CND day 4 – Committee of the whole: L5 continued

Peru:
We have come up with compromised language and we have a new OP11. “Member states to continue to submit to the unodc, through the anrq, information related to questions related to cases of illicit traffic in their jurisdiction…”

EU:
I would like to refer to the reinsertion of OP9. In the new version, “in the extent possible” has been reinserted.

US:
OP1, in the 4th line, our concern is with “in the extent”… it is not necessary, we should be able to delete this insertion

China:
This text is the result of consultations. We would like to retain this wording and have “in accordance with national legislation” in the text.

Chile:
I thought this does provide a double qualifier.

Peru:
I have conducted consultations and are agreement was that we will retain both changes.
OP4

Switzerland:
We would like to delete the “legislative” and replace with “where appropriate”.

Argentina:
We have problems with deleting the words “legislative”.

Switzerland:
Agrees with Argentina’s reasoning. We would like to add at the end of the paragraph that it should say it should maintain the availability of essential pharmaceutical uses for medical use.

WHO:
I support the swiss proposal
OP5

US:
We want to change “ in accordance with” with “consistent with”.

Russia:
These products can be used illegally and legally, that said we want see proper reflection of our concerns on these issues and we want due concern to be given to PP4, instead of the word “noting” we want a more resounding word that could be suggested to us by some parts of the english speaking forum. however, we will be flexible!

Peru:
“recalling” instead of “noting” ?

RESOLUTION ADOPTED!

US: we want to co-sponsor the resolution as well