31/45 Outcome of the panel discussion on the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment of human rights - Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Human Rights Council Thirty-first session

Agenda items 2 and 8

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the

High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Follow-up to and implementation of the Vienna

Declaration and Programme of Action

Outcome of the panel discussion on the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment of human rights

Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Summary

The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 28/28,

and provides a summary of the panel discussion on the impact of the world drug problem

on the enjoyment of human rights, held on 28 September 2015, during the thirtieth session

of the Council.

I. Introduction

1. The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 28/28, decided to convene a panel

discussion at its thirtieth session on the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment

of human rights, informed by the findings contained in the report of the United Nations

High Commissioner for Human Rights on the study on the impact of the world drug

problem on the enjoyment of human rights (A/HRC/30/65), and to have a constructive and

inclusive dialogue on the issue with relevant stakeholders, including specialized United

Nations agencies and civil society, and with the participation of the Commission on

Narcotic Drugs. The Council held the panel discussion on 28 September 2015, at its

thirtieth session.

2. In its resolution 28/28, the Human Rights Council requested the Office of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to prepare a report on the panel

discussion in the form of a summary. The present report was prepared pursuant to that

request.

3. The Deputy High Commissioner opened the panel discussion, which was moderated

by the former President of Switzerland, Ruth Dreifuss. The panellists were Javier Andres

Florez, Director of Drug Policy at the Ministry of Justice of Colombia; Ann Fordham,

Executive Director of the International Drug Policy Consortium; Mohammad-Mahmoud

Ould Mohamedou, Deputy Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Professor at

the Graduate Institute in Geneva and Commissioner on the West Africa Commission on

Drugs; Shekhar Saxena, Director of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse

of the World Health Organization; and Aldo Lale-Demoz, Deputy Executive Director of the

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). In addition, Arthayudh Srisamoot,

Ambassador of Thailand to the United Nations Office at Vienna and Chair of the fifty-

eighth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, participated in the panel discussion.

II. Opening statement

4. In her opening statement, the Deputy High Commissioner referred to the report of

the High Commissioner on the study of the impact of the world drug problem on human

rights, which included five main areas: the right to health; rights relating to criminal justice;

the prohibition of discrimination, in particular against ethnic minorities and women; the

rights of the child; and the rights of indigenous peoples.

5. Concerning the right to health, the Deputy High Commissioner noted that, in its

resolution 12/27, the Human Rights Council had previously recognized the need for harm-

reduction programmes and that such measures, including syringe exchange programmes

and opioid substitution therapy, were available in slightly less than half of all countries

worldwide. Harm-reduction measures help to reduce substantially HIV infections and the

transmission of other blood-borne viruses, and she encouraged States to embrace harm-

reduction approaches. She added that this was particularly the case in prisons, where access

to harm reduction was far more restricted and urgently needed. She noted that access to

essential medicines under international control was far too limited, particularly in

developing countries. It was often restricted for fear that they would be diverted from

legitimate medical use to illicit purposes.

6. The Deputy High Commissioner recalled that the Special Rapporteur on the right of

everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

had already called for decriminalization of the possession and use of drugs in his 2010

report (A/65/255), and that the World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations

Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) had taken similar positions. That was because the

criminalization of the possession and use of drugs had been shown to cause significant

obstacles to the right to health. Concerning the death penalty for drug-related offences, it

was estimated that 33 countries or territories continued to impose the death penalty for such

offences, resulting in approximately 1,000 executions annually. In some States, drug-

related offences accounted for the majority of executions carried out. However, according

to the findings of the Human Rights Committee, the Secretary-General, the High

Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or

arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment, drug-related offences did not meet the threshold of the

“most serious crimes”.

7. The Deputy High Commissioner noted that, in some States, persons suspected of

having committed drug-related offences were particularly at risk of arbitrary detention and

that drug users may be subjected to torture or ill-treatment in custody to obtain a confession

or other information. Convictions for drug-related offences also often resulted in

disproportionately harsh sentences for relatively minor offences and adversely affects a

range of rights or entitlement to benefits, including custody of children or visitation rights,

access to public housing, food assistance, student financial aid or eligibility for certain

types of employment. Consideration should be given to alternatives to prosecution and

imprisonment of persons for minor, non-violent, drug-related offences. She observed that

ethnic minorities and women could be particularly subject to discrimination in law

enforcement efforts, particularly for the use or possession of drugs or for their role as

“micro-distributors”.

8. Concerning the rights of children, the Deputy High Commissioner stated that the

focus should be on prevention and children should receive accurate and objective

information about drugs. Children should not be subject to criminal prosecution. Instead,

responses should focus on health and education, treatment, including harm-reduction

measures, and social reintegration. As for indigenous peoples, she noted that they had the

right to follow their traditional, cultural and religious practices and, where drug use was

part of these practices, it should in principle be permitted.

9. The Deputy High Commissioner expressed hope that human rights would be

addressed in a constructive and specific manner in the outcome documents of the special

session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem, in order to ensure the

protection of human rights in State law and practice in the future.

III. Statements by the panellists

10. The panel moderator said that it was important to develop far-reaching cooperation

within the United Nations family and to analyse the complexity of drug use. The aim of the

panel was to understand whether relevant international conventions were being

implemented and the role of policies adopted in this area. The contribution of the Human

Rights Council and OHCHR would allow the setting-up of a general framework to provide

consistency and show the path towards greater consistency and effectiveness of those

policies. This was important because some countries had adopted measures that had fallen

short of respect for human rights, including the right to health for drug users. Also, by now,

it was obvious that national and international drug policies could have unintended

consequences. She added that the High Commissioner’s report had drawn attention to the

consequences of drug use on the most vulnerable, including women and children.

11. Mr. Florez welcomed the study by OHCHR, which referred to some of the

undesirable consequences of drug control policies. In the name of the fight against drugs,

numerous human rights had been violated, and yet nothing could justify the stigmatization

and exclusion of drug users, discrimination against minorities, torture or the death penalty.

Drug policies should not be assessed on their good intentions, but on their effectiveness.

Colombia found it unacceptable for hundreds of thousands of individuals to languish in

prisons on life sentences or even death sentences for drug-related crimes, or for forced

labour to be imposed on drug users. Women and children convicted of drug-related

offences in particular suffered from severe sentences.

12. The devastating effect of drug trafficking in Colombia had also stoked the armed

conflict and sapped resources that could have otherwise been invested in health, education

and development. Internationally, Colombia had proposed an agenda aimed at eliminating

the death penalty, decriminalizing drug use, adopting harm-reduction measures and

implementing alternative measures to imprisonment. It was important to recognize in the

fight against drugs that the international system could not continue using the same policies

to address different realities; the problems had changed and it was not possible to use a

universal approach with a focus on punishment. Public health, development and human

rights could not be placed on the sidelines in the fight against drugs.

13. The Executive Director of the International Drug Policy Consortium said that the

upcoming special session of the General Assembly on drugs would be an important

opportunity to have an open and honest debate regarding the challenges and shortcomings

of the global response to drug control and to acknowledge the widespread and devastating

consequences of punitive laws and repressive law enforcement practices on human rights.

She said it was encouraging that the links between drug policies and human rights were

being increasingly addressed by the United Nations, but it was deeply concerning that the

right to life was frequently compromised by aggressive supply reduction activities that had

led to death sentences for drug offenders. The death penalty may under international law be

applied only for the most serious crimes, and drug offences did not fall into that category. A

number of States nevertheless executed drug offenders in ever-increasing numbers, while

others had sought to reintroduce capital punishment for drug crimes. There were also

serious concerns about extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions carried out in the

name of drug control efforts.

14. Ms. Fordham added that the negative impact of the criminalization of drug use

continued to be of grave concern. Individuals had a right to gain access to life-saving health

services without fear of punishment or discrimination, but the fear of criminal sanctions had

driven people who use drugs away from life-saving harm-reduction services, leading to

avoidable infection and premature death from HIV and hepatitis C. Such criminalization

also served to justify harsh measures, including torture, the denial of due process and

compulsory placement in drug detention centres for the supposed treatment and

rehabilitation of people who used drugs. Finally, the burden of highly disproportionate

sentences for drug offences was largely borne by vulnerable groups, including women and

ethnic minorities. She added that incarceration fuelled poverty and social exclusion. The

Council should create a special procedure on drug policies and human rights, and request

other special procedure mandate holders to produce a comprehensive joint report on the

impact of drug policies on their mandates. It should also consider designating a day, to be

observed annually, for discussion on the impact of the world drug problem on human

rights.

15. Mr. Mohamedou said that States with a low level of socioeconomic development

were particularly vulnerable to the drug problem. In those States, drug policies were

generally lacking or not as elaborate as they should be. Drug-related problems had an

impact on governance, the rule of law and human rights, and drug-related issues were

understudied and not addressed sufficiently. There were new patterns of complexity that

called for more research. Whereas previous initiatives had focused on supply reduction, the

West Africa Commission on Drugs, launched in 2012, had taken into account local

demand.

16. He highlighted the macroeconomic impact of drug production on society and that

the traditional approach had focused on alternatives to illegal production by farmers. He

explained that it was also important to focus on the impact on individuals and noted that the

majority of those who produced drugs were poor and did not become rich from that

production. There was a need to identify other employment opportunities for such people.

Those who used drugs were socially stigmatized, had low incomes and came from deprived

families. Drug policies focusing on wide-reaching arrests and harsh sentences exacerbated

the issue and drove offenders further to the margins of society. Drug enforcement efforts

disproportionately affected the poor and in particular ethnic minorities and women. He

noted that female drug users could face the loss of custody of their children and were

sometimes forced to undergo abortions. Indigenous communities also suffered from

misguided drug policies. He concluded that disregard for human rights had led to drug

policies with unintended adverse consequences and that new evidenced-based policies were

needed.

17. Mr. Saxena said that drug users and people with drug-use disorders experienced

discrimination in gaining access to appropriate health-care services and suffered from a

lack of adequate treatment. They faced significant stigma, prejudice and non-professional

conduct in health-care settings and suffered from a general lack of information and training

of health-care professionals in meeting their health-care needs. Drug-use disorders were

health conditions associated with substantial mortality, morbidity and social problems and

were both preventable and treatable. The right to health must be extended to all population

groups, including the vulnerable and marginalized, and also to people deprived of their

liberty.

18. Harm-reduction interventions, such as needle exchange programmes for injecting

drug users or outreach services aimed at prevention, had proven to be effective in the

prevention of drug-related blood-borne infections. People with drug dependence should not

be punished for their drug-taking behaviour, which was a result of their disease, and as such

should not be treated as criminals. Female drug users often did not receive appropriate care

or support for their drug use disorder, in particular during pregnancy, because of stigma,

lack of timely referrals and discriminatory attitudes of health professionals and society at

large. He added that children must benefit from policies, programmes and services to

prevent and reduce substance use and from measures to prevent their involvement in illicit

production and trafficking.

19. Mr. Saxena recalled that it was sometimes said that the United Nations drug

conventions were an obstacle to achieving the right to health. He observed that the ultimate

goal of the drug conventions was to protect the health and welfare of humankind and there

was nothing in those conventions that requested Member States to introduce policies that

violated human rights. The conventions envisaged the use of measures to reduce the health

and social harm due to drug use. In conclusion, he stressed that, just because a person was a

drug user or had a drug-use disorder, he or she should not lose the right to appropriate

timely and effective health care.

20. Mr. Lale-Demoz said there was a need to recognize that drug use and associated

health conditions, such as HIV, hepatitis C and drug overdose, were public health issues

that had to be addressed by qualified and trained personnel. Drug use required treatment,

not punishment, which led to violations of the drug user’s right to health. Member States

should use alternatives to imprisonment for drug-related offences of a non-violent nature.

Imprisonment in such cases was ineffective, led to prison overcrowding and exacerbated

the transmission of HIV and other diseases. Alternatives to imprisonment increased

recovery and reduced recidivism.

21. The Deputy Executive Director of UNODC emphasized that attention had to be paid

to the particular vulnerability of female drug offenders. Women in prison for drug-related

offenses were often recruited or coerced to perform low-level and high-risk tasks.

Alternatives to imprisonment were particularly appropriate for women charged with minor

drug-related offences. Explicit measures were also required to protect children from the

illicit use of drugs and to prevent the use of children in illicit drug production and

trafficking. More protection by health, child protection and justice systems was required to

promote the rights of children with substance abuse problems. UNODC also promoted the

provision of free legal advice to those who had no means to afford their criminal defence

and the rational use of controlled medicines that was essential to the relief of pain related to

health conditions. Finally, it opposed the death penalty in all circumstances and encouraged

every country to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The Deputy

Executive Director added that UNODC strongly advises States that retain capital

punishment not to impose it for drug-related offences, as they are not considered to fall

under the category of “most serious crimes”.

22. Mr. Srisamoot said that full compliance with human rights law and with the

international drug control framework went hand-in-hand. At its session in March 2015, the

Commission on Narcotic Drugs emphasized the importance of human rights in a number of

resolutions on various topics, such as evidence-based treatment and care for children and

young people with substance use disorders, the quality and the reliability of drug analysis

results, and alternative development. Respect for human rights was identified as one of the

cross-cutting issues in preparations for the special session of the General Assembly on the

world drug problem, which included drugs and human rights, young people, women,

children and communities.

23. The health and welfare of humankind should be protected against risks associated

with drug use through the implementation of science-based and health-oriented prevention,

treatment, social rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. It was necessary to ensure

access to treatment for people who used drugs, including those in prisons. Children were to

be protected from the illicit use of drugs and psychotic substances and should not be used in

the illicit production and trafficking of drugs. It was also the responsibility of the

international community to address the situation in which three quarters of the world’s

population lived in countries where access to controlled medicines for pain relief was low

or non-existent. Drug-related organized criminal activities and violence undermined

legitimate economies, stability and security of people, he concluded.

IV. Summary of the discussion

24. During the discussion, contributions were made by the representatives of

Switzerland (on behalf of 16 States), Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the Arab Group), the

European Union, Ecuador (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean

States), Uruguay (on behalf of the Union of South American Nations), Pakistan (on behalf

of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), Algeria (on behalf of the African Group),

Colombia (on behalf of the core group of 10 countries that sponsored Human Rights

Council resolution 28/28), Albania, Australia, Austria, the Plurinational State of Bolivia,

China, El Salvador, Egypt, France, Greece, India, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Nicaragua,

Paraguay, Portugal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sweden and Tunisia. From intergovernmental

organizations, contributions were made by the Council of Europe and UNAIDS.

25. Contributions were also made by representatives of non-governmental organizations,

including the International Lesbian and Gay Association, in a joint statement with the

International Service for Human Rights; Harm Reduction International, in a joint statement

with Human Rights Watch; Centro Regional de Derechos Humanos y Justicia de Genero, in

a joint statement with International Service for Human Rights, Centro de Estudios Legales

y Sociales and Intercambios Asociación Civil; Washington Office on Latin America,

Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, Asociación Civil

and Harm Reduction International; Penal Reform International; and International

Educational Development.1

A. General observations

26. A number of States noted that the world drug problem constituted a challenge to

safety, national security, socioeconomic and political stability, the health and well-being of

populations and sustainable development. These challenges were compounded because of

the illicit activities of criminal organizations connected to drug trafficking. Others

underlined the negative impact of drugs and drug trafficking on peace, human rights,

stability and security. One State commented that it was important to address the drug

problem through a holistic and human rights-based approach, protecting the human rights

of all, including drug offenders. Another State noted that, while drug use was harmful, the

means to address it were not always equally effective, proportionate or legitimate. Some

States said that the drug problem was a shared challenge and cutting both supply and

demand needed to be reinforced. One State stressed that the current international legal

framework for drug control should be maintained and that it firmly opposed the legalization

of drugs. Another State called for profound changes to the current system. States welcomed

the special session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem and called for

strengthened international cooperation. One State commented that the special session

should formulate drug policies in close cooperation with those affected and focus on how

the important element of prevention could be integrated.

27. Some States underlined that drugs were a major problem for the African continent,

which was a major transit area. African countries were increasingly concerned about the

interconnectedness between narcotics traffic, organized crime and terrorism. One State

noted that, at gateways for drug trafficking into Africa, traffickers were paid in drugs,

which had led to increased drug use by local populations.

28. An intergovernmental organization underlined the importance of human rights in

addressing drug use and that the unintended social and economic consequences of drug

policies needed to be studied. Without advancing conclusions, a number of questions were

raised, including on the State’s responsibility to take steps to avoid preventable deaths and

whether there was evidence that different drug policies could prevent undesirable

situations. A number of non-governmental organizations called for the Human Rights

Council to keep the issue of the world drug problem and human rights on its agenda, and

further called for the creation of a special rapporteur mandated to deal with this issue.

B. Right to health

29. A number of States noted the negative impact of drugs and drug trafficking on

public health, safety and security but underlined the necessity to combat drugs through a

comprehensive and human rights-based approach. One State said that there should be an

increased focus worldwide on public health, prevention, treatment and care, and on

economic, social and cultural strategies.

1 Statements not delivered owing to lack of time but provided to the Secretariat can be consulted on the extranet of the Human Rights Council, available from

www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCRegistration.aspx.

30. Some States stressed that the right to health was key and had to be guaranteed for all

without discrimination, including for drug users, and underlined that public health

strategies, including harm-reduction programmes, had led to a reduction in HIV

transmission. One State commented that it did not support harm reduction because it

suggested that there was a safe way to use controlled drugs. One intergovernmental

organization noted that more than 1.5 million people who injected drugs lived with HIV

and called for the decriminalization of drug use in order to reach out to drug users and

provide them with the necessary health services. Some non-governmental organizations

noted that people who injected drugs had a much higher risk of contracting HIV and

regretted that efforts did not focus on the protection of drug users and their access to health.

31. Some States noted that policies should focus on the rights of individuals and their

access to treatment and social services. The importance of ensuring access to health

services, including safe and affordable medicines, for drug users was also emphasized. One

State indicated that an approach to drug policy based on public health should not lead to a

more permissive approach to drug control. One State appealed for more focus on science

and evidence in formulating approaches to drug policy, rather than using ideological or

political arguments as the basis for debate. A number of States commented that it was

important to remove barriers to gaining access to controlled medicines.

C. Criminal justice issues

32. A number of States stressed that the death penalty should be abolished for drug-

related offences, while others emphasized that their goal was the universal abolition of the

death penalty in all circumstances, including for drug users. One State, however, reiterated

that the death penalty for drug-related offences was an effective deterrent in its commitment

to adopt a zero-tolerance approach and that it respected the human rights of all, including

drug abusers. One non-governmental organization voiced concern about the large number

of executions for drug-related crimes in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

33. Access to justice, the importance of proportionality in sentencing and alternatives to

imprisonment were highlighted by a number of States. One State said that, while drugs

remained a threat to the well-being of individuals and security, addiction to drugs was an

illness and should not be treated as a criminal offence. One non-governmental organization

said that the enforcement of overly punitive laws for drug offences had not proven effective

in curbing the production, trafficking and consumption of illicit substances. One non-

governmental organization regretted the expanded use of the military in combating drug

trafficking in Mexico.

D. Non-discrimination and specifically affected groups

34. A number of States emphasized that drug policies needed to be implemented in a

non-discriminatory way. One State underlined that it was making great efforts to strengthen

its drug policies, while at the same time taking into account the rights of indigenous peoples

and their use of coca leaves. A number of non-governmental organizations stated that drug

control policies could lead to harsh outcomes for women, children, indigenous peoples and

human rights defenders, all of whom were particularly vulnerable. Other non-governmental

organizations highlighted the vulnerability of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

persons to drug-related problems, indicating that they faced discrimination that led to lack

of access to health services.

V. Conclusions

35. In his concluding remarks and responses to questions raised during the

discussion, Mr. Florez stated that Colombia had been actively involved in

preparations for the special session of the General Assembly on the world drug

problem and that different approaches to drug policy may be needed. Colombia was

working in particular on the preparatory process in Latin America and had consulted

with a wide range of States and other stakeholders with an interest in redefining drug

policy. He added that an evidence-based approach to drug policy was supported by

Colombia.

36. Ms. Fordham noted that one study had shown that drug use was not

significantly affected by the policy framework but that the harm caused by drugs and

violations of the human rights of drug users could be positively addressed by policy

choices. She stated that global drug policy was currently focused on harsh and

punitive measures and that it was important for the special session of the General

Assembly to ensure that global drug policy responses would be based on human

rights, public health and development principles in the future. It was important that

the special session be an open debate that would consider all options, for different

parts of the United Nations system to make their voices heard and for consideration to

be given to the views of civil society. She recommended that an expert advisory group

be established to promote coherence within the United Nations system on drug policy.

37. Mr. Mohamedou stated that, when engaging with States in West Africa, it was

important to avoid the militarization of drug policy and counter-trafficking responses.

Addressing drug use as a public health issue and not as a criminal justice issue could

be done by balancing public health and security needs. He added that public health

responses should include harm-reduction programmes. He noted that drug trafficking

networks in many regions had established footholds by exploiting already weak

governance and criminal justice systems.

38. Mr. Saxena welcomed the emphasis in the discussion on the public health

dimension of the drug problem and said that clear guidelines were needed on how to

assist States. He emphasized that drug users should receive evidence-based treatment.

He noted that opioid substitution therapy was an important health response and that

making available clean syringes would make a significant difference in improving the

health of injecting drug users. He added that prevention was extremely important in

improving the living conditions of people.

39. The Deputy Executive Director of UNODC stressed the need to ensure the

provision of health care, alternatives to incarceration and free legal aid to drug users.

Judges should be able to take into account extenuating circumstances when hearing

cases involving drug users. He added that access to controlled medicines should be a

major goal of drug policy. In response to a question, he noted that the Islamic

Republic of Iran had a new country programme with a focus on prevention and harm

reduction in prisons.

40. In her concluding remarks, the panel moderator noted that regional differences

had been highlighted by some delegations when it came to designing drug policies. She

added that all countries were part of a chain of drug production, trafficking and

consumption and thus shared responsibilities. She noted that many delegations

wanted to evaluate measures to counter the drug problem and wished to implement

specific measures that would result in tangible outcomes. Scientific evaluation was

important and the scientific community also needed to be closely involved in

policymaking. She added that pilot projects needed to be monitored to see whether

they were mindful of human rights. It was also important to monitor the

proportionality of sentences for drug-related crimes and efforts to limit the spread of

diseases by drug users. She called for flexibility in the application of the conventions

on drugs. She also stated that the participation of civil society was essential to ensure a

better protection of human rights in drug policies and noted that it was especially

important for those who were directly affected by such policies to be involved.