https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/08/dissecting-un-cybercrime-conventions-threat-coders-rights-defcon
Yes, there are several clear issues here.

1) Jurisdiction for someone to be punished for any crime should only apply to things which are a crime in the country someone is currently located in, otherwise this is a huge recipe for outright abuse, disproportionality, and unjust laws.

2) For an *assistance treaty*, something should be a crime in *both countries*.

3) There should be no unjust laws or disproportionate applications.

Frankly, there were already processes prior to this proposed treaty, which raises the question as to why it exists...

4) Reasserting that no laws relating to expression should be included in here (for this particular treaty). That is a recipe for abuse.

I already have a bit of a distaste for another treaty, as it doesn't stop states from implementing language which doesn't conform with the freedom of expression in their own national laws.

Please don't make the problem worse.

In other words, I have the same position as during the negotiation stage.

5) Due process. Always due process.