KEY FINDINGS AND OPTIONS Some countries recommended that accession to the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention would promote international cooperation and harmonization of national cybercrime laws. Some countries recommended that a new international legal instrument on cybercrime should be developed. Other countries recommended that harmonization of legislation could be promoted through the development of international model legal provisions at the United Nations level. A number of countries recommended that international standards should be developed on law enforcement investigations concerning extraterritorial data, including with a view to clarifying the relationship of such investigations with national sovereignty principles. A number of countries suggested that technical assistance for law enforcement, prosecutorial and judicial authorities in the area of preventing and combating cybercrime should be strengthened. On the basis of proposals made by Member States and the key findings, the Study finds that options to strengthen existing and to propose new national and international legal or other responses to cybercrime may include one or more of the following: (a) The development of international model provisions on criminalization of core cybercrime acts, with a view to supporting States in eliminating safe havens through the adoption of common offence elements: (i) The provisions could maintain the approach of existing instruments regarding offences against the confidentiality, integrity and accessibility of computer systems and data; (ii) The provisions could also cover ‘conventional’ offences perpetrated or facilitated by use of computer systems, only where existing criminalization approaches are perceived not to be sufficient; (iii) The provisions could address areas not covered by existing instruments, such as criminalization of SPAM; (iv) The provisions could be developed in line with the latest international human rights standards on criminalization, including in particular, treaty-based protections of the right to freedom of expression; (v) Use of the provisions by States would minimize dual criminality challenges in international cooperation; (b) The development of international model provisions on investigative powers for electronic evidence, with a view to supporting States in ensuring the necessary procedural tools for investigation of crimes involving electronic evidence: (i) The provisions could draw on the approach of existing instruments, including orders for expedited preservation of data, and orders for obtaining stored and real-time data; (ii) The provisions could offer guidance on the extension of traditional powers such as search and seizure to electronic evidence; (iii) The provisions could offer guidance on the application of appropriate safeguards for intrusive investigative techniques based on international human rights law, including treatybased protections of the right to privacy; xiii