Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) supported the proposal for a two year period.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) endorsed the view expressed by the representative of the United States.

In this regard, see E. del Mar García Rico, El uso de las armas nucleares y el derecho internacional, Madrid (1999), pp. 127 128.

In Gómez Isa, F., and Pureza, J. M., La Protección Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en los albores del Siglo XXI. Universidad de Deusto. Bilbao, 2003.

En torno a la prohibición internacional de la tortura .

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) expressed support for the proposal by the representative of Paraguay regarding draft paragraph 5.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that his delegation shared the concern expressed by the United States.

Mr. Nordlander (Sweden), Ms. Lahelma (Observer for Finland) and Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that the draft article was acceptable as it stood.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that his delegation supported the wording of draft article 6 as it stood, with the deletion of the text in square brackets in paragraph 2.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that it was unnecessary to exclude under draft article 2 matters that were already implicitly excluded by virtue of draft article 1 on the scope of application.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) expressed firm support for the text as drafted, which did not limit party autonomy and allowed derogations to be either implicit or explicit.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain), noting the importance of international standardization, asked whether the terms used in the definitions or alternative terms had been employed in other international contexts.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain), endorsing the comment by the delegation of Austria, said he was against allowing an REIO to make a declaration without the consent of its member States.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain), supported by Mr. Chung Wan yong (Republic of Korea), said that draft article 19 bis appeared to be redundant, since its content was already covered by draft articles 19 and 22.

Introduction to the Draft minimal rules of the United Nations for the administration of criminal justice (Mallorca Rules), with other authors, Conselleria Adjunta a la Presidencia del Gobierno Balear, Institute of Criminology of the University of Madrid and Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division of the United Nations, Palma de Mallorca, 1992, pp. 9 14 and 23 37.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that in order to keep the scope of application of the draft convention as broad as possible only minimal exclusions were established under draft article 2, while States could make additional exclusions under draft article 18.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) asked whether the new wording of draft paragraph 3 (b) was intended to exclude the possibility of proving identity and intention by methods other than that provided for in draft paragraph 3 (a).

Looking at the issue from the point of view of the responsibility of member States, M. Hirsch, The Responsibility of International Organizations towards Third Parties Some Basic Principles (Dordrecht London Nijhoff, 1995), p. 87, and F. Vacas Fernández, La responsabilidad internacional de Naciones Unidas (Madrid Dykinson, 2002), p. 120, also emphasize the criterion of discretion.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain), supported by Mr. Bellenger (France), Mr. Houmann (Observer for Denmark), Mr. Sandoval (Chile), Mr. Velázquez (Paraguay) and Mr. Yang Lixin (China), said that the proposed amendment dealt satisfactorily with a situation that was not otherwise covered by the draft convention.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain), supported by Mr. Velázquez (Paraguay) and Mr. Sandoval (Chile), drew attention to a clarification in paragraph 68 of the Guide to Enactment of the Model Law and urged the Commission to exercise caution in introducing changes to the existing wording since it might cause confusion.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that, since draft article 18, paragraph 2, provided States with unlimited scope to make such exclusions as they deemed appropriate, paragraph 1 fulfilled no function other than to indicate explicitly what those possibilities were.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that if the draft paragraph was to contain a list, the Commission should consider whether to include other existing forms of electronic communication, such as short message service (SMS) facilities and interactive television, which seemed to imply, but did not create a presumption, that a place of business was located in a specific country.

Mr. Madrid Parra (Spain) said that his delegation did not support the proposal to retain draft paragraph 6, not because it did not agree with exclusions but simply because exclusions were already provided for in draft article 2, paragraph 2, which stated that the convention did not apply to any transferable document or instrument that entitled the bearer or beneficiary to claim the delivery of goods or the payment of a sum of money.