, U.S. That then also means we'd need to change the next sentence, which says they also recommend that Luxembourg ensures that there are no legal obligations preventing a joint investigation team being set up. So I think they're actually saying that if they're not allowed by law, they should change the law to set it up. And I think what you're saying is that that wouldn't be consistent with practice. Yeah, that's correct. At least in our jurisdiction, we would have issues with there being no obstacles because we do have obstacles. There are constitutional issues in forming joint investigative teams. Thanks for the comment. U.S. lead examiners, please. I'm just looking at the amendments. With this amendment, we'd have to delete the second paragraph of the second sentence as well. Alternatively, there could be some tracking of language to allow or encourage countries working in parallel or concurrent investigative type language. I believe that's from the 2021 recommendation 19C. Perhaps if we wanted to soften the language, we could take that route and encourage parallel or concurrent investigative work. Sorry for being a little late, but the problem is that I was considering, with full respect for the situation in U.S., for sure, but that in the framework of the European Union, under our binding instrument, there is an obligation. So I fully accept that you cannot be over. I mean, another state cannot be obliged to enter into a joint investigation team with a new member state or with Luxembourg in particular. But these only address Luxembourg. So we address Luxembourg to say that you should be able to do this. We recommend that. But this does not imply that a country which cannot enter in such agreement would be obliged to. So I believe we can consider this just to find the right balance. But as I understood the U.S. point, they were a bit worried about the fact that this could create an obligation for them. While we are only referring to obligation for Luxembourg coming from the situation in our geographical context. So nothing is binding for U.S., but this could be, I mean, binding for Luxembourg. Thank you, Italy. Thank you. From Italy. It's my first time. So the point I think, if I understand this correctly, the European Union law requires there to be no legal obstacles to setting up a joint unit with it. But this body is not here to ensure that countries comply with other legal obligations other than the convention. So if we put a recommendation in here, it looks to me that we would be then potentially having follow-up measures if Luxembourg doesn't comply with a higher standard than the one we set here, which I don't think is appropriate for us. I think we should only ask countries to comply with the maximum standards that we set here in the room through our convention and leave it to the European Union to ensure that European Union laws are adhered to. So I think we need to conform this part with the recommendation text, which I think the U.S. referred to. There's a couple of parts of paragraphs here we could match, but I don't think we can hold them to the EU law standard here. No, I fully agree with you. But when you refer to member states, it should be EU member states. So it's not when allowed by law referring to EU member states. If you refer to states that are parties to the convention, I fully agree with you. So it's just a question to give a further look to this, just to not create overlapping among the two situations. Okay, I think it will be solved, though, if we just refer to the text in the recommendation and we don't need to distinguish between EU and non-EU and just stick to the recommendation. That will solve the problem. So if I could ask you to do that, and we'll take another look in the second reading. Costa Rica, please. Thank you, Chair. I have a small comment. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Thank you. I have a small comment after paragraph 157, because it's just to be consistent with the commentary above. We are saying that Luxembourg has not provided precise data on the implementation of accounting offenses in relation to foreign bribery. But we are not requesting Luxembourg to keep the data. We are acknowledging the absence of data on accounting offenses committed with the aim of bribing foreign public officials. But we are not recommending to keep this data. And if I don't recall wrong, in the Portugal evaluation, we asked them to do so. And I think it's fair enough to ask the same for Luxembourg, too. Thank you, Costa Rica. First of all, I see that some of the Luxembourg officials have had to step out to go and catch the train. We appreciate their input and hope that we can pile on for another 15 minutes, because we're not a million miles away from finishing. But the point that Costa Rica is making is in paragraph 157, saying Luxembourg has not provided precise data. We then don't make a recommendation that they provide the data, and apparently we did in the Portuguese report. And I'm getting a nod from the Portuguese delegation. So perhaps we can consider adding a recommendation and suggest that you look at the Portuguese report for the analogy. Thank you for the comment, Costa Rica. Any other comments? I think we're up to the commentary at the end, 209, I believe. Have I gone that far? I think I have. Yes. US, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And some comments on the section on settlement agreements, starting with paragraph 186 in the English version. There's a sentence that says, the working group considers that reducing the damage to a defendant's reputation could diminish the deterrent effect of this form of judgment, and that its publication is particularly relevant and important in this context. So I'm not sure the working group wants to say that exactly. Yes, one of the reasons that we want publication is to know, you know, who the defendant is and that sort of thing. But we aren't saying publish so that you can harm the defendant's reputation. I think the point on reputation is that instead of being convicted or having to go through a court trial, a defendant can have a settlement agreement and therefore, you know, resolve the issues that way without, you know, dragging the company through an extended trial case. So I would just suggest rephrasing this. This is not one of the reasons in our recommendation. In recommendation, I think it's 18 in the section 18 of our revised recommendation for publication. It's not really just to diminish the defendant's reputation. It does set forth, the recommendation sets forth things that we want published. And I would recommend that those be picked up as well. Then in 187, it looks like the existence of internal controls, ethics, and compliance programs is not clearly recognized as a possible mitigating circumstance, something else that is called for or recommended in that recommendation, section 18. So maybe that is something to be picked up in the commentary after paragraph 188. So I would just suggest that the lead examiners, you know, look at the recommendation language here and maybe track some of that language, particularly when it comes to what we want to see as far as publication and also taking into account as mitigating factor compliance programs. Thank you. Thank you, U.S. I think we'll consider those and make those changes for the second reading. Thank you. I just want to note that we do have a reference to section C2. And there is a reference to compliance programs in the commentary on section C3. Okay, we're cross-referring to it. It's on the screen in section C2, and there is a commentary on the adoption of compliance programs, if it's at all enough for her. Okay, so U.S., the Circus Service has pointed out that section C2 may contain what you were looking for here. So I don't know if you had a chance to read that. And if there is something missing, then we can take another look at it. While you're looking at that, U.S., in the room, did you have a comment? Yeah, U.S. is going to bombard everyone up until the final moments here. So as my colleague was beginning to point out, I just wanted to follow up on paragraph 186. There is reference here beginning with, as for the publicity given to these judgments, it should be noted that pseudo-anonymized versions can be consulted online. It goes on to say that the information can be an anonymized information with some personalized elements being published. My question is, does this comport, does this fall in line with the 2021 recommendations on non-trial resolutions that, where appropriate, we make them public, at least the main facts and the natural and or legal persons, the relevant considerations for resolving the case, the nature of sanctions, and the remedial measures, which we discussed before? So I'm just wondering whether or not this is an item that should be marked for follow-up, because I'm not sure it does comport with what we're asking to be publicized in non-trial resolutions. Thank you. Thank you. We will give a look at this. I think at the lateness of the hour, it's hard for us to land on conclusions on some of these right now. Did you have anything more on this paragraph? Anybody else on anything before paragraph 210? Thanks, Mr. Chair. I looked at C2, as you noted. I'm not sure that C2 really gets to settlements so much, and I don't see a recommendation there in the commentary on taking into account compliance programs and plea agreements. It really tends to focus on this issue of reclassification, which I agree is an issue, but the discussion on compliance seems to apply really to court decisions and not necessarily to settlements. So maybe that's just something that could be thought about if it's not addressed there, and I've only had time to skim it. If it's not addressed there, then it might be something that we would pick up in the commentary after 187. Okay, thanks. We'll take a look. Okay, if there's no more comments, then I will do the last section, the responsibility of legal persons. This is paragraph 210, and I'll take this all the way up to the end of the report, up to but not including the conclusions. Luxembourg, I nearly thought for a moment that we were... Je vous promets quand même que c'est la dernière remarque. I promise. I promise that this will be the last observation made by Luxembourg. It's on paragraph 234, and it's a tiny, tiny comment, I promise. There was a sentence that was added in this paragraph. I'm reading the French version. Perhaps it's just a simple mistake. We read that Luxembourg could find it difficult to reclassify with a recognition of guilt, and I think it's without. So it's a mistake in the French version. Not certain that that mistake is also in the English version. Thank you. We understand why you've asked for this change. We're having a discussion amongst us, but this actually does... We understand why you've asked for this change. We're having a discussion amongst us, but this actually does... There's the problem of equivalence. So we are actually, we do actually mean the cases that include a guilt. When there's a judgment with a guilt, it's clear. When there is a settlement, but without a conviction, without the recognition of guilt, there is no debarment. And so if that case is not clear, and it's the one that's mentioned here. Unfortunately, the speaker... Thank you very much. Thank you for explaining this. I think this goes back to the discussion we had yesterday. A recommendation was made on this point. It's recommendation 10. I'm going to try to find it. Well, I'm having a hard time finding it just now. I can't find it just now. But there was a recommendation that called for the taking of the case And I believe that in the recommendation we talk about with recognition of guilt. And that was the issue for Luxembourg. Because in some countries, there are agreements where there is no explicit recognition of guilt. And that raises an issue. But in Luxembourg, there is no explicit recognition of guilt. I mean, perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps you meant to raise another issue with the sentence. I'm open to that explanation. But that's my understanding of the situation. Thank you. We just wanted to clarify this point. Indeed, we talked about this yesterday. In the 2021 recommendation, what is required is that we ensure that these agreements or settlements with recognition of guilt be taken into account. The recommendation doesn't cover the other agreements. That's why the recommendation that is addressed to Luxembourg is restrictive. It doesn't cover the other agreements. That's why the recommendation that is addressed to Luxembourg is restrictive to that. So, in the text of the report, what we wanted to specify was that the evaluation team was under the impression during the on-site visit that perhaps some settlements or agreements or foreign agreements were not fully taken into account because some contracting authorities did not consider them to be final judgments or convictions. So, it really is an issue of clarification for these authorities. The idea is for them to really look at this type of non-trial agreements and procedures. Thank you. I hope that's clear. Thank you for that explanation. Indeed, I can see that this came from the on-site visit. So, if I understand you properly, this is not in direct link with recommendation 5A. It's not on the same issue, if I understand what you said. It is actually related with that recommendation. The idea is just to explain why the recommendation is there, because otherwise we wouldn't have suggested it at all. The goal of this recommendation is to ensure that contracting authorities take into account the convictions after a judgment is handed down, but also the final judgments after a non-trial agreement. Perhaps it's just about awareness-raising activities or providing them with guidance, just so this is clear. Okay, so can we come back to this tomorrow? Because we'd like to have some consultations amongst us. We'd like to come back to this tomorrow during the preparatory meeting. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. By all means, consider it, because I think the position of the examiner is clear on this one. I'm very conscious we're at time. I see that US has got the flag up online. Can I just check before giving you the floor? How many more comments are we planning to make from them? Any more comments in the room on any of the sections? And then Catherine, do you just have the one comment or do you have a number? Just on this section, actually. Sorry, I'm just clarifying this point. Do you just have the one comment or do you have a number? Is it okay with everyone if we let the interpreter go and just deal with this one comment in English? We'll call a halt on it. I know it's by exception, but I do want to get the first reading done, and we need to let the interpreters go. So thank you. No objections then, Catherine, please, for the last points of the day. Yeah, so it's the last paragraph of the commentary after the section that our Luxembourg colleagues were just discussing, so commentary after paragraph 234. And I see it looks like the lead examiners in Luxembourg here are saying, take into account foreign non-child resolutions that identify the operator as guilty of foreign bribery, consider exclusion decisions by IFES, and check the list. I would note that that is not in the recommendation, but as long as it's just consider, I think we could let that go. But they don't mention taking into account the operator's remedial measures, including their internal controls, ethics, and compliance programs, which is a big part of the new recommendation, section 24. And it's also in, I think, section 4, Roman numeral 9. The recommendation itself, to Luxembourg's points discussed earlier, doesn't distinguish between non-child resolutions and final convictions. It doesn't say non-child resolutions. It just says in one, you know, where it's determined to have bribed a foreign public official. So I see why the secretary perhaps has taken it upon themselves to insert non-child resolutions everywhere, but that's actually not what the recommendation says. To the extent that we do include non-child resolutions, the point is that if a company has taken steps to remediate, then they would actually be a better customer for the government, and the government might not debar them after all. So I think it's very important to add the part of the recommendation about taking into account remedial measures, including their internal controls, ethics, and compliance programs. Thank you. Thank you, Iris. Leading feminists or secretary, want to make a comment on this? Just to point that we didn't insert it in the recommendation itself because it appeared that Luxembourg could already consider these remedial actions. In paragraph 233, we mentioned the fact that operators can demonstrate their reliability. And the point 3 includes, you know, taking adequate compliance programs. So we thought that actually, you know, adding a recommendation would be too much because they already have something in the law. Thank you. US, does that answer your question? I think it's helpful, but we have to remember these recommendations take on a life of their own. So if you're telling a party's government now that they have to take non-final resolutions into account where there's a guilty finding of bribery, I think it's important to tack this on as well because we wouldn't want them only to take that into account when they're specifically looking at NTRs. So I think it's great if they're already doing it, but for purposes of a recommendation that's going to live on probably in other reports, I think it's an important point to have. But thank you. Thank you, US. I think it's a useful comment. We'll ask for other Elasti-X examiners in the sector to explore some wording here, which cross-refers to the fact that they already have the reliability point, but it's not a standalone recommendation, just a non-final resolution. So we won't ask them to do it again, but we'll find some wording to reflect that they've already got that there. Okay, that was the last comment. And so we have done the first reading of the report. Thank you for the patience of carrying on in English. Thank you for the patience of carrying on 35 minutes over time, and actually an hour and 35 minutes over the scheduled time in the agenda. I think it's a good report. I think it covers a lot. And I think that everyone has contributed well. I think everyone's also exhausted. So we'll break up now and we will see each other back here at 9.30 tomorrow, where we will be discussing who's first. Slovenia's up first, I think, tomorrow morning. So have a good evening, everyone.