El Salvador has been actively involved in promoting a safe cyberspace. The Latin American country, back in 2015, signed a
memorandum of understanding with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime to support the fight against cybercrime, with training in capacity building, prevention and cooperation.
El Salvador has expressed views on the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes at the UNGA.
As part of their statement, it was noted the lack of regulation obliging network administrators of public, private, or non-profit institutions to establish, maintain, and safeguard the connection logs of their internal clients, which can be exploited for the commission of traditional crime and cybercrime.
As part of the OEWG discussions, El Salvador has identified the
norm regarding ICT product supply chains as the most important for states, in addition to proposing that the OEWG
highlights the efforts and progress that countries are making in cybersecurity, making the spirit of cooperation in this area clear.
Costa Rica has a long history of collaborating on cyber issues within the OAS Cyber Security Program, from training to capacity-building for both the public and private sectors. At
a 2019 intervention, Costa Rica recognised the leadership carried out by the aforementioned Working Group in coordinating the response to cyber incidents regionally and establishing a cooperative framework of action to cyber threats.
Costa Rican participation in the UN OEWG is guaranteed until 2025. As part of the second substantive session in 2022, Costa Rica
confirmed - along with several other countries - that international law is fully applicable to the use of ICT by states
[OH1], with a focus on how international humanitarian law and the principles of humanity, necessity, proportionality, and distinction apply in cyberspace.
An interesting approach was taken by Costa Rica during this session, as the Caribbean country
emphasised a multi-stakeholder approach to cybersecurity, involving the private sector, civil society, and researchers’ analysis, information, and capacity on threat.
Peru stresses the need to make a
distinction between 'cyber attacks' (which involve 'damage being caused to a militarily relevant target, which may be totally or partially destroyed, even captured or neutralised') and an 'abrupt disruption of communications in cyberspace', i.e. cyber operations that cause inconvenience, even extreme inconvenience, but not direct injury or death, or destruction of property. Accordingly, Peru emphasises the determination of the legality of cyber operations in the context of the use of force by taking into account whether they may result in death or injury to persons or property.
Peru has noted the difficulty of attribution in cyberspace. Coinciding with other American states, Peru has focused on the state's duty to ensure that its territory is not used by non-state actors to launch attacks. In this regard, Peru
states that the inertia of a state towards a non-state actor that could unleash a cyber-attack on another state and that it was in a position to control could make its behaviour attributable to the state.
In any case, Peru
highlights the validity of various human rights in cyberspace, including 'the right to privacy and intimacy, freedom of information, freedom of expression, free and equal access to information, bridging the digital divide, intellectual property rights, free flow of information, the right to secrecy of communications'.