Meeting on Friday, 21 March 1997

OSKAR SCHOREDER, PRESIDENT OF THE INCB INTRODUCED THE REPORT OF THE INCB FOR 1996.

STATEMENTS OF REPRESENTATIVES OF GERMANY, LEBANON, NETHERLANDS, FINLAND, SWEDEN AND DENMARK. SWEDEN: OUR DRUGS POLICY HAS FAILED - THERFORE THE NEED TO LEGALISE!

On its Friday session, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs considerated the agenda item 4: International Narcotics Control Board.

Oskar SCHROEDER, President of the INCB, introduced the Report of the INCB for 1996.

Mr.Schroeder stressed in his intervention the fact that measures against money laundering have been taken and last year the INCB gave recommendations to the Governments in order to combat drug abuse and illicit trafficking. There has been a global increase in the amount of opiates, amphetamines, other psychotropic substances and cocaine seized in recent years. Those seizures reflect the increased efforts and resources devoted by many States to fighting the growing problems of illicit trafficking and drug abuse. Significant is the concerne about advertising in the media and in Internet of anorectics. The countries with the highest consumption rate for anorectics are Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the United States. The Board recomands the need of education campaignes aimed to indicate the danger of the use of these substances.

Furthermore, Mr.Schroeder said some politicians lobby for legalisation and liberalisation undermining drug preventional campaignes. There is no time for discussion, he continued, it is time for Governments to take action!

After the presentation of the Report, representatives of following countries took the floor stating on that issue: India, Korea, Belgium, Germany, Lebanon, the Netherlands, China, Peru, Argentina, USA, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Cuba, Japan, Mexico, Denmark, Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria, Hungary, Colombia, European Commission, Iran, Bolivia, Panama, Uruguai, Portugal.

- GERMANY, congratulating the excellent work of the INCB and its Report, gave comments to some paragraphs of the Report:

"6. Prevention of diversion of substances in Schedules III and IV of the 1971 Convention

104. The Board requests all Governments to systematically use as a guide assessments of annual legitimate requirements of importing countries when reviewing the legitimacy of import orders. Exporting countries are urged to consult the Board in all cases when import authorizations or other supporting documents authorize imports in excess of the assessment of annual legitimate requirements of the importing country. Such cooperation between Governments and the Board is important in identifying attempts by traffickers to divert psychotropic substances by means of falsified import authorizations, the most frequently used method of diversion."

The representative of Germany said that his country is since 1996 confronted with this situation but for the moment fails in conforming to this point.

Furthermore, Germany wants to point at paragraph 321 staiting that all activities which have been indicated in the paragraph and atributed to Germane are conform with law on its national and international level. The paragraph sais:

"321. In Germany, a regional government plans to apply to the Federal Health Office for a permit to distribute cannabis through pharmacies in the context of an experiment, claiming incorrectly that the experience of the coffee-shop policy in the Netherlands had been postive. The Board is concerned about such plans, since the distribution of cannabis would not serve scientific purposes, would be a contravention of the 1961 Convention and would be a way of legalizing cannabis. The Board trusts that the federal Government of Germany, in accordance with its firm and consistent policy based on the international drug control conventions, will do its utmost to prevent such distriubtion of cannabis.

- LEBANON, commented the paragraph 18 by saing that the economic situation of the country basicaly rests on banking secrecy but that does not meen that it permits money-laundering.

"18. The Board is concerned over certain far-reaching reservations made in 1996 by Lebanon and the Philippines on provisions related to measures against money-laundering in the 1988 Convention. According to the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, a State may, on becoming party to a treaty, formulate a reservation unless the reservation is precluded by the treaty or is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty (article 19). In the view of the Board, the validity of reservations going to the core of the 1988 Convention, for example, by excluding important provisions on money-laundering, is questionable from both the legal and policy perspectives. Furthermore, the Board notes that, while other parties may object to a reservation to a treaty, it is considered to have been accepted by States unless they raise an objection within 12 months of being notified of the reservation (Vienna Convention, article 20, paragraph 5)."

Lebanon also pointed at paragraph 42 by saing that Lebanon has ratified the 1972 Protocol amending the 1961 Convention in August 1995 and that there is an administrative error in the Report.

"42. Some other States, namely Afghanistan, Algeria, Belarus, Chad, Lebanon, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ukraine and Zambia, which are already parties to the 1961 Convention, have not yet ratified the 1972 Protocol amending that Convention. The Board expects that its ratification by those States will take place soon since they have all acceded to the more recent international drug control treaties. The other States parties to the 1961 Convention that sill remain to ratify the 1972 Protocol are Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People's Democratic Republic and Liechtenstein.

- the NETHERLANDS, said that positive is the fact of an increase of respect between countries but still there are a few differences and therefore a multilateral dialog is needed. Very important would be a collection of datas. For May it has been conveigned a Conference on Monitoring drugs and drugs abuse. Prevention campaigne on cannabis has a very strong impact. There is also the need of establishing a new warning sistem of examination.

- FINLAND, also supports the need of international cooperation, but acording to its law, Finland does not extradice its own citizens! Therefore, due to its legislation, Finland finds problematic the article 6, paragraph 3 of the 1988 Convention and points at the paragraph 9 of the INCB Report which sais:

"9. It is not always appreciated that the 1988 Convention can be used as an extradition treaty and a mutual legal assistance treaty. It can therefore provide a valuable basis for international cooperation in drug-related matters between countries that do not have such multilateral or bilateral treaties. In accordance with article 6 of the Convention, drug-related offences should be deemed to be extraditable in any extradition treaty existing between parties to the Convention. Where no such treaty exists and a request is made for extradition, the party receiving the request may consider the Convention as the legal basis for extradition (article 6, paragraph 3). Where the parties do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty, they must recognize the offences established in accordance with the Convention as being extraditiable offences between themselves (article 6, paragraph 4).

- SWEDEN, stated that concerning the drugs problem a great deal remains to be done. The increase of new routs of illicit drugs trafficking requests strong international cooperation. In dealing with the problem of drugs some countries are more precise: prescription of heroin is one example, cannabis free awailable is another. Of great importance is the need to combat street pushers. Unfortunately we give drug pushers the possibility to market their business. Essential is the necessity to develope alternatives to prisons. The police has an important roal in this context. There is no doubt that our drugs policy has failed and that the need therfore is to legalise!

- DENMARK, wanted to comment paragraphs 101 and 108 of the Report saing that control measures are still not sufficient in dealing with the following problem. However Denmark is seeking for a solution and will inform about the progress in this sence.

"101. The Board appreciates the fact that most Governments have already established effective mechanisms for the control of exports of substances in Schedules III and !V of the 1971 Convention. Many Governments consult the Board regarding the legitimacy of suspicious import orders. In 1996, the Board and the competent authorities of several exporting countries carried out joint investigations into the legitimacy of more than 60 commerial orders, thereby preventing the diversion of large quantities of psychotropic substances from licit manufacture and trade into illicit channels. The Board would like to commend, in particula, the competent authorities of Germany and India for their vigilance in the control of exports of psychotropic substances.

(...)

108. In Denmark, for example, where export authorizations are not required for substances in Schedule IV, the mechanism in place was not able to ensure, prior to export, that exporting companies observe the control measures for those substances in importing countries. In one such case, a company in Denmark exported in 1995 more than 1,700 kg of diazepam raw material to Nigeria while the assessment of annual legitimate requirements of Nigeria for that substance was only 700 kg. The investigation intiated by the Board revealed that Nigerian import permits, on the basis of which those exports had taken place, had been forged. The quantity of diazepam diverted from Denmark was sufficient for the illicit manufacture of several hundreds of millions of tablets. The Board urges European countries that do not yet control the export of all psychotropic substances in Schedules III and IV by the system of export authorizations to introduce such controls as soon as possible.