in 2007, consideration by Senior Officials at their Meetings in 2007 and 2008, consultation with governments with responses from 15 countries19, a further Working Group Meeting of Senior Officials and Practitioners of Commonwealth countries meeting in January 2010 at which representatives at a high policy-making level from 22 countries attended20. After further work by a Drafting Committee and consideration by Senior Officials, the revised Scheme was adopted by Law Ministers in 2011. 2.18 The revision of the Harare Scheme in 2011 introduced material on taking evidence or statements from persons, including through live video link or other audiovisual means (paras. 1(5)(b)) and 14), the preservation of computer data (para. 20), the interception of telecommunications (paras. 22 and 23), the interception of transmission data (para. 24), the disclosure of intercept material (para. 25), surveillance, including covert electronic surveillance (para. 26), and the provision of subscriber information (para. 28). Although there are differences of language, for example ‘transmission data’ rather than ‘traffic data’, the provisions of the Harare Scheme correspond to article 27 to 34 of the Budapest Convention which set out mutual assistance procedures to be applied in the absence of applicable international agreements. Recommendation concerning the Model Law and the Harare Scheme 2.19 The Group, having assessed the Model Law and the recently-revised Harare Scheme, finds that they continue to provide Commonwealth countries with a sound basis for the core provisions of their cybercrime legislation. There is no need at present for the revision of the Model Law. However, the Group recognises that, given the rapid evolution of cybercrime, some supplementation may in future be judged necessary. It would urge those Commonwealth countries which have not already adopted legislation based on the Model Law to consider doing so with a degree of urgency. The Group notes that an expert group convened by the Commonwealth Secretariat is preparing a Model Law to give effect to the revised Harare Scheme with a view to its adoption by Law Ministers in 2014. 2.20 Although the wide adoption of legislation inspired by the Model Law would be of great value at the national level, the international dimension can only be legally secure if it is dealt with in a binding international instrument. The Budapest Convention 2.21 As noted above, the Commonwealth provisions, in the Model Law and the Harare Scheme, are closely related to the Budapest Convention21. The Convention was drawn up by the Council of Europe with the active participation of the United States, Canada, Japan, and South Africa, and was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in November 2001. It entered into force on 1 July 2004. The negotiation and adoption of the Convention itself was based on more than a decade of discussions in the UN, G-8, OECD and a range of other European and non-European fora which were also used in various ways as Commonwealth resources22. To some extent the typology of crimes and inventory 19 Australia, Botswana, Cameroon, Canada, The Gambia, Ghana, Isle of Man, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, Montserrat, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa and the United Kingdom. 20 Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, The Gambia, Ghana, Jamaica, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom, Tanzania and Zambia. 21 Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, C.E.T.S. No.185, in force 1 July 2004. Text available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/185.htm, See also (2002) 41 I.L.M. 282. 22 For a summary of multilateral efforts prior to the Budapest Convention, see M A Sussmann, “The critical challenges from international high-tech and computer-related crime at the millennium”, (1999)9 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 451 at 476-88. 29