Draft resolution: https://undocs.org/E/CN.7/2021/L.5
Portugal: We had discussions in a very constructive atmosphere that allowed us to progress decisively, though there are open issues. We closed the title and the first 10 PPs. From PP2 to PP5 are open in terms of what is the order of the PPs. There are also conceptual issues that might go across the different resolutions: the concept of people who use drugs, drug use versus drug abuse, and the terms ‘world drug problem’ vs ‘world drug situation’.
Chair: Perfect. We will discuss the title and PP1 to PP10, but not the order.
Chair: Title agreed.
Brazil: Just to note that now Brazil is one of the co-sponsors of the resolution. We have no objection to PP1.
USA: We would like to substitute the term ‘Reaffirming the obligations’ with ‘Reafirming the goals and objectives’.
Portugal: For us it’s okay.
Russia: This is the first draft since 2016 to discuss treatment. It also discusses the whole spectrum of measures, and in the last years we haven’t had a resolution on this topic. With regards to this paragraph in particular, our preference would be to go back to the original wording of the text as finalised in the consultations.
USA: Of course when we sign treaties we assume obligations. But our treaties lay down little about obligations when it comes to treatment. In fact the references to ‘well-being’ are set in the preamble, which has no obligatory content. But if other states are not comfortable we can live with the original text.
Chair: Then let’s keep the original text.
Nigeria: We do not think there is any logic in starting in 2016, going back to 2014, and then going forward to 2019. We do not want this to become a reference in future work in this commission.
Russia: we think that when it comes to order of docs, we believe that it should be listed in chronological order. We support Nigeria when it comes to us.
Sudan: We support chronological order.
Discussions will continue tomorrow.