"When drugs are decriminalised and health care, including harm reduction, is available, which is the case in a number of Member States, drug dependent persons are less likely to resort to criminal behaviour to get funds to support their drug dependence. They can obtain opioid substitution therapy where controlled substances would be applied under medical supervision. We would have liked accordingly to see a clear reference to the right to health as provided by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."

United Nations Special Session on the world drug problem (UNGASS 2016)

19-21 April 2016, New York, UN Headquarters

Round Table Three: Cross-cutting issues: drugs and human rights, youth, women, children and communities (20 April, 3 to 6 p.m., Conference Room 4)

Transcript of remarks

Mr. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Distinguished delegates,

Members of civil society,

Distinguished ministers of course on the panel,

I am delighted to be participating in this panel discussion on behalf of my Office.

Fifty-six years ago, there was a president of the General Assembly who described the work at the UN as evoking a mixture of intense frustration and suppressed excitement. I would submit to you that our view from the human rights perspective applies in this form to the outcome document.

The suppressed excitement devolves from the fact that there is discernible progress, however modest it may be. There is clearly reference made to human rights and to the commitment to a human rights based approach, and there are numerous references in the outcome document to health care and treatment. For example in specific terms, medication assisted therapy and injection equipment programs, and this we have either welcomed or taken note of.

The intense frustration comes from the acute realisation that while the needle is moving, and forgive the pun, it could be moving much faster. Faster for all those who through personal use or dependency upon drugs see their human rights violated by criminal justice systems that punish without due consideration given to the growing understanding of the issues and challenges in all their dimensions.

We acknowledge a stab is being made at this in paragraph 4 j) but we believe that this was clearly the occasion for explicitly declaring the collective goal of decriminalizing personal drug use, and transporting it, whether an offence or not, to jurisdictional regimes that are civil and administrative but ultimately within the orbit of health-care providers and systems.

When drugs are decriminalised and health care, including harm reduction, is available, which is the case in a number of Member States, drug dependent persons are less likely to resort to criminal behaviour to get funds to support their drug dependence. They can obtain opioid substitution therapy where controlled substances would be applied under medical supervision. We would have liked accordingly to see a clear reference to the right to health as provided by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

We would have liked to see references to the obstacles the criminalization of drug use create for those seeking to access health care, when seeking health information is impeded by fear of arrest, which only compounds the resultant health issues already racking the individual concerned.

We would have also liked to see, or it would have been desirable to have, explicit use of terminology which is well recognised in medical health systems, such as opioid substitution therapy and needle and syringe exchange, being used in the outcome document; and clearly a mention of harm reduction by name would have been also very much welcomed by us.

Finally, my last few observations.

I join others on this panel in saying that there are not any references to the use of death penalty for drug-related offences while the global trend is toward ending the use of the death penalty. This is highly regrettable. The Secretary-General, the Human Rights Committee and other human rights mechanisms have found the imposition of the death penalty for drug-related offences is incompatible with international human rights law.

The outcome document does not also acknowledge that there have been human rights violations as we just heard earlier, such as arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, and ill-treatment or extra-judicial killings of drug suspects, which remains a source for concern. And even though 12 United Nations entities have called for the closure of the compulsory detention and rehabilitation centres and noted the wide range of human rights violations that occur in these centres, no mention is made of this in the outcome document. And there is no reference to the obligation of States to investigate and prosecute serious human rights violations committed by law enforcement in relation to drug control efforts.

As we have heard the outcome document does not specifically address the discrimination experienced by ethnic minorities and women who have been particularly targeted in drug enforcement efforts and who have been disproportionality sentenced to prison.

The outcome document fails to note the serious consequences that can follow from a conviction for drug use or for any other minor non-violent drug related offence. Such a conviction can create obstacles to obtaining employment, affect access to public housing, food assistance or student financial aid or the ability to travel internationally, thereby further isolating such persons from society and encouraging their stigmatization.

The outcome document does not include the recommendation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child that children who use drugs should not be subjected to criminal prosecution and that responses should instead focus on health education, treatment and social integration.

And when it comes to the rights of indigenous persons or peoples, although addressed in the outcome document the language is ambiguous. It would have been better if it would have clearly indicated that indigenous peoples should be allowed to use drugs in their traditional, cultural or religious practices when there is a historical basis for this.

Finding consensus is always hard, painfully hard, and we acknowledge progress having been made through the consultations however modest it may be.

We hope the Special Session serves as a further platform to inject the urgency we need to bring to the subject, given the knowledge that we now have and can apply to this foundational challenge of our times in strict conformity with human rights law.

I thank you, Mr. Co-Chair.