Slovenia`s Ambassador to Japan, Helena Drnovék-Zorko, issued a statement on 31 January 2012, expressing her deep contrition for the signing of the agreement. “I signed ACTA out of civic inattention because I wasn`t reluctant enough. Quite simply, I have not clearly linked the agreement I had instructed to sign to the agreement which, according to my own bourgeois conviction, restricts and retains freedom of engagement in the largest and most important network in human history, in particular limiting the future of our children,” she said.   In March 2010, a leaked draft negotiation showed that the European Commission had proposed a language in ACTA to demand criminal sanctions for “inciting, complicity and complicity” in certain offences, including “at least in cases of intentional infringement and piracy of copyright or kinship at commercial level”.  In a report published on 11 March 2009, the European Parliament called on the European Commission to “immediately release all documents relating to the ongoing international negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACAC) “.  The paragraphs provide that rights holders have access to civil or administrative proceedings (if any) (Article 7) and that judges have the opportunity to “make an order against a party, to refrain from any violation” (Article 8). They may also apply, in civil proceedings, for the destruction of copyright articles and illegal forgeries (Article 10). Under Article 11, they may ask alleged offenders to provide information about the goods they “control.” Article 9 provides that the judicial authorities of a contracting party may, among other things, take into account any legitimate value, including loss of earnings, the value of the property aggrieved at the market price or the proposed retail price presented by a rights holder. This clause has been heavily criticized for its validity and resemblance to previously controversial attempts to set a precedent in the same way. According to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, the principle “does not reflect the economic loss suffered by the rights holder.”   In a business line opinion, a professor at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade`s Centre for WTO Studies also stated that this would lead to a “supernumerary assessment” of infringement procedures.
 The governments of the United States, the European Commission, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Canada and Mexico are negotiating a trade agreement called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACAC). Despite its name, the agreement covers not only counterfeiting, but also a wide range of intellectual property enforcement issues. In June 2008, Canadian academic Michael Geist, who wrote for Copyright News, argued that “Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy” and noted that ACTA was in the shadows before documents were leaked on the Internet. The Toronto Star`s coverage of the documents “has generated widespread opposition as Canadians worry about the prospect of a trade agreement that could lead to invasive searches of personal computers and increased surveillance of online activities.” Geist argued that the public disclosure of the proposed ActA contract “could put an end to concerns about border guards looking for iPods” and that it could “bring attention to other important concerns, including increased filtering of content by Internet service providers, increased responsibility for websites that refer to allegedly offensive content, and a decrease in privacy.”