Organised by: Amnesty International with the support of Brazil, Colombia, Czechia, Switzerland, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Di-Sentir AC, the International Center for Ethnobotanical Education, Research and Service, the International Drug Policy Consortium, the International Harm Reduction Association and the NoBox Transitions Foundation

Daniel Joloy, Amnesty International. We know that current drug policies have primarily taken a punitive approach, which often exceeds what’s in the drug control conventions. Impunity for human rights violations is almost absolute. Duterte has now been detained and arrested by the ICC. More is needed to ensure justice and reparations for the human rights violations stemming from punitive drug policy. Often, governments disregard UN human rights recommendations. Efforts to ensure accountability continue to be scarce. It was only in 2008 that the CND passed a resolution on human rights, and cooperation with the UN human rights system remains insufficient. So here we are exploring accountability efforts to date, and key avenues to ensure that drug policies are consistent with international law, standards and guidance – ensuring that human rights are at the centre of drug policy.

Jindrich Voboril, Czechia. Vaclav Havel was the president of Czechia but before he was a political prisoner. He drafted Charter 77, a letter sent at the time by the totalitarian Stalinist regime, saying that we should respect human rights as they are protected by international human rights law signed by all members of the UN. So these are the facts: we still have 34 countries still using the death penalty for drug offences. In 2020, 3.1 million people were arrested for drug offences, 61% for drug possession. In Czechia, we’re trying to push for harm reduction. Politics are everywhere in the world based on abstinence criteria, which triggers a very punitive approach. We see the same thing with tobacco today, we’re just heading towards prohibition. Abstinence is part of the solution, but it is not the ultimate goal. Extreme punitive policies based solely on abstinence are not consistent with human rights. The key aspects of the Czech addiction policy are evidence, balance, coordination, public health, integration, financial resourcing, and realistic and achievable goals. We know today that alcohol can be more harmful than many drugs for instance. We have a national strategy in the Czech Republic, where we promote an approach that is not only on healthcare, but also focusing on harm reduction with abstinence being part of the solution but not the ultimate goal. We have a 3-year action plan under our current strategy to promote harm reduction in terms of regulated markets according to the risks and ensure we have enough money for healthcare services. During the Czech EU presidency in 2022, we pushed for a paper called ‘Council conclusions on human rights-based approach in drug policies’. It was a difficult debate. Some states came to me asking ‘do you think we’re breaking human rights in Europe in drug policy?’. We think we’re human rights champions in Europe, but we’re not. Sentences are long, human rights are being violated. Some countries believed that a human rights approach to drugs was undermining security in Europe. Globally, we were very much involved at the CND on improving the participation of civil society, including on civil society. There is now more involvement of civil society and UN agencies. We’re small but we need to continue our fight. We also have developed Guidelines on the 1961 Single Conventions, we’ll seek support from various countries.

Elina Steinerte, Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture. We all know drug policies have a direct impact on human rights. Today, this impact has been negative and impacting on millions of people. This is despite that human rights are at the foundation of the UN so should be at the heart of all actions of all UN agencies and UN member states. We all recall the promise of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document. In 2019, the UN member states expressed their concern about drug policies that were not compatible with human rights obligations. In 2024, at the mid-term review, States reiterated their commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. And yet, punitive drug policies continue to be used. These policies are responsible for numerous rights violations: prohibition of torture, of arbitrary detention. The UN human rights system is becoming more and more vocal on this issue. The UN human rights special procedures have now issued joint statements at the occasion of World Drugs Day on 26th June, this has become a tradition over the past three years. As you may all know, in July 2021, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention presented its study on drug policy. It was also presented to the CND that same year in December. It includes work by the WGAD on the mass incarceration, disproportionate sentencing and criminalisation of PWUD, torture and ill-treatment, lack of observance of trial rights, and application of the death penalty. Criminalisation has adverse health effects. As per the UN Common Position on drugs, drug use and possession should be decriminalised urgently. This was more recently confirmed by the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health in her two thematic reports on harm reduction last year, and by the OHCHR in 2023. Let me now turn to the SPT, which is one of the 10 UN human rights treaty bodies. We do not receive reports from States, we conduct country visits: police stations, detention facilities for migrants, mental health institutions, prisons and drug rehab centres. In our upcoming annual report, we will have a section dedicated to drug policy jurisprudence by the SPT, we will touch on zero-tolerance drug policies, mandatory pre-trial detention and sentencing, contributing to undermining human rights. Prisons and places of deprivation of liberty are not adequate to uphold the right to be free from torture. Strategies should include prevention, harm reduction and out-patient treatment in the community, minimising reliance on deprivation of liberty. Any treatment should be voluntary and evidence-based, with medical personnel, without corporal punishment or punitive regimes. International human rights law guides the formulation and implementation of drug policy. I urge all stakeholders, including CSOs to maximise our efforts in ensuring better cooperation in Geneva and Vienna among all UN bodies.

Inez Feria, NoBox Philippines. Accountability is not about just the perpetrators, it’s about the system. And in the Philippines, the system is still here. When we discuss impunity, we need to hold the President and law enforcement system accountable. But we need reform, justice and an end to the system that justified the killings in the first time. The killings led the UN human rights system to respond, it was a compromise but it was still a platform for change. The resulting UN drug programme was flawed, but it was useful. It ran for 1.5 years in terms of implementation. CSOs were excluded in shaping the direction of the joint programme. Because of that, many of the realities on the ground were ignored, and it sidelined the real issue: the drug law that led to the arrests, mass incarceration and killings. It failed to challenge the structures that led to impunity. But it did push thr government and civil society to discuss options for change. And it pushed the government to now say the right things. It’s listening, and it’s reforming, with more focus on human rights. As the UN joint programme ended in July last year, the government organised a law reform summit. CSOs ensured that this was a meaningful event. Real reform means decriminalisation and harm reduction. Abstinence based treatment has put communities at greater harm. But the government keeps pushing for abstinence based rehab as the solution – and it ignores those who do not seek or need treatment. It makes access to harm reduction, education, healthcare and other services impossible for those who refuse to undergo treatment, and live in fear. The placement on drug watchlists is also ongoing, people continue to be harassed. So the conversation about drugs around human rights is ongoing and difficult, because of the thinking that abstinence based treatment equates to human rights. And the key issues continue to be ignored. People are forcibly detained into treatment without due process, under the guise of health, they are forced to undergo forced urine testing. The government also continues mandatory drug testing, including surprise drug testing, luring people into fake meetings, drug testing them, and sanctioning those testing positive into drug treatment. We need an approach based on human dignity. So we’re seeing the same abuses as under Duterte. What does this look like in real life? A woman we met had to walk two hours in the scorching sun, each way, to go to mandatory treatment. She had to go because otherwise she risked arrest. Nobody could care for her baby. Her choice was staying home and risk arrest, or attend but then give up on her baby because she couldn’t take care of it. This is about failed implementation, about something deeper. The government’s version for reform is about one thing: being drug free. It’s a justification for unchecked power, coercion and systemic control. And this doctrine still dominates. It’s concerning when a so-called expert from the government says: ‘I don’t understand why we’re discussing human rights, we’re talking about drug treatment here’ or ‘it’s ok to sacrifice some lives if we’re able to become drug free’.

Constanza Sanchez, ICEERS. Here I want to discuss people facing prosecution for possession of plants for traditional purposes. We don’t do strategic litigation. What we do is more humble, but we try to prove the results of criminal proceedings, and the way the people we support go through this legal path. We have several lines of work in public policy and legal support, as well as generating evidence through research. Today, we are seeing a globalisation of psychoactive plants, with an expansion from Global South to Global North countries. We address what happens with traditional uses beyond traditional contexts: what happens to a person coming from the Andes who uses coca leaf traditionally, but beyond this context, in Spain. One of the interesting things in this context is that this use of psychoactive plants is criminalise. The conventions only discuss the use of traditional plants as a practice that needed to disappear. What we see is that it’s actually expanding all over the world. We are trying to professionalise the support we launched in 2016 to be able to support more and more people. Since 2016, we supported more than 300 cases in 47 countries. It’s hard to quantify it because it can go from a simple call and links to a lawyer, to supporting the whole process. The organisation is not very big, we’re 20 people, and only 3 people on staff working specifically on this. Our database is not totally up to date. We have a global network of lawyers who provide extra support. We also have a network of experts who can come and testify in court. ICEERS staff can do this, but in some countries’ courts only accept national experts. Most of the cases we supported related to ayahuasca, but the next type of plant that’s most common is the coca leaf. The cases were mostly in Europe, as well as in the Americas. Focusing on the coca cases, we have supported 32 cases, most of them in Spain. We’ve seen an increase in people detained with coca leaf. The reason for this is because Spain is a transit country for flights coming from where coca is traditionally produced. Flights usually stop in Madrid on their way to Europe. But various airlines are now travelling via Istanbul so there are increased cases of detention there. We have also delt with cases in many other countries, including Indonesia where it was really hard to provide support and experts in a case where sanctions were incredibly disproportionate. The average case we face is a person from the Andean diaspora who don’t have a lot of resources, so we support them with the cost of the process. Usually the prosecutor will ask for 4 years of imprisonment and a fine for offence against public health. Our arguments for our legal defence is the legal status of the coca leaf in international and national law (like in Bolivia, Peru, Colombia). The work we do has really improved the lives of many people. It’s more visible than going to an international court, and critical to promote a human rights based drug policy.

Michelle, Skoun. You gave us the outcomes of the cases you took on in Spain. Have there been cases where you’ve done this litigation but where it’s not worked?

Constanza. In other countries than Spain, our support is less comprehensive. For the case of Indonesia, there was a person detained for 20 g and he was convicted to 5 years in prison. It was not a happy ending, and often we’re facing issues with the language, the type of criminal justice system, identifying experts who are ok to get involved in a drugs case, etc.

Zaved, OHCHR. OHCHR is very happy to cosponsor this event. We will submit a Conference Room Paper on all side events we are cosponsoring. The notes of your side events will be very helpful. Last year’s side events were also submitted for this year’s CND. So we will do the same thing this time around. Question to Inez: thank you so much for your statement. I’m really sorry you are not here with us this time. It would have been good, considering what happened at the Hague this week. This morning the UN High Commissioner released a statement on the Philippines case. There are some cases happening in the Philippines: what are the national accountability processes going on? Like the chief of police being prosecuted. In the Congress, there was also a hearing.

Inez. The Congress hearing was a good space to share details about everything happening which we didn’t know about. But at the moment they are in recess so there is no movement. There is a resolution filed to investigate cases. We have to be very careful about what the government means when it says it’s reforming the law in line with human rights and health without really understanding what is meant by that. We don’t want them to reinforce the systems already in place. These are the little things that build up to the acceptance of what’s happening with the killings.

Dave, StoptheDrugWar.org. I wanted to add on the Philippines, along with the top perpetrators who remain free, some of them in power, the killings continue. The rate reported in the news is still one per day. Less than at the height of the Duterte war on drugs, but still happening daily. I have seen no indication of the Marcos administration is pushing for these killings, but there is no effort to stop them either.

Elina. I have now been under two different mandates within the UN system. The inputs we receive from civil society on drugs in Geneva are limited. We need to hear from you there. These inputs are invaluable.

Jindrich. I had several debates with NGOs and national institutions working on human rights, trying to push for years for them to analyse the drug policy impacts on human rights. We need to sensitise these organisations and institutions on why they should care and why.

Constanza. The work in supporting people in the criminal proceedings is incredibly useful to support people’s lives and change the minds of criminal justice operators. With this work on the ground, it’s also easier to articulate a proposal and a proactive approach to drug policies. We’re having a conversation in the Supreme Court in Spain, a woman was arrested for possession but she was acquitted for human trafficking in the higher courts, but the Supreme Court condemned the woman again. Little decisions ned to be appealed by civil society.