PART 2: IDENTIFY THE MOST EFFECTIVE MEANS OF INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, AMONGST OTHERS, THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME, WITHOUT DUPLICATING THE WORK OF OTHER INTERNATIONAL BODIES The National Dimension 2.1 This part of the Group’s mandate speaks of ‘the most effective means of international co-operation and enforcement’. The Group is clear that this part of the mandate should not be interpreted as limited to ‘international co-operation’ in the sense of mutual legal assistance and/or extradition, and similarly that it should not be limited to ‘enforcement’ in the sense of the enforcement of judgments and penalties issued or imposed in another state. The focus is on effective means by which the international community can meet the challenge of cybercrime, and that requires effective systems to be in place within each state. International co-operation will be most effective if each state has a developed strategy against cybercrime, and the capacity and means to give effect to that strategy. 2.2 Such national systems must have a strategy for preventive work, and adequately trained, skilled and resourced investigative and prosecution agencies and the judiciary. Cybercrime by its nature places especial demands on the technical capacity of state agencies and on their ability to interpret and analyse complex international transactions. The effective discharge of the state’s responsibilities will often require close co-operation with the private sector and civil society. 2.3 An example of such co-operation is provided by the United Kingdom’s Cybercrime Reduction Partnership which held its first meeting in March 2013. It brings together Government ministers, academics, experts from the IT sector, and law enforcement agencies with the aim of staying one step ahead of criminals by sharing information and raising awareness among businesses and consumers. The International Dimension 2.4 As Part 1 of this report has emphasised, cybercrime is international in nature. To combat it effectively there must be close co-operation between agencies in different countries. It is often the case that informal contacts between agencies provide the swiftest, most economical and most effective means of co-operation, but more formal methods may have to be used to comply with applicable international obligations to ensure that the procedural requirements of the legal system or systems involved are met. This may be especially true where digital evidence is to be relied upon in court. The effort expended in gathering and preserving digital material may be wasted if it cannot be transmitted from state to state in a form that is both technically and legally secure, or if the laws and procedures of the receiving state do not enable this type of evidence to be admitted and given probative value. 2.5 Digital data can be transmitted or erased by offenders very quickly and from long distances, which creates a tension between investigative needs and procedural safeguards, and when international borders are involved, national sovereignty and comity. On one hand, investigators need to trace, locate and secure digital evidence before it can be moved or erased, but on the other hand, safeguards are needed when investigators in one country are seeking evidence in another. There is a need to ensure that investigators in one country do not unintentionally interfere with or compromise enforcement or investigative measures elsewhere. In general, the more intrusive the investigative measures and the stronger the 25