Chapter VIII International cooperation | Article 64 Information

🚧 RIGA REVISION 1.0 [FIRST DRAFT]
Complete analysis using 8-Point Evaluation Framework with systematic gender asymmetry review.

📌 Navigation:
← Article 63 | All Articles | Article 65 →

ORIGINAL TEXT (Istanbul Convention, adopted May 11, 2011)

Article 64 – Information

1 The requested Party shall promptly inform the requesting Party of the final result of the action taken under this chapter. The requested Party shall also promptly inform the requesting Party of any circumstances which render impossible the carrying out of the action sought or are likely to delay it significantly.

2 A Party may, within the limits of its internal law, without prior request, forward to another Party information obtained within the framework of its own investigations when it considers that the disclosure of such information might assist the receiving Party in preventing criminal offences established in accordance with this Convention or in initiating or carrying out investigations or proceedings concerning such criminal offences or that it might lead to

a request for co.operation by that Party under this chapter.

3 A Party receiving any information in accordance with paragraph

2 shall submit such information to its competent authorities in order that proceedings may be taken if they are considered appropriate, or that this information may be taken into account in relevant civil and criminal proceedings.
[Source: CETS No. 210, Article 64]

8-POINT EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Evaluation Criteria: This article is assessed using the following 8 criteria with proper citation of sources:

1. Definitions: Are terms clearly defined? Is a sound logical framework present? Which logical fallacies appear? Citations required.

2. Legal Clarity: Is the convention legally clear and understandable for enforcement? Can it be implemented consistently? Legal precedents cited.

3. Sovereignty Impact: Does this respect diverse legal systems and state sovereignty? International law sources cited.

4. Victim Protection: Does this genuinely enhance safety and protection for victims? Research evidence cited.

5. Bad Actor Exploitability: Can this be weaponized for repression, manipulation, or false accusations? Case studies cited.

6. Practical Feasibility: Can states actually implement this with realistic resources? Implementation data cited.

7. Unintended Consequences: What negative externalities might emerge? Policy analysis cited.

8. Cultural Sensitivity: Does this allow for legitimate cultural variation while maintaining core protections? Comparative studies cited.

🎓 CITATION REQUIREMENTS:
All analyses must include:

Academic sources (peer-reviewed journals, legal scholarship)
Primary sources (legal documents, official reports, case law)
Diverse perspectives (multiple ideological and cultural frameworks)
Implementation data from multiple jurisdictions
Expert opinions from various stakeholder groups

ISSUE IDENTIFICATION

Score: 0 (Negative-only scoring: each issue = -1 point)

v1.05 includes systematic gender asymmetry review

Issues Identified:

No significant textual issues identified in initial review.

PROPOSED REVISIONS

Revision principles: Clarity, consistency, cultural sensitivity, sovereignty respect, victim protection, exploitability reduction

Option A: [Gender-symmetric revision with rationale and sources]

Option B: [Alternative approach with rationale and sources]

Option C: [Minimalist revision with rationale and sources]

Each option includes: Legal precedents, implementation feasibility, cultural impact assessment, stakeholder perspectives

💭 STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES:
Consider views from: Victim advocacy groups, legal scholars, cultural/religious communities, implementation practitioners, state sovereignty advocates, human rights organizations, gender equality advocates, and others affected by this article.

📌 Navigation:
← Article 63 | All Articles | Article 65 →

About Riga Revision 1.0: Comprehensive article-by-article critique using the 8-Point Evaluation Framework, rigorous technical documentation standards, and multi-stakeholder perspectives. This is a FIRST DRAFT prepared with AI assistance. Version 2.0 and beyond will be prepared by human experts.

Resources: Evaluation Framework | 8 C’s of Technical Writing | All Articles

Disclaimer: This analysis represents critical examination from multiple perspectives and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and qualified legal professionals.