In addition to formally adopting all the resolutions previously negotiated in the Committee of the Whole, the final task of the closing plenary session is to approve the draft report of the CND session. As had been announced, the draft report this year was short due to financial considerations. The report is the only official record of the CND session, the only formal registration of the discussions that take place, the proceedings are not published in any other form. Its contents are therefore important, it is the only formal document that can be referred to.
Drafts are prepared by the Secretariat and tend to be very general and avoid any potentially contentious issues or language. Not surprisingly, this year’s draft did not include any reference to ‘harm reduction’, in spite of the fact that numerous country statements did mention harm reduction practices as a normal part of domestic drug policy and the report is supposed to be a neutral reflection of the discussion that took place. The absence of ‘harm reduction’ was especially notable in the draft CND report’s section (E/CN.7/2011/L.1/Add.4) on the debate on the implementation of the Political Declaration and Plan of Action, the follow-up of the UNGASS review process (agenda item 6). In the statements made during that session, quite a few countries used the term harm reduction and several of them were annoyed about the fact that once again the Secretariat had deliberately censored the draft report by avoiding the term. Norway made a statement on behalf of six European countries (Norway, Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Netherlands, Finland) proposing an additional sentence (7bis) to the draft report to register that “several” speakers mentioned that harm reduction is an integral part of their demand reduction strategy. The Italian representative intervened, firstly apologising for not being a native English speaker, to ask whether the use of the word “some” rather than "several" would be a more appropriate word to use in this context to refer to the number of countries that had mentioned harm reduction. A whole debate followed about the precise meaning and difference between “several” and “some”, also discussing how these terms were used in other sections of the draft report. Portugal then added itself to the requested amendment of the report, as they also had used the harm reduction terminology during that debate, making the balance lean more towards the term “several”. It seemed that an agreement was about to be reached and the chair was ready to adopt the amended draft report, when the US delegation raised its flag offering its help as the first native English speaker to intervene in this discussion: the most appropriate term would in fact be “a few”. As the discussion on the definition of “several” versus “some” had already been concluded, the chair said she did not feel that adding the term “a few” was a particularly helpful contribution at this late stage (18.30). She desperately requested some clemency, saying that in her opinion seven countries could be rightfully referred to as “several”. The Norwegian sentence was thus approved and the term harm reduction made it into the CND report.
Friday, 25 March 2011
CND day 5 – Committee of the Whole: Support for the development and implementation of an integrated approach to programme development at the UNODC
OP2(bis) and (ter) added: ‘further requests that all regional and thematic programmes include provisions for evaluation including evaluation budgets and evaluation reports and evaluation skills capacity development’.
OP3:
Change to original text: ‘corporate’ is replaced by ‘financial’
USA: Could the Secretariat provide a proper name to this new system?
OP4:
Change to original text: replace ‘preferably’ with ‘including’.
Argentina: Why have the writers made this change? USA: This was a proposal made by the US delegation. The suggestion reflects the fact that it is more inclusive terminology. We don’t want States to only increase general purpose. Argentina insists on keeping the term ‘preferably’. Peru supports Argentina. The US compromises: ‘preferably’, but include ‘when feasible’. Agreed!
OP6:
Change to original text: ‘Takes note of the ongoing efforts on the thematic and regional programmes developed supported by UNODC and the launching of regional programmes of West and East Africa, as well as the consolidation of the ongoing regional programmes for East Asia and the Pacific, South Eastern Europe and Central America and the Caribbean. Takes note also of the presentation of the Arab States programme during the FNGOV meeting on [add date] and looks forward to its inauguration’.
Australia: interpretation of ‘consolidation’: we understand that the Spanish translation means ‘supporting ongoing work
OP8:
Changes to original text: ‘Welcomes the member states initiatives in creating centres of excellence as part of the regional programmes in Latin America and Caribbean Region, and similar institutions in other regions;.
Argentina: we take note of the deletion of OP8 and OP9 however, can we have more specific language… to reflect the development the have taken place in the region. “the establishment of centres of excellence in different continued in central American and te carribean, as well as in Mexico and peru as an important component for the effective implementation of effective programmes of latin America and the carribean….”
Mexico: we have made a slight proposal.
Argentina: we too support mexicos amendment, we want to change “implementation of regional programmes,” with “implementation of regional and thematic programmes,”.
Mexico: replace invites with encourages?
OP11:
Changes in the text: add: ‘In close cooperation with member states’
OP12:
Pakistan: at the end of OP12, we want to add “in their respective mandates”
OP14: deleted.
OP15: The reference to ‘of the UNDC’ would be deleted.
Argentina: add “implementation of thematic programs”
Guatemala: what difference will having UNODC at the end have ?
Para 16: replace ‘apprise’ with ‘inform’
Venezuela: PP1: Amendment: after ‘world drug problem’ we add a full stop.
L14 ADOPTED!
OP3:
Change to original text: ‘corporate’ is replaced by ‘financial’
USA: Could the Secretariat provide a proper name to this new system?
OP4:
Change to original text: replace ‘preferably’ with ‘including’.
Argentina: Why have the writers made this change? USA: This was a proposal made by the US delegation. The suggestion reflects the fact that it is more inclusive terminology. We don’t want States to only increase general purpose. Argentina insists on keeping the term ‘preferably’. Peru supports Argentina. The US compromises: ‘preferably’, but include ‘when feasible’. Agreed!
OP6:
Change to original text: ‘Takes note of the ongoing efforts on the thematic and regional programmes developed supported by UNODC and the launching of regional programmes of West and East Africa, as well as the consolidation of the ongoing regional programmes for East Asia and the Pacific, South Eastern Europe and Central America and the Caribbean. Takes note also of the presentation of the Arab States programme during the FNGOV meeting on [add date] and looks forward to its inauguration’.
Australia: interpretation of ‘consolidation’: we understand that the Spanish translation means ‘supporting ongoing work
OP8:
Changes to original text: ‘Welcomes the member states initiatives in creating centres of excellence as part of the regional programmes in Latin America and Caribbean Region, and similar institutions in other regions;.
Argentina: we take note of the deletion of OP8 and OP9 however, can we have more specific language… to reflect the development the have taken place in the region. “the establishment of centres of excellence in different continued in central American and te carribean, as well as in Mexico and peru as an important component for the effective implementation of effective programmes of latin America and the carribean….”
Mexico: we have made a slight proposal.
Argentina: we too support mexicos amendment, we want to change “implementation of regional programmes,” with “implementation of regional and thematic programmes,”.
Mexico: replace invites with encourages?
OP11:
Changes in the text: add: ‘In close cooperation with member states’
OP12:
Pakistan: at the end of OP12, we want to add “in their respective mandates”
OP14: deleted.
OP15: The reference to ‘of the UNDC’ would be deleted.
Argentina: add “implementation of thematic programs”
Guatemala: what difference will having UNODC at the end have ?
Para 16: replace ‘apprise’ with ‘inform’
Venezuela: PP1: Amendment: after ‘world drug problem’ we add a full stop.
L14 ADOPTED!
CND day 5 - Committee of the Whole: L15 Achieving zero-new HIV infections among IDU's and other groups
Russia:
We have two questions. PP6, is it correct that the term “people living with or effected by HIV or drug user” also include individuals who are members of a family of IDU’s? We think it applies to families of individuals. Also, we want to propose that before PP10, or an option between PP 10-PP11, we want to insert “recalling the general assembly resolution 64/182 in which it reiterates commitment to promote, develop, review or strengthen and integrate, ... including primary prevention. Aimed at promoting health and well-being .... and society as a whole, and in accordance with national legislation , including detention facilities...
Venezuela:
PP5, we think the interest of this commission is in Drug dependent individuals who have HIV/AIDS, so promoting the involvement of people with HIV aids is central
UK:
In response to Russia’s points, it does include the families of people affected by drug use. The second proposal to include the paragraph, we oppose it as it is too long and it is not necessary to include it at this very late stage. It doesn’t need amending.
Pakistan:
PP1, 2nd line. We want to use the language from last year’s resolution.
China:
We believe that the addition made by Russia is very relevant.
Russia’s inclusion aims at effectively reducing the risks of getting HIV and thus we support
Argentina:
We share UK’s position and we also we share the concern of the length of Russia’s inclusion
USA:
Supports the Salvador’s proposal and hopes that the text will be adopted as closely as possible according to the discussions we have already had. We are prepared to look at Russia’s proposal.
UK:
We find that this resolution pertains to the reduction of transmission of HIV among IDUs. The quote from Russia pertains to reducing the demand for drugs. This is equally important, but it does not fit in this resolution and we do not feel that it should be included here.
Russian Federation:
If we were to follow that logic, we would also need to remove all wording that has to do with AIDS, etc. taken out of the context in which it was adopted. Drug demand reduction issues are fundamental for the point of view of effectiveness of measures to stop HIV/AIDS. Our reference is therefore justified and necessary to ensure a balanced text. For now, the text is sketchy in the way it should be applied by the CND. This addition is necessary for us to adopt the resolution.
Norway:
We should try to keep this resolution short and focused, and the title is to achieving 0 new HIV infections among IDUs. We shouldn’t talk about the whole range of measures. I support Argentina’s proposal and I suggest we stick to the text.
Colombia:
We did not take part in the informals. But we wish to endorse Russia’s proposals. It would be surprising to have a reference to the Political Declaration and Plan of Action, especially since we are talking about drugs here. 0 new HIV infections can only be done through preventing drug use. It should therefore be part of the resolution.
UK:
We did not resist any suggestion to reiterate commitments made by member states. We had a long discussion about that and agreed to it in the informals. As far as we see, the quote was from a General Assembly resolution which we endorse. What we have a problem with is pulling out a specific element related to reducing the demand for drugs. This is referred to in many other documents adopted during the CND. We plead for flexibility in retaining the agreed line requested in the informals.
Russian Federation:
We want to underscore that many issues in this draft demonstrated our flexibility. Our delegation is not only working with other delegations, but also with our capital. We want to know that the text we propose is in no way changing the spirit of the resolution. We just want to see a reference to the agreed text adopted by the General Assembly to get a balanced approach and enable us to adopt this draft.
Argentina:
We can strike the right balance by including: ‘as well as those contained in resolution GA64/182, including paragraph 4’.
Russian Federation:
We agree to go along the proposal from Argentina.
China: We also agree with Argentina’s proposal. But we are not authorised to discuss the AIDS problem. This is a matter for our health ministry. Therefore, the addition by the Russian Delegation is pertinent because it gives us some background. We want to maintain the consensus.
UK:
Paragraph 4 and 5 assures the perfect balance.
China:
My original suggestion was to add a UN magic word, “inter-alia”. We suggest take the consensus we have reached now.
Germany:
We would like to support UK here.
Russia:
We would like to avoid a situation where our text becomes filled with brackets. Can the UK be flexible.
Norway:
We suggest a compromise being to neither refer to para 4 or 5.
UK:
The would support China’s proposal with “inter-alia”.
Pakistan:
OP2, we would like to propose the word change from “urges“ to “invites”.
UK:
That grammar doesn’t work everyone agrees
RESOLUTION ADOPTED
We have two questions. PP6, is it correct that the term “people living with or effected by HIV or drug user” also include individuals who are members of a family of IDU’s? We think it applies to families of individuals. Also, we want to propose that before PP10, or an option between PP 10-PP11, we want to insert “recalling the general assembly resolution 64/182 in which it reiterates commitment to promote, develop, review or strengthen and integrate, ... including primary prevention. Aimed at promoting health and well-being .... and society as a whole, and in accordance with national legislation , including detention facilities...
Venezuela:
PP5, we think the interest of this commission is in Drug dependent individuals who have HIV/AIDS, so promoting the involvement of people with HIV aids is central
UK:
In response to Russia’s points, it does include the families of people affected by drug use. The second proposal to include the paragraph, we oppose it as it is too long and it is not necessary to include it at this very late stage. It doesn’t need amending.
Pakistan:
PP1, 2nd line. We want to use the language from last year’s resolution.
China:
We believe that the addition made by Russia is very relevant.
Russia’s inclusion aims at effectively reducing the risks of getting HIV and thus we support
Argentina:
We share UK’s position and we also we share the concern of the length of Russia’s inclusion
USA:
Supports the Salvador’s proposal and hopes that the text will be adopted as closely as possible according to the discussions we have already had. We are prepared to look at Russia’s proposal.
UK:
We find that this resolution pertains to the reduction of transmission of HIV among IDUs. The quote from Russia pertains to reducing the demand for drugs. This is equally important, but it does not fit in this resolution and we do not feel that it should be included here.
Russian Federation:
If we were to follow that logic, we would also need to remove all wording that has to do with AIDS, etc. taken out of the context in which it was adopted. Drug demand reduction issues are fundamental for the point of view of effectiveness of measures to stop HIV/AIDS. Our reference is therefore justified and necessary to ensure a balanced text. For now, the text is sketchy in the way it should be applied by the CND. This addition is necessary for us to adopt the resolution.
Norway:
We should try to keep this resolution short and focused, and the title is to achieving 0 new HIV infections among IDUs. We shouldn’t talk about the whole range of measures. I support Argentina’s proposal and I suggest we stick to the text.
Colombia:
We did not take part in the informals. But we wish to endorse Russia’s proposals. It would be surprising to have a reference to the Political Declaration and Plan of Action, especially since we are talking about drugs here. 0 new HIV infections can only be done through preventing drug use. It should therefore be part of the resolution.
UK:
We did not resist any suggestion to reiterate commitments made by member states. We had a long discussion about that and agreed to it in the informals. As far as we see, the quote was from a General Assembly resolution which we endorse. What we have a problem with is pulling out a specific element related to reducing the demand for drugs. This is referred to in many other documents adopted during the CND. We plead for flexibility in retaining the agreed line requested in the informals.
Russian Federation:
We want to underscore that many issues in this draft demonstrated our flexibility. Our delegation is not only working with other delegations, but also with our capital. We want to know that the text we propose is in no way changing the spirit of the resolution. We just want to see a reference to the agreed text adopted by the General Assembly to get a balanced approach and enable us to adopt this draft.
Argentina:
We can strike the right balance by including: ‘as well as those contained in resolution GA64/182, including paragraph 4’.
Russian Federation:
We agree to go along the proposal from Argentina.
China: We also agree with Argentina’s proposal. But we are not authorised to discuss the AIDS problem. This is a matter for our health ministry. Therefore, the addition by the Russian Delegation is pertinent because it gives us some background. We want to maintain the consensus.
UK:
Paragraph 4 and 5 assures the perfect balance.
China:
My original suggestion was to add a UN magic word, “inter-alia”. We suggest take the consensus we have reached now.
Germany:
We would like to support UK here.
Russia:
We would like to avoid a situation where our text becomes filled with brackets. Can the UK be flexible.
Norway:
We suggest a compromise being to neither refer to para 4 or 5.
UK:
The would support China’s proposal with “inter-alia”.
Pakistan:
OP2, we would like to propose the word change from “urges“ to “invites”.
UK:
That grammar doesn’t work everyone agrees
RESOLUTION ADOPTED
CND day 5 – Committee of the Whole – L10 African group continued
Kenya:
All parties agree to amended paragraph, "assist African countries to address health problems and raise awareness of the dangers of all drugs, including cannabis..."
we also agreed to a new paragraph as a PP.
"cannabis is by far the most widely abused drug as reported by the INCB..."
RESOLUTION ADOPTED
All parties agree to amended paragraph, "assist African countries to address health problems and raise awareness of the dangers of all drugs, including cannabis..."
we also agreed to a new paragraph as a PP.
"cannabis is by far the most widely abused drug as reported by the INCB..."
RESOLUTION ADOPTED
CND Day Five - Resolution issues
Russian delegation - urges that the adoption of draft resolutions that have already been possibly drafted. Can't say which resolutions can be adopted as delegations are in cow.
CND plenary session, day 5
Plenary resumes its work.
question of the chirperson - COW is still working on the resolutions and it will take some time to finish them up. It will take some time to CND to conclude its work around the issue. The initiative is again to go forward to finish the the resolutions.
Russian delegation takes the floor and urges the governments to wait for the COW to conclude its work.
Chiarpeson advises to go forward with the resolutions; Russia strongly opposes this initiative. It believes that not all delegations have made their minds and there is a need for further considerations.
The chiarperson states that the plenary needs to save some time but there is no consesus amongst state delegates.
Sudan takes the floor and states that only 1 hour to finish this session and proposes to gather at 14.oo.
Co-sponsorship for the resolusions is open until monday and states are invited
Canada asks if there is a limit on the number of resolutions that country can co-sponsor. The answer is that there is no limit on numbers.
EU suggests to postphone adoption of resolutions;
Finland strongly opposes procerestination of adoption of resolutions.
Australia supports the proposal by Canada and Finland to go head with L2 L3 resolutions;
Brazil has no problem to continue working on the resolutions that are already ready.
A compromise would be to meet at 3pm not 4pm and delegatins will need to arrange their work in a way to start adoption of resolutions.
Finland still wonders why not to start at 14.00 and why at 15.00.
Yemen concurs with the idea to revive the session at 15.00 and the head of the COW will attend the work and that will satisfy the Yemen delegation.
Turkey believes that renewal of the session at 15.00 is sensible.
The plenary adjourned, the workn continues at 15.00.
question of the chirperson - COW is still working on the resolutions and it will take some time to finish them up. It will take some time to CND to conclude its work around the issue. The initiative is again to go forward to finish the the resolutions.
Russian delegation takes the floor and urges the governments to wait for the COW to conclude its work.
Chiarpeson advises to go forward with the resolutions; Russia strongly opposes this initiative. It believes that not all delegations have made their minds and there is a need for further considerations.
The chiarperson states that the plenary needs to save some time but there is no consesus amongst state delegates.
Sudan takes the floor and states that only 1 hour to finish this session and proposes to gather at 14.oo.
Co-sponsorship for the resolusions is open until monday and states are invited
Canada asks if there is a limit on the number of resolutions that country can co-sponsor. The answer is that there is no limit on numbers.
EU suggests to postphone adoption of resolutions;
Finland strongly opposes procerestination of adoption of resolutions.
Australia supports the proposal by Canada and Finland to go head with L2 L3 resolutions;
Brazil has no problem to continue working on the resolutions that are already ready.
A compromise would be to meet at 3pm not 4pm and delegatins will need to arrange their work in a way to start adoption of resolutions.
Finland still wonders why not to start at 14.00 and why at 15.00.
Yemen concurs with the idea to revive the session at 15.00 and the head of the COW will attend the work and that will satisfy the Yemen delegation.
Turkey believes that renewal of the session at 15.00 is sensible.
The plenary adjourned, the workn continues at 15.00.
IHRA statement at CND plenary session under Agenda item #7
Thank you, Madam Chairman
This statement is made on behalf of:
• The International Harm Reduction Association
• The International Network of People Who Use Drugs
• Penal Reform International
• Human Rights Watch
• International Drug Policy Consortium
• The German Coalition Against the Death Penalty
• The Open Society Foundations Drug Policy Programme
• Transform Drug Policy Foundation
• The Quaker Council for European Affairs
• and 20 other human rights and drug policy non-governmental organisations
We are grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important agenda item.
We heard yesterday from UNODC of the seizures of illicit substances made in many parts of the world. While looking at the statistics on tonnes and kilos, we must also recognise the human face of such seizures.
We must consider the penalties that will be applied to those who are arrested and prosecuted. This is not to excuse criminality – but nor can we excuse the taking of human life for any crime.
The death penalty for drug offences is a violation of international law. This is clear. Yet 32 jurisdictions retain this excessive and cruel punishment. The International Harm Reduction Association has identified hundreds of executions annually for drug-related offences but believes that as many as one thousand people may be executed for drug offences each year when states that keep their death penalty statistics a secret are counted.
The justification for this is usually deterrence. This is a faulty argument that has been presented many times over, and for a range of crimes.
While nobody should be executed for any offence, the vast majority of those known to be sentenced to die for drugs are not kingpins or major traffickers. They are carriers. Very often involvement in this aspect of the drug trade is driven by poverty, drug dependence and a lack of options. To kill these people is cruel in the extreme.
Our call is brief. All States must cease the application of the death penalty for drug offences, and, indeed, for all offences, and immediately institute a moratorium to spare the lives of those on death row.
I thank you for your attention!
This statement is made on behalf of:
• The International Harm Reduction Association
• The International Network of People Who Use Drugs
• Penal Reform International
• Human Rights Watch
• International Drug Policy Consortium
• The German Coalition Against the Death Penalty
• The Open Society Foundations Drug Policy Programme
• Transform Drug Policy Foundation
• The Quaker Council for European Affairs
• and 20 other human rights and drug policy non-governmental organisations
We are grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important agenda item.
We heard yesterday from UNODC of the seizures of illicit substances made in many parts of the world. While looking at the statistics on tonnes and kilos, we must also recognise the human face of such seizures.
We must consider the penalties that will be applied to those who are arrested and prosecuted. This is not to excuse criminality – but nor can we excuse the taking of human life for any crime.
The death penalty for drug offences is a violation of international law. This is clear. Yet 32 jurisdictions retain this excessive and cruel punishment. The International Harm Reduction Association has identified hundreds of executions annually for drug-related offences but believes that as many as one thousand people may be executed for drug offences each year when states that keep their death penalty statistics a secret are counted.
The justification for this is usually deterrence. This is a faulty argument that has been presented many times over, and for a range of crimes.
While nobody should be executed for any offence, the vast majority of those known to be sentenced to die for drugs are not kingpins or major traffickers. They are carriers. Very often involvement in this aspect of the drug trade is driven by poverty, drug dependence and a lack of options. To kill these people is cruel in the extreme.
Our call is brief. All States must cease the application of the death penalty for drug offences, and, indeed, for all offences, and immediately institute a moratorium to spare the lives of those on death row.
I thank you for your attention!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
