Original HRC document

PDF

Document Type: Final Report

Date: 2018 Sep

Session: 39th Regular Session (2018 Sep)

Agenda Item: Item2: Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General, Item8: Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

GE.18-15276(E)



Human Rights Council Thirty-ninth session

10–28 September 2018

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

Implementation of the joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem with regard to human rights*

Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights

Summary

The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 37/42.

In the report, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

discusses the implementation of the joint commitment of States to effectively address and

counter the world drug problem with regard to human rights.

* The present report was submitted after the deadline in order to reflect the most recent developments.

United Nations A/HRC/39/39

I. Introduction

1. In its resolution 37/42, the Human Rights Council requested the Office of the United

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

implementation of the joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world

drug problem with regard to human rights, and to present it to the Human Rights Council at

its thirty-ninth session, and to share the report with the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

2. The present report is prepared mainly on the basis of submissions received pursuant

to a call for inputs, made to States and other stakeholders.1 In the report, OHCHR discusses

human rights aspects of various joint commitments of States, as contained in the outcome

document of the thirtieth special session of the General Assembly, on the world drug

problem.

II. Joint commitments on prevention, treatment, other health-related issues and human rights

A. Prevention of drug abuse

3. In the outcome document of the thirtieth special session, all States committed to take

effective, practical, primary and scientific evidence-based prevention measures that protect

people, particularly children and youth, from drug use initiation by providing them with

accurate information about the risks of drug abuse.2

4. On several occasions, human rights treaty bodies have recommended the adoption of

preventive measures to address the drug problem, including through awareness-raising

programmes and campaigns. 3 Special procedure mandate holders have stated that

prevention must be pursued through evidence-based interventions as well as accurate and

objective educational programmes and information campaigns.4

5. In terms of national practice, Argentina, Cuba, Guatemala, Lebanon, Mexico,

Myanmar, Paraguay, Switzerland and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela referred to

existing prevention and awareness-raising measures. These included programmes to

facilitate the communication of information and educational materials on drug use for

groups potentially at risk, including children and adolescents, the holding of educational

meetings, and evidence-based prevention measures targeting vulnerable groups.5

6. In its resolution 61/2, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs recommended that efforts

to prevent drug abuse in educational settings should include developing and implementing

“comprehensive, scientific evidence-based and tailor-made initiatives and programmes”. In

that regard, the Commission invited States to strengthen interaction and partnerships with

students, teachers, families and communities and also with the private sector and civil

society.

7. The primary message of prevention has been one of complete abstinence from drug

use. The Global Commission on Drug Policy stated that there is not only little evidence of

the effectiveness of such a message, it may in fact be counterproductive. The Commission

recommended that if there were to be public awareness campaigns on youth and drug use, a

1 All submissions are available at

www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/WorldDrugProblemHRC39.aspx.

2 Recommendation 1 (a)–(c). The outcome document is available at

www.unodc.org/documents/postungass2016/outcome/V1603301-E.pdf.

3 See E/C.12/MKD/CO/2-4, E/C.12/ESP/CO/5, CRC/C/VCT/CO/2-3 and CEDAW/C/SWE/CO/8-9.

4 See www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19833&LangID=E.

5 Submissions from States, submissions from the national human rights institutions of Argentina and

the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and the strategy of Myanmar which is available at

www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific/2018/02/Myanmar_Drug_Control_Policy.pdf.

possible way forward would be to give honest information, encouraging moderation in

youthful experimentation and prioritizing safety through knowledge. 6 Furthermore,

pursuant to resolution 61/11 of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, any prevention

measures that include educational programmes should promote non-stigmatizing attitudes

and reduce any possible discrimination, exclusion or prejudice which people who use drugs

may encounter.7

8. The mandatory testing of children for drug use, in educational settings, as a

preventive measure, raises human rights concerns. 8 Under articles 3 and 16 of the

Convention on the Rights of the Child, taking a child’s bodily fluids without his or her

consent may be inconsistent with the principle of the best interests of the child, and may

violate the right to bodily integrity and constitute arbitrary interference with his or her

privacy and dignity. Depending on how such testing occurred, it could also constitute

degrading treatment.9

B. Treatment

9. In the outcome document of the thirtieth special session, the General Assembly

recognizes that drug dependence can be prevented and treated through, inter alia, effective

scientific evidence-based drug treatment, care and rehabilitation programmes. 10 It

encourages the voluntary participation of individuals with drug use disorders in treatment

programmes, with informed consent, and recommends the prevention of social

marginalization and the promotion of non-stigmatizing attitudes. Furthermore, it

encourages drug users to seek treatment and care, and States to take measures to facilitate

access to treatment.11 In the outcome document, States also committed to ensuring that

women, including pregnant and detained women, who used drugs had access to adequate

health services and counselling.12

10. Under international human rights law, the right to health contains both freedoms and

entitlements, including the right to be free from interference, such as the right to be free

from non-consensual medical treatment (see E/C.12/2000/4). All services, goods and

facilities for treatment must be available, accessible, acceptable and of good quality. They

must be accessible physically as well as financially, and on the basis of non-

discrimination.13

11. In their submissions, several States provided information on measures related to

treatment. Norway focused on availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality, and on

fighting stigmatization and discrimination against people who used drugs. Switzerland had

developed a national addiction strategy focusing on the quality of life and the health of the

individual. The new drug policies of Canada, Lebanon and Myanmar included a public

health approach, and were aimed at reducing limitations on accessing and receiving

compassionate and evidence-based treatment and at increasing the availability and

affordability of treatment options for drug use disorders.14

12. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has addressed issues

related to the treatment of people who use drugs and has recommended that States

incorporate public health, harm reduction and gender-sensitive approaches into national

6 See www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/GCDP-Report-

2017_Perceptions-ENGLISH.pdf.

7 Available at http://undocs.org/E/2018/28.

8 See www.drugs.ie/resourcesfiles/ResearchDocs/Europe/Research/2018/drugtestinginschools.pdf and

www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/22/philippine-school-kids-may-face-mandatory-drug-tests.

9 See www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/22/philippine-school-kids-may-face-mandatory-drug-tests.

10 Recommendation 1 (i) and (o).

11 Recommendation 1 (j).

12 Recommendation 4 (b).

13 See www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf.

14 See www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2016/12/new-canadian-drugs-substances-strategy.html,

the submissions of Lebanon, Norway and Switzerland and the strategy of Myanmar.

drug strategies, and that they ensure the availability of treatment services that are evidence-

based and respectful of the rights of drug users.15

13. In its 2017 annual report, the International Narcotics Control Board reminded States

of their obligation to provide treatment services to those affected by drug use disorders. The

Board also urged States to place more emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation, rather than

just focusing on prevention, and to invest in treatment and rehabilitation services.16

14. A major obstacle to accessibility of treatment is the criminalization of personal use

and possession of drugs. A study shows that over 60 per cent of people who inject drugs

have been incarcerated at some point in their lives.17 The Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights (see E/C.12/PHL/CO/5-6), the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights (see A/HRC/30/65), the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the

enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (see A/65/255)

and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law18 have recommended that consideration

be given to removing obstacles to the right to health, including by decriminalizing the

personal use and possession of drugs. Reports also indicate that decriminalizing drug use

and possession, together with the provision of a continuum of support, prevention and

treatment measures, can result in a decrease in overall drug use and in the drug-induced

mortality rate.19

15. In its submission, Portugal stated that “criminal sanctions are ineffective and

counterproductive and do not address the consequences of drug use”. Its policy on drugs

encompasses a model of decriminalization as part of a broader approach designed to

dissuade drug use and promote measures directed at public health concerns, with social

benefits for all involved. The implementation of a more health- and evidence-based

approach has been facilitated by the decriminalization of consumption and possession for

personal use of all drugs, in quantities below defined thresholds.20

16. In June 2017, 12 United Nations agencies issued a joint statement recommending

the review and repeal of punitive laws such as those that criminalize or otherwise prohibit

drug use or the possession of drugs for personal use.21 In their submissions, several civil

society organizations recommended decriminalization of drug use.22

C. Harm reduction

17. The General Assembly,23 the Human Rights Council,24 the Committee on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights,25 the Committee on the Rights of the Child,26 the Committee on

15 See E/C.12/CAN/CO/6, E/C.12/ESP/CO/5, E/C.12/PHL/CO/5-6, E/C.12/GRC/CO/2,

E/C.12/MKD/CO/2-4 and E/C.12/SWE/CO/6.

16 See www.incb.org/documents/Publications/AnnualReports/AR2017/Annual_Report_

chapters/Chapter_1_2017.pdf.

17 Kate Dolan and others, “Global burden of HIV, viral hepatitis, and tuberculosis in prisoners and

detainees”, The Lancet, vol. 388, issue 10049, pp. 1089–1102. Available at

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30466-4/fulltext.

18 See www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/hiv-aids/hiv-and-the-law--risks--rights---

health.html.

19 See www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GCDP-Report-2016-

ENGLISH.pdf.

20 Submission from Portugal.

21 See www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/knowledge/ending-discrimination-healthcare-settings.pdf.

22 Submissions from the Global Commission on Drug Policy, the Moroccan Association for the Fight

against AIDS, Youth RISE Nigeria and the Russian Civil Society Mechanism for Monitoring of Drug

Policy Reforms in Russia.

23 In its resolution 65/277.

24 In its resolution 12/27.

25 In E/C.12/RUS/CO/5, E/C.12/LTU/CO/2, E/C.12/EST/CO/2 and E/C.12/UKR/CO/5.

26 See the Committee’s general comment No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the

highest attainable standard of health.

the Elimination of Discrimination against Women,27 the Special Rapporteur on the right of

everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health28

and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment29 have all considered that harm reduction measures are essential for people who

use drugs.

18. In 2017, needle and syringe programmes were only available in 93 countries, opioid

substitution therapy in 86 countries30 and drug consumption rooms in 10 countries.31 People

who use drugs continue to be severely impacted by HIV and hepatitis C infections.32 A

2018 report of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) indicates that

the risk of acquiring HIV is 22 times higher for people who inject drugs than for people

who do not inject drugs.33

19. In their submissions, Austria, Myanmar, Norway, Spain and Switzerland indicated

that they supported harm reduction as part of their public health strategies. For example,

Austria provided needle and syringe exchange facilities at fixed sites, outpatient drug

services, client access to treatment for chronic hepatitis C infection, and overdose

prevention measures that included awareness-raising, information and advice, and first aid

instruction for drug users and for staff. In Myanmar, the new National Drug Control Policy

promoted and expanded a comprehensive package of harm reduction measures, which

included overdose prevention and treatment.

20. The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights reported that the country’s

Ministry of Health had prioritized harm reduction strategies for persons who injected drugs,

as part of its HIV prevention strategy. However, the Commission stated that enforcement of

drug laws had a negative impact on the use of harm reduction services by drug users,

because of fear of imprisonment.

21. According to the World Drug Report 2018, opioids continue to cause the most harm,

accounting for 76 per cent of deaths where drug use disorders are involved.34 In the United

States of America, 64,000 people died from opioid overdose35 and in Canada there were

2,458 known deaths from opioid overdose, in 2016. 36 Canada has recently adopted

measures to counter opioid drug overdose. 37 In Poland, around 17 per cent of people

dependent on opioids have access to substitution therapy,38 while Morocco introduced an

opioid substitution programme in 2010.39

22. Opioid medications are essential not only for drug dependence treatment but also for

pain management.40 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has expressed

concerns at the restricted access to opioid substitution therapy, and has recommended that

States take effective measures to guarantee the right to health care among marginalized

groups such as persons who inject drugs, including access to opioid substitution therapy.41

The Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable

27 In CEDAW/C/GEO/CO/4-5 and CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/8-9.

28 In A/65/255.

29 In A/HRC/22/53.

30 Submission from the International Drug Policy Consortium.

31 Submission from Harm Reduction International.

32 Submission from the International Drug Policy Consortium.

33 See www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/miles-to-go_en.pdf.

34 See www.unodc.org/wdr2018/prelaunch/WDR18_Booklet_1_EXSUM.pdf.

35 Submissions from the International Drug Policy Consortium and the International Network of People

Who Use Drugs.

36 See www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017-GCDP-Position-

Paper-Opioid-Crisis-ENG.pdf, p. 5.

37 Submission from the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

38 Submission from the Polish Drug Policy Network.

39 Submission from the Moroccan Association for the Fight against AIDS.

40 See www.joannecsete.com/documents/lancet-july-2010.pdf.

41 See E/C.12/SWE/CO/6, E/C.12/LTU/CO/2, E/C.12/PHL/CO/5-6, E/C.12/BLR/CO/4-6,

E/C.12/IDN/CO/1 and E/C.12/POL/CO/6.

standard of physical and mental health has urged national authorities to consider scaling up

available opioid replacement therapies for people who use drugs (see A/HRC/20/15/Add.2).

D. Access to treatment in prisons and other custodial settings

23. The outcome document of the thirtieth special session calls for the implementation

of treatment-related initiatives in prisons and other custodial settings,42 and also for access

to health care, social services and treatment for those in prison or pretrial detention.43

24. The Committee against Torture has expressed concerns regarding insufficient health

services for prisoners with substance addiction. The Committee recommended that the

provision of medical services to prisoners, particularly those who are addicted to drugs,

should be ensured, and that all measures necessary to implement the United Nations

Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners should be taken.44 The Committee

on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women recommended “gender-sensitive and

evidence-based drug treatment services to reduce harmful effects for women who use

drugs, including harm reduction programmes for women in detention”. 45 The Special

Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

recommended the introduction of effective drug-replacement therapy in detention centres.46

25. Furthermore, various human rights treaty bodies have observed that detention

settings are high-risk environments for HIV, hepatitis C and tuberculosis transmission and

have recommended that States ensure access to harm reduction services in prison.47 At the

end of 2016, in prison or places of detention, opioid substitution therapy was only available

in 52 countries, while only 8 countries provided needle and syringe programmes.48 The

International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care noted in its submission that

access to controlled medicines for palliative care should also be available in custodial

settings.

III. Joint commitments on effective law enforcement and human rights

26. In the outcome document of the thirtieth special session, all States committed

themselves to effective drug-related crime prevention and law enforcement measures.49

27. In recent years there have been some alarming tendencies towards a deeper

militarization of the responses by States to counter drug-related crimes. In some instances,

this is associated with the progressive militarization of civilian police forces. Several

institutional reforms and new laws have come into force in Latin American countries which

have facilitated militarization processes in the context of drug operations. Submissions

indicated that excessive use of force is more likely to occur when military or special

security forces are involved in drug operations. Such approaches have disproportionately

affected vulnerable groups and has repeatedly resulted in serious human rights violations.50

28. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions stated that

various threats, which included drug dealing, challenged the adequacy of traditional law

42 Recommendation 1 (k) and (o).

43 Recommendation 4 (b) and (m).

44 See CAT/C/CPV/CO/1.

45 See CEDAW/C/GEO/CO/4-5, para. 31 (e).

46 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23193&LangID=E.

47 See CERD/C/CAN/CO/21-23, CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/8-9, A/HRC/23/41/Add.1, CAT/OP/PRY/2,

E/C.12/POL/CO/6, E/C.12/SWE/CO/6, E/C.12/LTU/CO/2, CEDAW/C/GEO/CO/4-5 and

A/HRC/13/39/Add.3.

48 Submission from Harm Reduction International.

49 Recommendation 3.

50 Submissions from the Centre for Legal and Social Studies and the Mexican Commission for the

Defence and Promotion of Human Rights.

enforcement measures. He affirmed that the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers

must be regulated within the framework of human rights law and its standard of strict

necessity, and that the rhetoric of shoot to kill should never be used (see E/CN.4/2006/53).

29. Since the “war on drugs” was announced in the Philippines in 2016, there have been

reports of thousands of extrajudicial killings of people allegedly involved with the drug

trade and drug use. The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines reported that

impunity had been virtually guaranteed, because of the President’s pronouncements that

police officers responsible for the killing of individuals suspected of involvement in the

drug trade would not face prosecution during his tenure, and, if ever prosecuted, would be

pardoned.51 In February 2018, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opened a

preliminary examination into crimes allegedly committed in the Philippines in the context

of the recent “war on drugs” campaign.52

30. In May 2018, the Government of Bangladesh deployed the Rapid Action Battalion, a

specialized police unit which has made excessive use of force and has a history of

responsibility in the high rate of extrajudicial killings (see CCPR/C/BGD/CO/1), to counter

the drug problem. The Battalion has been accused of killing over 200 people during the so-

called “war on drugs”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has

condemned alleged extrajudicial killings and urged authorities in Bangladesh to bring

perpetrators of serious human rights violations to justice.53

31. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recognized that the

militarization of many areas of Mexico in the “war on drugs” had led to an increase in

excessive use of force and in levels of impunity, and a record number of human rights

violations. 54 Special procedures and other human rights mechanisms have documented

international crimes and severe violations of human rights in Mexico between 2006 and the

present, in the context of the so-called “war on drugs”.55

32. The “war on drugs” approach in many other States has cost the lives of thousands of

people and caused serious human rights violations. The Secretary-General of the United

Nations has said that it is “vital that we examine the effectiveness of the war-on-drugs

approach and its consequences for human rights”. 56 The United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights has emphasized that the right to life should be respected

and protected by law enforcement agencies in their efforts to address drug-related crimes,

and only proportional force should be used, when necessary (see A/HRC/30/65). Special

procedure mandate holders have stated that “allegations of drug-trafficking offences should

be judged in a court of law, not by gunmen on the streets”.57

33. Similarly, the International Narcotics Control Board has stated that extrajudicial

responses to drug-related criminality are in clear violation of the international drug control

conventions, which require that drug-related crime be addressed through formal criminal

justice responses, as well as of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which require adherence to

internationally recognized fair trial and due process norms and standards.58

51 Submissions by the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and Human Rights Watch.

52 See https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=180208-otp-stat.

53 See https://ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23178&LangID=E.

54 See www.oas.org/es/cidh/informes/pdfs/mexico2016-es.pdf.

55 See A/HRC/26/36; A/HRC/28/68/Add.3; www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/mexique715anglais-1_final.pdf, p.

15; and the submission from the Mexican Commission for the Defence and Promotion of Human

Rights.

56 See www.un.org/press/en/2017/sgsm18585.doc.htm.

57 See www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20388&LangID=E.

58 See www.incb.org/incb/en/publications/annual-reports/annual-report-2017.html, para. 256.

IV. Joint commitments on effective criminal justice responses to drug-related crimes and human rights

34. In the outcome document of the thirtieth special session, all States committed to

“promote and implement effective criminal justice responses to drug-related crimes to bring

perpetrators to justice that ensure legal guarantees and due process safeguards pertaining to

criminal justice proceedings, including practical measures to uphold the prohibition of

arbitrary arrest and detention and of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment and to eliminate impunity … and ensure timely access to legal aid

and the right to a fair trial”.

A. The right to a fair trial: legal guarantees and due process safeguards

35. The right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial is a key element of

human rights protection. Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights is aimed at ensuring the proper administration of justice, and to this end guarantees a

series of specific rights.59

36. “The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law”, as set

forth in article 14 of the Covenant, is an essential element of the right to a fair trial. The use

of legal presumptions in some countries, whereby persons found with amounts of drugs

above specified thresholds, or in possession of keys to a building or vehicle where drugs

have been found, are presumed to be guilty of drug trafficking, has been condemned as

reversing the burden of proof in criminal proceedings, and may amount to a violation of the

right to a fair trial. Some States also rely on statements made by suspects during police

interrogation without a lawyer present as evidence to convict, even when the defendants

argued that those statements were made under coercion.60 In many cases, foreign nationals

charged with drug trafficking abroad were not given fair trials.61

37. The large volume of drug-related offences for possession and drug use has led States

to seek methods to move cases more quickly through the criminal justice system. This has

resulted in growth of the use of “trial waiver” systems. In such systems, trials are being

replaced by legal regimes that encourage suspects to admit guilt and waive their right to a

full trial.62 Although trial waiver systems do succeed in moving multiple cases through

criminal justice systems, the price is often less procedural protection and judicial

oversight. 63 Furthermore, the trial waiver system in drug-related cases poses particular

challenges, including incentives to use pretrial detention as a bargaining chip to encourage

guilty pleas and other trial waivers. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has

noted that the growth in the use of trial waivers has eroded procedural protection and access

to legal representation.64

B. Prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention

38. A number of submissions highlighted continued issues concerning arbitrary arrest

and detention in the context of drug control.50 The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

noted with concern increasing, and in some cases, systematic, instances of arbitrary

detention as a consequence of drug control laws and policies. Arbitrary detention for drug

offences or drug use can occur across criminal and administrative settings, particularly

59 See Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts

and tribunals and to a fair trial.

60 Submission from Amnesty International.

61 Submission from the Justice Project of Pakistan.

62 See www.fairtrials.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Report-The-Disappearing-Trial.pdf.

63 Submission from Fair Trials.

64 See www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/pretrialdetention.pdf.

when procedural safeguards are absent, causing a disproportionate impact on women,

children, minority groups and people who use drugs (see A/HRC/30/36).65

39. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has also expressed concern about the

frequent use of various forms of administrative detention that entail restrictions on

fundamental rights, and considers to be worthy of attention detentions that are imposed as a

means of controlling people who use drugs, especially when such detentions are framed as

health interventions. The Working Group has held that administrative drug detention

justified on the basis of health grounds can lead to involuntary commitment or compulsory

drug treatment that is inconsistent with either international drug control conventions or

international human rights law (see A/HRC/30/36).

C. Prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment

40. Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, including sexual abuse, by

security forces has been reported in some States as means of investigating drug-related

crimes and obtaining confessions and information from individuals accused of drug crimes.

In some cases, law enforcement officials have intentionally withheld opioid substitution

treatment from drug-dependent suspects as a way of obtaining confessions or other

information (see A/HRC/30/65). 66 The Human Rights Committee has noted that such

physical and mental pain and suffering associated with withdrawal symptoms may amount

to torture or ill-treatment (see CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7). The denial of methadone treatment in

custodial settings has been considered to be a violation of the right to be free from torture

and ill-treatment, in certain circumstances (see A/HRC/22/53).

41. In treatment centres in Latin American countries, human rights violations including

torture and ill-treatment have been reported.67 Similar concerns relating to torture and ill-

treatment have been reported in compulsory drug detention and rehabilitation centres in

East and South-East Asian countries.68 The Committee against Torture has also expressed

concerns about reports of poor conditions in private drug rehabilitation centres and ill-

treatment inflicted upon persons admitted to them (see CAT/C/GTM/CO/5-6).

42. The Committee against Torture has expressed concerns regarding the use of solitary

confinement as a “management method” in “compulsory isolation drug treatment centres”.

The Committee recommended abolishing all forms of administrative detention, which

confine individuals without due process and make them vulnerable to abuse (see

CAT/C/CHN/CO/5). Caning as a punishment in drug trafficking cases has also been

reported, which violates the human rights prohibition of cruel and inhuman punishment.69

D. Eliminating prison overcrowding and violence

43. In the outcome document of the thirtieth special session, all States committed to

addressing and eliminating prison overcrowding and violence.70

44. United Nations human rights mechanisms have expressed concern about the

unnecessary and disproportionate use of the criminal justice system for drug-related

offences. In accordance with the International Drug Policy Consortium, some legal policies

and practices lead to overcrowding of prisons and other places of deprivation of liberty,

including tougher law and order approaches, mandatory use of pretrial detention,

disproportionate lengths of sentence, frequent delays in the judicial system, poor

65 See also E/CN.4/1998/44/Add.2, A/HRC/27/48/Add.3 and A/HRC/16/47/Add.2.

66 See also the submissions from the Centre for Legal and Social Studies.

67 Submission from Open Society Foundations. See also

www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/treatment-or-torture-applying-international-human-

rights-standards-drug-detention.

68 See https://idhdp.com/media/1083/compulsory-drug-detention-in-east-southeast-asia.pdf.

69 Submission from Amnesty International.

70 Recommendation 4 (m).

monitoring of inmate status and release entitlement, and the failure to grant parole.71 They

have recommended that efforts to ease overcrowding include alternatives to deprivation of

liberty, such as mediation, diversion, community service, and administrative and monetary

sanctions (see A/68/261).

45. Human rights mechanisms have also expressed concerns regarding violence in

prisons associated with prison congestion and have recommended enhanced efforts to

prevent inter-prisoner violence by addressing the factors that contribute to it, such as

overcrowding (see, for example, CAT/C/BLR/CO/5).

46. The Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences has

reported that, in many countries, there has been a disproportionate increase in the rates of

imprisonment of women, including for low-level drug-dealing offences (see A/68/340).72 In

several Latin American countries, women convicted of drug-related offences make up more

than half of the female prison population. Very high levels of incarceration of women can

also be found in East and South-East Asia.73

47. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has recommended

several measures for addressing overincarceration and overcrowding. These include

adopting a proactive and holistic approach; ensuring respect for detainees’ right to

challenge detention, and ensuring provision of assistance by legal counsel and access to

legal aid; using places of detention only for the purpose for which they are fit; using pretrial

detention only as a last resort; developing and implementing alternatives to custodial

measures during pretrial and post-conviction; reviewing penal policies and legislation to

ensure proportionate sentencing; providing effective rehabilitation services to contribute to

reducing reoffending rates; and ensuring the existence and proper functioning of

independent oversight and complaints mechanisms (see A/HRC/30/19 and A/HRC/36/28).

48. The outcome document of the thirtieth special session recommended: (a) alternative

and additional measures; and (b) proportionate sentencing.74 Both issues are relevant in

addressing prison overcrowding.

1. Alternative and additional measures

49. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the

Tokyo Rules) provide a set of basic principles to promote the use of non-custodial

measures, as well as minimum safeguards for persons subject to alternatives to

imprisonment. The Tokyo Rules are intended to promote greater community involvement

in the management of criminal justice, specifically in the treatment of offenders, and to

promote among offenders a sense of responsibility towards society.

50. The Tokyo Rules provide that the dignity of the offender subject to non-custodial

measures shall be protected at all times. In the implementation of non-custodial measures,

the offender’s rights shall not be restricted further than what was authorized by the

competent authority that rendered the original decision. Since human rights violations may

occur in the implementation of alternative measures, such as in community service, it is

vital that offenders have recourse to a formal complaints system, set out clearly in

legislation.

51. The Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences

(see A/68/340) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

(see CEDAW/C/AUS/CO/8) have called on States to develop gender-sensitive alternatives

to incarceration, and to promote community-based sentencing for female offenders. The

United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures

for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) provide comprehensive standards for the

71 See A/HRC/11/2/Add.2, A/HRC/16/47/Add.3, CCPR/CO/81/BEL, CAT/C/CRI/CO/2,

A/HRC/16/47/Add.3, A/HRC/7/3/Add.3, A/65/255, A/HRC/10/44, and Human Rights Committee

general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person.

72 See also www.unodc.org/wdr2018/prelaunch/WDR18_Booklet_5_WOMEN.pdf.

73 See also the submission from the Centre for Legal and Social Studies.

74 Recommendation 4 (j)–(k).

treatment of women prisoners and offenders, and address various issues including

alternatives to incarceration.

52. In their submissions, stakeholders referred to several alternative and additional

measures to incarceration. In the Russian Federation, a person who voluntarily applies for

treatment in connection with the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances

is exempted from “administrative responsibility” for this offence. In Sweden, the sanction

for personal use of drugs is a fine, not imprisonment. In some countries in West Africa,

including Cape Verde, Senegal and Togo, there is a choice between imprisonment and a

fine, for low-level offences. In Cambodia, people who use drugs and drug traffickers have

been sentenced to community service, given the serious overcrowding in prisons. In Costa

Rica, the Public Defender’s Office has sought to divert women who use drugs away from

the criminal justice system and to offer them services such as counselling, drug treatment

and job training. Probation has also been used in some countries.75

53. In some States, “drug courts”76 offer people accused of drug use a choice between

imprisonment and treatment. Given that the decision to undertake treatment is made under

the threat of imprisonment, coercion may influence such a decision. The Inter-American

Commission on Human Rights considered that drug courts which offer treatment as an

alternative to imprisonment fail to conform to a public health approach and do not tackle

mistreatment and human rights violations that occur in treatment centres, which are rarely

investigated.77

54. Drug courts are claimed to reduce incarceration rates and to represent a more

humane approach than in the criminal justice process. However, the Special Rapporteur on

the independence of judges and lawyers, and other stakeholders, noted in their submissions

that there was no credible evidence to support such claims. Furthermore, they stated that the

drug court system caused considerable harm to participants and frequently resulted in

serious human rights violations. Such violations were exacerbated by racial and gender

biases.78

55. The propensity for human rights violations in the context of drug courts is such that

the London School of Economics and Political Science has cautioned against the continued

roll-out of drug courts in countries where oversight and monitoring mechanisms are

absent.79

2. Proportionate sentencing and decriminalization of certain crimes

56. Proportionate sentencing is an essential requirement of an effective and fair criminal

justice system. It requires that custodial sentences be imposed as a measure of last resort

and applied proportionately to meet a pressing societal need (see E/CN.4/2006/7 and

CAT/OP/MDV/1). In many States, low-level offences such as small-scale drug dealing or

trafficking are punished with harsher penalties than other serious crimes, raising questions

about proportionate sentencing.80 Furthermore, simple possession of drugs for personal use

can result in significant terms of mandatory imprisonment.81

75 Submissions from the Russian Federation, Sweden, Penal Reform International, the Washington

Office on Latin America, EQUIS Justicia para las Mujeres, the International Drug Policy Consortium

and Dejusticia. See also http://fileserver.idpc.net/library/Drug-laws-in-West-Africa_ENGLISH.PDF.

76 See www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/drug-courts-equivocal-evidence-popular-

intervention-20150518.pdf.

77 See www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/PretrialDetention.pdf and submissions from the Centre for

Legal and Social Studies and Fair Trials.

78 Submissions from the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Fair Trials,

Open Society Foundations and the London School of Economics. See also

http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/assets/misc/phr_drugcourts_report_singlepages.pdf.

79 Submission from the London School of Economics.

80 Submissions from Penal Reform International and Fair Trials.

81 Submissions from Penal Reform International and Human Rights Watch. See also

www.tni.org/files/download/dlr20_1.pdf.

57. The Human Rights Committee has stated that where measures limit a right protected

under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, such as the right to personal

liberty, States “must demonstrate their necessity and only take such measures as are

proportionate to the pursuance of legitimate aims in order to ensure continuous and

effective protection of Covenant rights” (see CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13). The Inter-

American Court of Human Rights82 and the European Court of Human Rights83 have also

highlighted the importance of proportionate sentencing.

58. The principle of proportionality is also relevant to pretrial detention, which is

mandatory in several States for drug offences. 84 The Subcommittee on Prevention of

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has stated that

“long periods of pretrial custody contribute to overcrowding in prisons” and that “from the

standpoint of preventing ill-treatment, this raises serious concerns for a system already

showing signs of stress” (see CAT/OP/BEN/1). The Committee against Torture has

recommended that pretrial detention be used only as a last resort, “for the shortest time

possible, and only for the most serious offences” (see CAT/C/54/2). The Inter-American

Commission on Human Rights has noted that drug-related offences that are subject to

mandatory pretrial detention regimes violate the suspect’s human rights and further inflate

prison populations.85

59. A wide range of drug-related offences are punishable by death, in over 30 States.

Amnesty International reported that drug-related executions accounted for approximately

30 per cent of all executions recorded in 2017.86 In accordance with article 6 (2) of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, States that have not abolished the

death penalty may only impose it for the “most serious crimes”, which has been

consistently interpreted as meaning intentional killing. The Human Rights Committee has

consistently stated that drug-related offences do not meet the threshold of “most serious

crimes” (see CCPR/C/PAK/CO/1, CCPR/C/THA/CO/2 and CCPR/C/KWT/CO/3). The

International Narcotics Control Board has encouraged all States that retain the death

penalty for drug-related offences to commute death sentences that have already been

handed down and to consider the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related offences.

60. In order to meet the requirement of proportionate sentencing, States should revise

their penal policies and legislation with the aim of reducing minimum and maximum

penalties and decriminalizing the personal use of drugs and minor drug offences, which

would also contribute to reducing the total prison population.

V. Joint commitments on women, youth, children, vulnerable members of society and communities

A. Women

61. In the outcome document of the thirtieth special session, all States committed to

identifying and addressing risk factors and conditions that continued to make women and

girls vulnerable to exploitation and participation in drug trafficking.87 States also committed

to mainstreaming a gender perspective in — and ensuring the involvement of women at all

stages of — the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of drug policies

and programmes.88

82 See www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_16_ing.pdf.

83 For example in Dickson v. United Kingdom (application No. 44362/04) and Boulois v. Luxembourg

(application No. 37575/04)

84 See www.wola.org/sites/default/files/downloadable/Drug%20Policy/2011/TNIWOLA-

Systems_Overload-def.pdf.

85 See www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/PretrialDetention.pdf.

86 Submission from Amnesty International.

87 Recommendation 4 (d).

88 Recommendation 4 (g).

62. The World Drug Report 2018 highlighted the importance of gender- and age-

sensitive drug policies, and explored the particular needs and challenges of women. 89

Globally, women who use drugs face significant stigma and discrimination in accessing

harm reduction programmes, drug dependence treatment and basic health care. They may

face high levels of violence or harassment from law enforcement officers.90

63. In terms of national practice, Spain reported that it was aiming to improve the

integration of gender-specific aspects in all its prevention and assistance programmes,

including the prevention and early detection of gender-related violence against women who

were drug-dependent or at places where drugs were consumed.91 New drug strategies in

Argentina, Ireland, Lebanon and Myanmar provided various gender-sensitive

programmes.92 The Plurinational State of Bolivia adopted a new presidential decree with a

specific focus on the rights of women deprived of liberty, including those convicted for

drug-related crimes.93

64. Civil society organizations recommended practical measures for the implementation

of gender-related joint commitments contained in the outcome document of the thirtieth

special session. These included, inter alia, ensuring that all drug treatment and rehabilitation

services were non-discriminatory and evidence-based, and met women’s needs, including

pregnant women’s specific medical, psychological and social needs; and ensuring that

women involved in civil or criminal proceedings had access to fair trials, including timely

access to legal representation.94

65. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has addressed

drug issues and women, on several occasions. For example, the Committee has expressed

concerns about the high level of drug addiction experienced by women in the Sri Lankan

fisheries industry, and has recommended the provision of health and counselling support to

women with drug addictions, in line with its general recommendation No. 34 (2016) on the

rights of rural women (see CEDAW/C/LKA/CO/8). The Committee has expressed concerns

about “the excessive use of incarceration as a drug-control measure against women and the

ensuing female overpopulation in prison” in Canada (see CEDAW/C/CAN/CO/8-9). It has

recommended that Ukraine should intensify the implementation of strategies to combat

drug consumption among women, in line with its general recommendation No. 24 (1999)

on women and health (see CEDAW/C/UKR/CO/8). The Committee also recommended that

Kyrgyzstan ensure equal rights and opportunities for women who faced intersecting forms

of discrimination, including women who used drugs (see CEDAW/C/KGZ/CO/4). It

recommended that Georgia provide gender-sensitive and evidence-based drug treatment

services to reduce harmful effects for women who used drugs (see CEDAW/C/GEO/CO/4-

5).

B. Youth and children

66. In the outcome document of the thirtieth special session, all States are committed to

addressing the specific needs of children and youth.95

67. Since its inception, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has addressed issues

related to protecting children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic

substances, pursuant to article 33 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and has

89 See www.unodc.org/wdr2018/prelaunch/WDR18_Booklet_5_WOMEN.pdf.

90 Joint submission from the Washington Office on Latin America, EQUIS Justicia para las Mujeres, the

International Drug Policy Consortium and Dejusticia; and submission from Release.

91 Submission from Spain.

92 Strategies of Ireland and Myanmar; and submissions from Lebanon and the Defensor del Pueblo of

Argentina.

93 Decree No. 3030; and submission from Acción Semilla.

94 Submission from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, endorsed by Amnesty International

and others.

95 Recommendation 4 (f). For statistical purposes, the United Nations uses the term “youth” to refer to

persons aged between 15 and 24.

made consistent recommendations in this regard. 96 The Committee has consistently

recommended that States address the incidence of drug use by children and adolescents by,

inter alia, providing children and adolescents with accurate and objective information, as

well as life skills education, on preventing substance abuse, including with respect to

tobacco and alcohol, and developing accessible and youth-friendly drug dependence

treatment and harm reduction services (see, for example, CRC/C/PER/CO/4-5). The

Committee has also addressed drugs issues in its general comments — on HIV and the

rights of the child, adolescent health, children in street situations, the right to health, and the

right to freedom from all forms of violence.

68. Guatemala, Ireland, Lebanon, Mexico, Myanmar, Paraguay and the Russian

Federation reported that they had undertaken drug prevention and treatment measures

aimed at children and youth.97

69. The consequences of a criminal record for a drug-related offence for a young person

include discrimination, stigmatization, and reduced prospects for access to higher education

and employment. Children of parents incarcerated for a drug-related offence may also

suffer harm and face stigma.98 The best interests of the child should be taken into account

when a parent is charged with a drug-related offence, and non-custodial measures should be

considered.99

C. Other vulnerable members of societies100

1. Minorities and indigenous peoples

70. Pursuant to article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

religious minorities and indigenous peoples have the right to manifestations of their

freedom of religion or belief. This has been found, in some cases, to include the use of

controlled substances in religious and ceremonial practices when there is a historical basis

for doing so (see A/HRC/30/65). The right of indigenous people to use controlled crops,

such as coca leaf, in their traditional, cultural and religious practices is also supported by

the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (arts. 11, 24 and 31)

and the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) (arts. 3.2, 5 (a) and

23).101 The Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples has recommended that

“indigenous peoples that might be affected should be consulted on anti-drug policies and

operations” and that “guarantees should be given that the lives, cultures, lands and natural

resources of the indigenous peoples are not violated as a result of such operations” (see

A/HRC/33/42/Add.2).

71. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was concerned at the

reported disproportionately high rate of incarceration of indigenous persons and persons

belonging to minority groups in Canada, particularly African-Canadians, due to various

reasons, including drug policies. The Committee recommended that Canada address the

root causes of such overrepresentation of African-Canadians and indigenous persons at all

levels of the justice system by, inter alia, re-examining drug policies and providing

evidence-based alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug users (see

CERD/C/CAN/CO/21-23).

72. The Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent has stated that people

of African descent are disproportionately affected by excessively punitive drug policies. In

addition, racial profiling in many countries has made people of African descent a targeted

96 See www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473055/.

97 Submission from States and Defensoría del Pueblo. See also https://health.gov.ie/wp-

content/uploads/2018/07/Reducing-Harm-Supporting-Recovery-2017-2025.pdf.

98 Submission from Students for Sensible Drug Policy.

99 Submission from Quakers.

100 Recommendation 4 (f). See also Commission on Narcotic Drugs resolution 61/7, available at

http://undocs.org/E/2018/28.

101 See E/2009/43-E/C.19/2009/14, and the submissions of Maloca International and the Transnational

Institute.

group in the so-called “war on drugs”. The Working Group called for an end to racism,

racial discrimination, xenophobia, Afrophobia and related intolerance, including their

manifestations in the adoption and implementation of international and national drug

policies.102

73. The new drug strategy of Ireland is aimed at improving the capacity of services to

accommodate the needs of people from specific minority communities who use drugs,

including the Traveller community.103

2. Persons with disabilities

74. In many States, punitive drug policies do not recognize the unique vulnerability of

persons with psychosocial disabilities who use drugs. Such policies affect them negatively

by not providing appropriate drug dependence treatment and harm reduction prevention

services.

75. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has addressed this issue in

its reviewing of the State party reports of Peru and the Russian Federation. The Committee

expressed concern regarding the Peruvian law that permits involuntary detention of persons

with a “perceived disability”, that is, “persons with a drug or alcohol dependence”, and

recommended the repeal of the related legal provision (see CRPD/C/PER/CO/1). The

Committee recommended that the Russian Federation revise its current legislation and

practices regarding drug policy and preventive measures, which had a negative impact on

persons with disabilities (see CRPD/C/RUS/CO/1).

3. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons

76. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons who use drugs are

disproportionately impacted by drug policies in many countries, and experience a range of

harms flowing from drug use and drug-induced mental trauma. Lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender and intersex persons who use drugs may not seek support or treatment from

health-care providers because of previous or anticipated experiences of discrimination.104

The new drug strategy of Ireland proposes targeted interventions for lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender and intersex persons.105

VI. Joint commitments on alternative development, international cooperation, measuring drug policies and human rights

A. Alternative development

77. In the outcome document of the thirtieth special session, all States reiterated their

commitment to “alternative development”. 106 Alternative development is “a process to

prevent and eliminate the illicit cultivation of plants containing narcotic drugs and

psychotropic substances through specifically designed rural development measures in the

context of sustained national economic growth and sustainable development efforts in

countries taking action against drugs, recognizing the particular sociocultural characteristics

of the target communities and groups, within the framework of a comprehensive and

permanent solution to the problem of illicit drugs” (see General Assembly resolution S-

20/4).

102 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19852&LangID=E,

A/HRC/33/61/Add.2, and the submission from For Alternative Approaches to Addiction — Think

and Do Tank.

103 See https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Reducing-Harm-Supporting-Recovery-2017-

2025.pdf.

104 Joint submission from the Global Forum on MSM and HIV, and the Federatie van Nederlandse

Verenigingen tot Integratie van Homoseksualiteit.

105 Strategy of Ireland, p. 47; and see http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp/182.

106 Recommendation 7 (a)–(g).

78. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development, of 2013,

provide that alternative development should take place “taking into account the promotion

and protection of human rights”.107

79. The United Nations Development Programme has observed that the displacement of

populations because of measures to eradicate illicit crops exacerbates the poverty and

insecurity of poor farmers, with a disproportionate impact on rural, ethnic minority and

indigenous people.108 Individuals in these rural communities are holders of the rights set out

in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the right

to work and to earn a decent living for themselves and their families, the right to have an

adequate standard of living including adequate food, clothing and housing, the right to

social security, the right to health and the right to education.109

80. In terms of the design of alternative development programmes, the participation of

those affected, including women, minorities and indigenous peoples, should be essential.

Sequencing is crucial, and alternative livelihoods should be functioning and providing an

adequate standard of living before eradication of illicit crops starts.110

81. Eradication of illicit crops should not negatively affect the environment or the health

and welfare of farmers, their families or other stakeholders. The Committee on the Rights

of the Child, the Special Rapporteurs on the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples

and the right to food have all objected to aerial spraying for crop eradication because of the

harm it can cause to farmers and their children, as well as to environment.111

B. International cooperation

82. The outcome document of the thirtieth special session recommended that United

Nations agencies and other international stakeholders assist States in effectively addressing

“the health, socioeconomic, human rights, justice and law enforcement aspects of the world

drug problem”.112 In its resolutions 71/211 and 72/198, the General Assembly encouraged

all relevant United Nations bodies and specialized agencies to identify operational

recommendations in the outcome document of the thirtieth special session that fell within

their area of responsibility and specialization and to commence implementing those

recommendations.

83. UNDP is supporting the development of international guidelines on human rights

and drug control, together with the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy,

UNODC and OHCHR. 113 UNODC has undertaken activities to implement the joint

commitments with regard to human rights. These include working with OHCHR and

Colombia to ensure human rights are incorporated into the national drug policy of

Colombia.114 OHCHR and UNDP in Cambodia are jointly implementing Access to Justice

without Barriers for Persons with Disabilities — a project aimed at enhancing the capacity

of duty bearers to better understand the obstacles of persons with disabilities, including

those who use drugs, in accessing justice.

107 See General Assembly resolution 68/196.

108 Submission from UNDP; submission from the Moroccan Association for the Fight against AIDS, p.

2.

109 See also A/HRC/WG.15/5/2.

110 See UNODC/CND/2008/WG.3/2.

111 See CRC/C/COL/CO/3, A/HRC/4/32/Add.2, A/HRC/7/11/Add.3 and A/HRC/4/30/Add.1. See also

the Transnational Institute submission.

112 Recommendation 6 (a).

113 See www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/blog/2017/human-rights-and-drug-control--we-must-

provide-solutions-that-le.html. See also the UNDP submission.

114 Submission from UNODC.

84. OHCHR participated in intersessional meetings organized by the Commission on

Narcotic Drugs on the human rights commitments in the outcome document of the thirtieth

special session. OHCHR also participated in the general debates of the sixty-first session of

the Commission, highlighting human rights issues related to the world drug problem.115

85. The Council of Europe’s Pompidou Group has initiated work to explore the

application of human rights standards and tests as a basis for national and local-led

initiatives to incorporate human rights into drug policy development, monitoring and

evaluation. This work has resulted in the report entitled “Drug policy and human rights in

Europe: managing tensions, maximising complementarities”.116

C. Measuring drug policies from a human rights perspective

86. Ensuring that governments are held responsible for protecting human rights through

drug laws, policies and strategies requires tracking data and conducting regular assessments

of the human rights situation as it relates to drug control. On several occasions, human

rights treaty bodies have recommended that States provide data, statistics and information

on issues related to human rights in drug control efforts.117 There is a growing realization

that the traditional indicators regarding arrests, seizures and criminal justice responses are

inadequate to show the real impact of drug policies on communities. The success of drug

control strategies should be measured through an assessment of the impact of drug control

efforts in the enjoyment of human rights and other critical aspects such as security, health

and socioeconomic development.118

87. States are encouraged to collect up-to-date, comprehensive, disaggregated and

transparent data on drug control efforts. The data gathered should be used by States to

analyse the impact of drug control efforts on the enjoyment of human rights, and to enhance

compliance with international human rights norms and standards in the administration of

drug policies.

88. The outcome document of the thirtieth special session recommends that States

consider including information, on a voluntary basis, concerning, inter alia, the promotion

of human rights, when furnishing information to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs

pursuant to the three international drug control conventions and the relevant Commission

resolutions.119 OHCHR has developed a set of human rights indicators for the realization of

human rights,120 and guidance on a human rights-based approach to data collection in the

implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.121 Both can provide guidance in

strengthening and streamlining existing data-collection and analysis tools in drug control

efforts.

VII. Conclusions and recommendations

89. The cross-cutting approach of the outcome document of the thirtieth special

session of the General Assembly, of 2016, on the world drug problem, constitutes a

new and better linkage of the objective of drug control protection of the health and

welfare of humanity with the key priorities of the United Nations system, including

the Sustainable Development Goals. States should make greater efforts to more

comprehensively implement the outcome document in accordance with their human

rights obligations.

115 See E/2018/28-E/CN.7/2018/13.

116 See https://rm.coe.int/drug-policyandhumanrights-in-europe-eng/1680790e3d.

117 See CEDAW/C/MDV/CO/4-5, CEDAW/C/MKD/CO/4-5, CEDAW/C/ITA/CO/6,

CRC/C/KWT/CO/2, CRC/C/MDG/CO/3-4, E/C.12/DEU/CO/5 and E/C.12/MCO/CO/2-3.

118 See https://cdpe.org/measuring_drug_policy_outcomes_intersections_with_human_rights_

and_the_sustainable_development_goals_sdgs/# and the Global Drug Policy Observatory submission.

119 Recommendation 4 (h).

120 See www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/documents.aspx.

121 See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DataForSustainableDevelopment.aspx.

90. People who use drugs should be treated with dignity and humanity in treatment

centres. Harm reduction and evidence-based treatment should be available and

delivered only by trained health personnel. States should also undertake rigorous and

independent monitoring of treatment centres to ensure treatment takes place on a

voluntary basis with informed consent and individuals are not confined there against

their will. Any allegation of torture or other ill-treatment in treatment centres should

be investigated. Any treatment centres that do not meet human rights standards

should be closed.

91. States should consider doing away with drug courts, and allowing regular

courts to consider alternative, non-custodial measures for persons accused of minor,

non-violent drug-related offences. Mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related

offences should be repealed and replaced by sentencing guidelines that are

proportionate and give sufficient flexibility to judges regarding sentencing decisions.

The death penalty should be abolished for all crimes, including for drug offences.

92. Law enforcement in drug control efforts should be consistent with States

human rights obligations. Law enforcement officials should always adhere to the Basic

Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. Measures

consistent with international standards should be considered in addressing prison

overcrowding and overincarceration, including alternatives to incarceration and

applying the principle of proportionality.

93. States should make concerted efforts to combat impunity by conducting

prompt, independent, impartial and effective investigations into serious human rights

violations and bringing alleged perpetrators to justice. Cooperation with international

judicial or other mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, responsible

for investigating and prosecuting heinous crimes under international law, should be

also ensured.

94. “Alternative development should take place with the participation of local

communities, including farmers, women, minorities and indigenous peoples.

Alternative livelihoods should be secured before removing existing livelihoods earned

from cultivation of illicit crops, thereby contributing to the full enjoyment of human

rights and fundamental freedoms.

95. States should adapt their drug policies to address the specific needs of women,

children and youth, and members of groups in a situation of vulnerability such as

minorities, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual,

transgender and intersex persons.

96. International and regional human rights mechanisms, including human rights

treaty bodies and special procedures of the Human Rights Council, consistently

address human rights issues related to drug control efforts. States and other actors

involved in addressing the world drug problem, such as the Commission on Narcotic

Drugs and the International Narcotics Control Board, should consider the findings,

views and recommendations of these human rights mechanisms, and should

encourage and assist States in the implementation of the recommendations.

97. At the national level, national human rights institutions and other independent

State bodies, such as ombudspersons for children, also play important roles in

monitoring the human rights aspects of drug control efforts. They can provide human

rights guidance to national authorities for the development and the implementation of

national drug policies and laws. The participation and capacity of national human

rights institutions should be encouraged and strengthened in order to implement the

joint commitments made in the outcome document of the thirtieth special session.

98. The outcome document of the thirtieth special session recognizes the

importance of including civil society and affected communities in the design,

implementation and/or evaluation of drug policies and programmes. Civil society

organizations and representatives of affected groups play a significant role in

analysing drugs issues, in delivering services and in evaluating the human rights

impact of drug policies. The participation of civil society organizations should be

encouraged and their capacities strengthened in order to implement the joint

commitments of the outcome document. Civil society organizations should be

protected from any intimidation, threat, harassment or reprisal.