A/74/969 11. In its submission, the Netherlands reported that it had investigated five cases i n which companies claimed that they were not aware of the licence obligation under the European Union anti-torture regulation and one case in which a company claimed that it was not aware of the prohibition of trade in the goods listed in annex II to the regulation. The United Kingdom noted that the most recent prosecution was related to the trading of electric discharge weapons. Canada reported that there had been some convictions for the illegal import of electric shock weapons, electric shock devices and riot control agents. III. Possible scope of common international standards 12. In resolution 73/304, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on the feasibility and possible scope of a range of options to establish common international standards. For the purpose of identifying the possible scope, Member States were asked to express their views on the scope and categories of goods that should be specifically identified under common international standards. They were also asked for their views on the extent to which the standards should provide for the prohibition and/or control of trade, the import, export and transfer of those goods and related activities, and on the need to establish a mechanism and criteria for conducting risk assessments. A. Scope and categories of goods 13. Several States 16 proposed that a distinction be drawn between three categories of goods: (a) Goods that have no practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) Goods that could be used for the purpose of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (c) Goods that could be used for the purpose of capital punishment. 14. Other States suggested different distinctions. A number of States 17 proposed an additional distinction between goods that have no practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment and goods that have no practical use other than for the purpose of torture or other forms of ill-treatment. France proposed that all goods related to capital punishment be merged in a single category. Czechia suggested only two categories: goods that have no practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment, torture or other forms of ill-treatment; and goods that could be used for capital punishment, torture or other forms of ill-treatment. Mongolia made a similar suggestion. Indonesia disagreed with the inclusion of capital punishment in any list of goods. It argued that, owing to the various methods of capital punishment among countries, it would be difficult to reach unanimity regarding the inclusion of this category. It proposed that the focus should be on goods that would be of relevance to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. __________________ 16 17 6/13 Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Albania, Andorra, Angola, Canada, Ecuador, Latvia, Mexico, Mongolia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Paraguay, Portugal, Serbia, Switzerland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 20-10185