Home Affairs Committee - Drugs: Breaking the CycleWritten evidence submitted by the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy (DP063)

No rule, treaty or custom, no matter how special its subject matter … applies in a vacuum

International Law Commission, 2006.1

It is important that we work with a wide range of countries. This includes some countries where we have concerns about human rights … We cannot take for granted that assistance provided by HMG will always have a positive impact on the human rights compliance of the institutions with which we work

Rt Hon William Hague, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 20112

Replace drug policies and strategies driven by ideology and political convenience with fiscally responsible policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights—and adopt appropriate criteria for their evaluation

Global Commission on Drug Policy, 20113

About the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy

Established in 2009, the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy is dedicated to the study of human rights law and drug policies in order to:

Promote and disseminate international legal scholarship and research on human rights and drug policy.

Highlight the obligations of all governments and international organisations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights in the context of drug policy.

Promote a human rights-based approach to drug policy.

The Centre works in partnership with universities and human rights centres around the world including the Essex Human Rights Centre and the Irish Centre for Human Rights, and is supported by an international advisory committee comprised of eminent human rights and drug policy scholars.

The Centre produces the International Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy (the only peer reviewed law journal on this topic), conducts debates on key human rights themes in drug policy, and holds seminars and classes on specific topics for students around the world.

The Centre also produces legal advice, amicus curiae briefs and other submissions on specific issues.

As the material below is wide ranging and dealt with only briefly, the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy would welcome the opportunity to provide oral evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee

Executive Summary

Key Messages

An evaluation of UK drug law and policy is required, with human rights as a central component.

This should include the national situation as well as UK foreign policy and overseas assistance.

Current drug laws, national and international, and options for reform, must not be considered in a vacuum from human rights law.

Systems for strengthening human rights protection and monitoring in national and international drug control must be put in place.

Relevant Terms Of Reference

The extent to which the Government’s 2010 drug strategy is a “fiscally responsible policy with strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights”.

The criteria used by the Government to measure the efficacy of its drug policies.

Whether the UK is supporting its global partners effectively.

Whether detailed consideration ought to be given to alternative ways of tackling the drugs dilemma.

1. Drug policy cuts across a range of disciplines, policy areas, and, as a result, human rights considerations. In addition, drug control, by its nature, crosses borders. The United Kingdom, meanwhile, has long been at the forefront of international debates and progress on human rights. It has ratified almost all of the relevant international and European human rights treaties, many of which have a direct and important bearing on drug policies.

2. It is now well known that human rights abuses associated with drug enforcement are rife worldwide. They include extra-judicial killing, the death penalty, corporal punishment, arbitrary detention, denial of healthcare, discrimination, and violations of multiple other rights including for specific groups such as children and indigenous peoples.

3. This is in large part due to the rhetoric that surrounds drug enforcement in international law and policy and in national contexts, where drugs and the drug trade as posited as threats to the fabric of societies. In this political environment, punitive and draconian measures are seen as justified.

4. Despite this, indicators of success or failure in drug control rarely take into account human rights outcomes, positive or negative. And meaningful evaluations of drug enforcement or drugs laws are rare.

5. In order to appropriately evaluate, human rights must be central, and all policy options that may potentially better protect human rights in the context of drug control should be considered.

6. While some of the most egregious human rights abuses in the context of drug control occur overseas, the UK cannot divorce itself from the international context for a number of reasons. First, the UK funds drug enforcement efforts in countries with poor human rights records; second, developments in the UK are looked to in other parts of the world; and third, almost all UN Member States have agreed to be bound by the same law enforcement based approach to drug control, governed by three core UN drugs treaties,4 which entrench the threat-based rhetoric noted above, and within which the abuses below are carried out.

7. There are, however, important human rights issues raised by UK national drug law and policy including racial disparities in policing and sentencing; the right to health in the context of prisons, harm reduction and drug treatment; freedom of religion; privacy rights; and myriad rights of the child relating to education, health, and freedom from neglect and abuse.

8. In this regard, it is important to note that not all human rights considerations are negative. In some ways UK drug policies contribute to the progressive realisation of human rights, notably in relation to HIV prevention and harm reduction in the context of the right to the highest attainable standard of health, which explicitly includes prevention of epidemics. This is something the UK has also taken a lead on seeking to promote internationally.

9. In countries around the world, including the UK, however, and at the international level, systems for the monitoring and protection of human rights in drug control are weak or non-existent.

10. Current law and policy must be evaluated for human rights impact, with options for reform being considered to assess where human rights risks may be mitigated. Serious concerns must be immediately remedied. International drug control legislation must be interpreted in line with concurrent human rights obligations. Evaluation and monitoring systems related to drug law and policy must be able to track the impacts on human rights, both positive and negative.

11. These changes require concerted effort by the United Kingdom at home and abroad. Below we provide a number of recommendations in this regard. Our recommendations are intended to assist the Home Affairs Select Committee in considering the need for human rights scrutiny in drug policy, and what measures might be put in place to facilitate this.

Drug Control And Human Rights

12. In country after country around the world drug enforcement efforts, both in relation to supply and demand reduction, are characterised by extensive human rights abuses. This is driven in large part by strong threat-based rhetoric in political speeches and in international policy whereby nothing less than our very way of life is at stake in combating this “evil”.5

The following is a brief selection, intended to provide an international context within which the UK’s drug strategy and policies must be developed.

The death penalty

13. As many as 1,000 people are executed for drug offences every year. Many more are on death row for drug offences, and in some countries the majority of those sentenced to death are foreigners.6 In some countries Britons are awaiting sentence, have received the death penalty or have been killed.7

14. International drug enforcement funding, including from the UK and other abolitionist countries, goes towards efforts to arrest and prosecute drug offenders in countries that retain the death penalty for drug offences.8

Police and military violence and abuse

15. In many countries abuses by the police and in some cases the military are widespread in the context of drug enforcement. Human rights monitors have documents extrajudicial killings, beatings, disappearances and other forms of violence.9

Arbitrary detention

16. In various countries, particularly in Asia, people who use drugs or are suspected of using drugs may be detained, without trial or any semblance of due process, in drug detention centres (often called “treatment” or “rehabilitation” facilities, though no form of evidence based, ethical treatment is provided). Under the guise of drug treatment, people are detained for years at a time and in their tens of thousands in some countries.10

17. International funding has been traced to such centres which represent clear violations of basic human rights norms.11

Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment

18. People detained in drug detention centres have reported beatings, rape, denial of meals, isolation and forced labour.12

19. Human rights monitors have documented police beatings and the use of unmedicated withdrawal to coerce testimony from people who use drugs and drug suspects.13

20. Thousands of people who use drugs or are convicted of other drug offences are whipped, caned or flogged every year. This is particularly prevalent in the Middle East and East Asia and is absolutely prohibited in international law.14

Racial discrimination15

21. In many countries, including the UK, black and ethnic minority groups are far more likely to be arrested, prosecuted and incarcerated for drug offences despite often lower rates of drug use among these communities.16

Denial of access to healthcare

22. The United Kingdom has long been a leader on the reduction of drug-related health harms, including through international assistance through DFID in the context of HIV/AIDS prevention.

23. 30% of new HIV infections outside of sub-Saharan Africa are related to unsafe injecting.

But in the pursuit of zero-tolerance policies many countries refuse to provide life saving harm reduction and HIV prevention and treatment services to people who inject drugs,17 now a recognised component of the right to the highest attainable standard of health.18

24. In most countries around the world, including the UK, needle and syringe programmes are not provided in prisons, even where they are available in the community,19 breaching the “principle of equivalence” in human rights law, whereby medical services available in the community must be made available in places of detention.20

25. The World Health Organization has reported that people who use drugs and are living with HIV are less likely to receive anti-retroviral treatment than other people living with HIV.21

26. Overdose is one of the leading causes of death among people who inject drugs22 and is insufficiently addressed in country after country worldwide. The UK has the highest rate of overdose deaths in Europe.23

Failure to ensure access to essential controlled medicines

27. WHO estimates that approximately 80% of the world’s population has no or insufficient access to opiates (such as morphine) for pain relief, representing only around 6% of global morphine consumption.24

28. There are many reasons for the lack of availability of such medicines, including a lack of training, burdensome bureaucracies and basic economic considerations. But significant barriers are also unwarranted concerns about addiction and overly restrictive narcotics laws aimed at tackling heroin.25

Forced crop eradication

29. Colombia is currently the only country that employs aerial fumigation with herbicides (glyphosate) to eradicate illicit crops (such as coca). It has resulted in environmental damage and damage to the health and food security of farming communities. It has contributed also to the massive rates of internal human displacement in the country.26 The practice has been criticised by many UN human rights monitors.27

30. Manual eradication, where teams enter farms and villages ripping up crops by hand and with machinery, have resulted in violence, theft, rape and houses being burned to the ground.28

31. Neither practice has significant or long lasting impacts on rates of production of illicit crops.29 The UK, alongside other UN Member States, has played a strong role advocating against forced eradication in favour of sequenced, consensual alternative development at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs.30

Traditional practices and indigenous peoples’ rights

32. In some countries and regions the use of certain substances forms part of historical cultural and indigenous practice. This is notably so in the Andean region of Latin America where the coca leaf has been used in traditional ceremonies and as a medicine.31 The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, to which the UK is a party, banned any such traditional uses.32

The rights of the child

33. Children are at the forefront of political justifications for drug control measures.33 But simply stating that drug laws protect children is, of course, not enough. Whether the policies adopted in relation to drug use and the drug trade have in fact worked to protect children must form part of any evaluation. The protection of children in this regard is a requirement of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (article 33).

34. With this in mind, less often publicly voiced is the concern that drug control measures are increasingly having serious negative impacts on children’s lives and violating many of their rights, while failing to reduce drug use and dependence among them. Additional to the many issues noted above, all of which affect children directly or indirectly, there are many others specific to children, such as in the context of parental drug dependence, juvenile justice and education.34

National Context

35. That there are significant human rights issues raised by UK drug policy is clear. Some have been raised above and others will form part of submissions to the Home Affairs Select Committee, even if not explicitly stated as such. For example, issues relating to drug treatment, harm reduction and medical assistance in prisons have direct implications for article 3 of the Human Rights Act, and European Convention on Human Rights (freedom from cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).35 Harm reduction and drug dependence treatment also relate to the right to health under the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights,36 and to the protection of children from drugs under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.37

36. Decriminalisation of possession of illicit drugs for personal use will certainly be raised by some submissions and it is an important discussions from a human rights perspective in two main ways:

(a)the impact on human rights of incarceration, criminal records or otherwise coming into contact with the criminal justice system for such offences; and

(b)whether criminalising this behaviour, certainly in the realm of privacy rights and in some cases religious practice, is proportionate to a given “legitimate aim” (ie no more restrictive on certain rights than necessary to achieve that aim). This is a well known question in human rights and central to an evaluation of UK drug policy.

37. But raising concerns about specific issues is not sufficient for human rights analysis and protection. At the root of rights-based approaches is the development of systems and structures geared towards the protection and promotion of human rights on an ongoing basis. Given the many intersections with human rights and the risks posed by drug enforcement, this is especially pertinent to drug policy, and it is this aspect that we wish to focus upon.

This involves:

Evaluation—Taking stock of the human rights implications of current drug policies (including the UK’s foreign assistance).

Remedy—Addressing problems based on any such investigation, including strengthening protection systems.

Monitoring and accountability—Developing processes for ongoing assessment of human rights issues arising in drug policies.

38. `To date the UK has never undertaken a full evaluation of drug law and policy to take into account human rights impact. In addition, existing mechanisms for advising the government, such as the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, lack sufficient human rights expertise. There is no clear mechanism for monitoring human rights compliance in UK drug policy on an ongoing basis, and there are no clear mechanisms for assessing and reacting to human rights risks associated with overseas drug enforcement assistance.

39. This situation means that a picture of the impact of national and international drug polices on human rights is unknown. It increases the risk of human rights violations going undocumented and unaddressed at national level, and risks UK involvement with human rights violations in the context of drug enforcement assistance.


40. The United Kingdom should conduct an evaluation of current drug laws and policies within which impacts on human rights (civil and political, as well as economic, social and cultural) should form a prominent part. This includes:

The interpretation of UK drug laws and international drug control legislation in line with the UK’s concurrent international human rights obligations.38

The development of rights-based indicators of success or failure as part of an evaluation39 including those relating to children.

A review of overseas drug enforcement assistance for human rights risk and compliance.

Placing all policy options on the table for consideration, from zero-tolerance to legal regulation and control.

41. The United Kingdom should:

Act immediately on serious human rights concerns raised by any such review, including through law reform where necessary.

Review policy to ensure human rights compliance moving forward.

Utilise the FCO Overseas Security and Justice Assistance (OSJA) Human Rights Guidance in this regard.40

Cease any current drug enforcement funding shown to contribute to human rights abuses.

Implement human rights impact assessments as a component of all future drug enforcement funding to include predictive risk assessments and consideration of human rights outcomes in evaluation.

42. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs should be strengthened with specific human rights legal expertise.

43. The Joint Committee on Human Rights should be encouraged take a more prominent role in assessing the human rights implications of UK drug policy.

44. The Children’s Commissioners’ Offices in the UK (Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland) should be encouraged to consider the impacts of drug policies on the rights of the child.

International Context

45. The international human rights context in which UK foreign policy relating to drugs and international diplomatic efforts take place has been outlined above. Additional to this are the weaknesses in terms of human rights at the international forums and within the international agencies responsible for drug control. These weaknesses contribute to a situation where human rights abuses in drug enforcement are often overlooked, and in some case made worse.

46. For example, European Union funding has been connected to the application of the death penalty for drug offences. It is an issue that has been recently raised as a concern at the European Parliament,41 but there are as yet no formal structures of mechanisms in place to ensure this does not happen again.

47. The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs and main agencies responsible for drug control, namely the UN Office on Drugs and Crime and the International Narcotics Control Board, are generally weak on human rights.

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs is a political environment generally antagonistic to human rights. It is something the United Kingdom has come up against in the past in seeking to advance human rights in UN drug policy resolutions and political declarations.42

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime has been connected to executions for drug offences (through the provision of material or technical assistance, or capacity building), and to funding related to drug detention centres.43 The UNODC lacks human rights capacity in terms of staffing, and while it has developed a “Human Rights Guidance Note” for all staff it has not yet published this note,44 nor have any projects yet been amended or ceased for human rights concerns.

The International Narcotics Control Board, which oversees the implementation of the three core UN drugs conventions, currently has no human rights or international legal expertise among its membership of 13 independent experts, and has a poor track record on human rights commentary and advice to governments. It has been criticised for its lack of transparency and its lack of engagement with civil society.45

48. The UK has taken a lead on human rights, alongside other States at both the European Union and the United Nations in the context of drug policy. For example, the UK was instrumental is negotiating the first ever human rights resolution at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in 2008. It was important progress which improved to an extent the human rights discourse at that forum, allowing for easier insertion of human rights safeguards into resolutions.

49. The UK’s contributions on human rights to EU drug strategies and UN political declarations on drugs are clear from the texts. It is important that this work continues on a diplomatic level. As the Home Office takes the lead in negotiations at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs and within the horizontal working group on drugs in European Union, it is vital that the HO develop clear and strong human rights positions as they relate to drug control, working closely with the FCO and DFID.

50. Added to this, given weaknesses in the international drug control system as it relates to human rights, the UK should promote the development of improved international systems in this regard. We provide some specific avenues for this below.


European Union

51. The United Kingdom should:

Promote and advocate for strong human rights components of any new EU drug strategy (the current strategy expires in 2012).

Promote the inclusion of drug policy as a theme in the EU human rights dialogues with third countries (eg Colombia, China).46

Support a review of EU drug enforcement funding to ensure human rights compliance.

Promote the implementation of human rights impact assessments as a component of all future drug enforcement funding.

United Nations

52. The United Kingdom should:

Ensure that human rights norms are central to foreign policy relating to drugs and drug control.

Promote an annual thematic debate on human rights at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

Nominate and support an international human rights lawyer as the UK’s representative on the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB).

Encourage more open working methods and better civil society engagement with the INCB.

Support the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), through financial assistance, to develop its internal human rights capacity.

Encourage the development of human rights impact assessments for all UNODC technical assistance and capacity building.

Take the lead in the development of international guidelines on human rights and drug control.

Promote a new “United Nations Working Group on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights While Countering the World Drug Problem” as an independent international monitor which would report to the UN Human Rights Council. The Working Group could modelled on other such mechanisms in the UN.47

January 2012

1 International Law Commission. (2006) “Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law: Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission”, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.702. 18 July, para 120.

2 Overseas Security and Justice Assistance (OSJA), Human Rights Guidance,

3 http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report

4 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, March 30, 1961, 520 U.N.T.S. 204; Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 25 March 1972, T.I.A.S No 8118, 976 UNTS 3; Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 32 U.S.T. 543, T.I.A.S. 9725, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175; Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988, U.N. Doc. E/CONF.82/15 (1988), reprinted in 28 I.L.M. 493.

5 This is not an overstatement of the political rhetoric. The preamble to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, for example, recognises that “addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind”.

6 P Gallahue, The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2010 and Global Overview 2011, Harm Reduction International 2010, 2011. See also Amnesty International, Addicted to death: Executions for drug offences in Iran, 15 December 2011.

7 The case of Akmal Shaikh was a tragic example http://www.reprieve.org.uk/cases/akmalshaikh/

8 R. Lines, D. Barrett and P. Gallahue Complicity or Abolition: The death penalty and international support for drug enforcement, Harm Reduction International, 2009. See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/20/international-drug-crime-executions and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/06/iran-war-on-drugs-executions

9 For example, Human Rights Watch, Rhetoric and Risk, Human Rights Approaches Impeding Ukraine’s Fight Against HIV/AIDS (2006); Human Rights Watch, Neither Rights Nor Security Killings, Torture, and Disappearances in Mexico’s “War on Drugs”, (2011).

10 See for example, Human Rights Watch: “Skin on the cable: The Illegal Arrest, Arbitrary Detention and Torture of People Who Use Drugs in Cambodia (2010); Where Darkness Knows No Limits” Incarceration, Ill-Treatment and Forced Labor as Drug Rehabilitation in China (2010); The Rehab Archipelago: Forced Labor and Other Abuses in Drug Detention Centers in Southern Vietnam (2011); Somsanga’s Secrets. Arbitrary Detention, Physical Abuse, and Suicide inside a Lao Drug Detention Center (2011).

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 See for example Rhetoric and Risk, op. cit; “Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak: Mission to Indonesia”, (UN Doc No A/HRC/7/3/Add.7, 2008).

14 E Iakobishvili, Inflicting Harm: Judicial corporal punishment for drug and alcohol offences in selected countries, Harm Reduction International, 2011.

15 Please see further the submission of Release to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

16 Human Rights Watch, Targeting Blacks: Drug Law Enforcement and Race in the United States (2008).

17 See generally C. Cook (ed) Global State of Harm Reduction, 2010, Harm Reduction International (2010).

18 D Barrett and P Gallahue “Harm Reduction and Human Rights” Interights Bulletin Vol 16 No 4.

19 Global State of Harm Reduction op cit.

20 R Lines “The right to health of prisoners in international human rights law”, International Journal of Prisoner Health, March 2008; 4(1): 3–53.

21 Annemarie Bollerup, M Donoghoe, J Lazarus & SVMatic, “Access to HAART for injecting drug users in the WHO European Region 2002–2005”.

22 Coffin P (2010) Underestimated and overlooked: A global review of drug overdose and overdose prevention. Global State of Harm Reduction. International Harm Reduction Association 2010.

23 EMCDDA (2010) Annual Report 2010: The State of the Drugs Problem in Europe. Lisbon: EMCDDA.

24 World Health Organization The World Medicines Situation 2011, Geneva, WHO, 2011.

25 See for example Human Rights Watch, Needless pain: Government failure to provide palliative care for children in Kenya, (2010).

26 For an overview see “An exercise in futility: Nine years of fumigation in Colombia”, Witness for Peace, Fundacion Minga and Institute for Policy Studies, 2007.

27 Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and metal health, Paul Hunt, Oral Remarks, 21 September 2007, Bogota, Colombia; Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Mission to Colombia, (UN Doc No E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.2, 2004) paras 46-52, & 106; Working Group on the question of the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, Addendum : Mission to Ecuador, (UN Doc No A/HRC/4/42/Add.2, 2007) paras 47–51. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations, Colombia, (UN Doc No CRC/C/COL/CO/3, 2006) para 72.

28 Witness for Peace and Association Minga, Forced manual eradication: The wrong solution to the failed US counter-narcotics policy in Colombia, September 2008.

29 For evidence of this see the annual World Drug Report produced by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime http://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/WDR.html

30 See “Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem, adopted at the High Level Segment of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs”, (UN Doc No E/2009/28- E/CN.7/2009/12, 11-12 March 2009).

31 For an overview see Transnational Institute, Coca Myths, 2009.

32 Bolivia has now denounced the treaty and is in the process of re-acceding with a reservation permitting traditional uses. This is intended to balance its concurrent drug control and other international human rights obligations. It is a move that should be supported by the UK and any government respectful of and committed to indigenous rights. See M. Jelsma “Bolivia’s denunciation of the 1961 Single convention on Narcotic Drugs – Backgrounder” June 2011
http://www.druglawreform.info/en/issues/unscheduling-the-coca-leaf/item/2596-bolivias-denunciation-of-the-1961-single-convention-on-narcotic-drugs- and International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, “Bolivia’s concurrent drug control and other international legal commitments”, July 2011.

33 The preamble of the 1988 Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, for example, enshrines the threat to children of drug trafficking in international law, expressing States Parties’ deep concern “that children are used in many parts of the world as an illicit drug consumers market and for purposes of illicit production, distribution and trade in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which entails a danger of incalculable gravity”.

34 See D Barrett and P Veerman A Commentary on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Article 33, Protection from Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances (Martinus Nijhoff, forthcoming, 2012); and D. Barrett (Ed) Children of the Drug War: Perspectives on the Impact of Drug Policies on Young People, New York and Amsterdam, International Debate Education Association, iDebate Press, 2011.

35 See R Lines op cit.

36 See D Barrett and P Gallahue op cit.

37 See D Barrett and P Veerman A Commentary on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: Article 33, Protection from Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances (Martinus Nijhoff, forthcoming, 2012).

38 For a discussion see D Barrett and M Nowak , “The United Nations and Drug Policy: Towards a Human Rights Based Approach” in The Diversity of International Law, Essays in Honour of Professor Kalliopi K Koufa, eds. A Constantinides and N Zaikos, Brill/Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2009
http://www.ihra.net/files/2010/07/01/The_United_Nations_and_Drug_Policy_(with_Manfred_Nowak).pdf; See also the range of human rights and drug control treaties ratified by the UK—http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx (Chapters IV and VI).

39 http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/framework.aspx

40 Overseas Security and Justice Assistance (OSJA), Human Rights Guidance,

41 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2010-0489,
and http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2011-011425+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

42 See Harm Reduction International Blog “he Life of a Human Rights Resolution at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs”22 April 2008 http://www.ihra.net/contents/288

43 Somsanga’s Secrets op cit.

44 A copy is on file with the authors and available on request.

45 D Barrett, Unique in International Relations? A comparison of the International Narcotics Control Board and the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies, Harm Reduction International, 2007; J. Csete and D. Wolfe Closed to reason: The International Narcotics Control Board and HIV/AIDS, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and International Harm Reduction Development Program, 2007.

46 One such dialogue recently took place in Beijing as part of the legal dialogues series. The International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy took part.

47 See http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/themes.htm

Prepared 8th December 2012