Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs (VNGOC): Good afternoon to everybody. Thank you very much for coming today for this informal dialogue. We would also like to thank our panel from OHCHR, UNDP and UNAIDS for being here together today and for continuing this tradition of informal dialogues with civil society. On behalf of the Vienna NGO Committee and our members, I would like to say thank you very much.

Slum Child Foundation: How is UNAIDS supporting people-centred, youth-led approaches in informal settlements to address the intersecting risks of substance use, HIV and limited access to health services?

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS): Firstly, thank you very much for having me here. I’m Eamonn Murphy, Regional Director for Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. UNAIDS is a co-sponsored programme, so there are many different UN partners involved, and I will limit my answers principally to those related to the Secretariat’s work. On this first question, for instance, UNICEF would be very much involved with young people in informal settings, as would UNHCR and other partners. But we do support people-centred and youth-led approaches, and you can see that in the Global AIDS Strategy as well as in the organisation’s broader work. That includes supporting youth-led networks to design services that reflect their realities and to be part of decision-making processes. In these settings, young people often face overlapping risks, not just HIV but also limited access to prevention and testing, less protection from violence, lack of safe housing, barriers to education, and many other issues. So we prioritise, where possible, integrated models that combine harm reduction, HIV prevention, mental health support and social protection in safe, non-judgmental and accessible ways. For example, in Ukraine we are now working with UN Women and other partners on different aspects of this, taking a holistic approach to make sure the different needs are met, including gender-based violence for young people. Through Global Fund processes, we have also tried to make sure that technical support is available so that youth-led organisations can participate, because young people, especially those in more marginalised situations, are often more likely to go to organisations like Youth RISE or similar groups rather than to a government service. That is a critical part of the process. Youth scorecards have also been used, where young people evaluate services and provide that information back so that they are genuinely co-designing and shaping decision-making, empowering young leaders to strengthen their health, rights and agency for themselves and for their communities. And if you look at the new Global AIDS Strategy for 2026 to 2031, you will see young people and their role reflected throughout the document.

Veterans Action Council, Cannabis Cura Sicilia Social Club Aps, European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD): How does OHCHR assess situations in which patients, such as disabled military veterans, are denied access to physician-recommended treatments involving controlled substances, including medical cannabis? Could such denial, or the criminalisation of patients or non-profit civil society initiatives seeking access to these medicines, constitute an interference with the right to health, therapeutic autonomy or non-discrimination?

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): Good afternoon to everyone, and thank you very much to the Vienna NGO Committee for organising this informal dialogue. It is really useful for us as well, because it helps us identify issues that we need to look at more closely. I would also like to thank the Veterans Action Council for raising this question. I have to admit very frankly that I have not looked specifically at the issue of disabled military veterans and their access to different controlled substances. But in response to your question, I would stress that access to controlled medicines is allowed under the three drug conventions. Not only that, but if we look at the 2016 UNGASS outcome document, there is very clearly an entire chapter dedicated to access to controlled medicines, and all Member States committed themselves to ensuring access to controlled medicines for those who need them. So obviously, from our side, we would encourage Member States to implement their own commitments to ensuring access to controlled medicines, in this case for disabled military veterans, and this is not only about implementing the three international drug conventions but also about fulfilling their obligations under international human rights law, particularly the right to health. In this regard, I would like to refer to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to health. Last year she produced two reports on harm reduction in the context of drug use, and in those reports she highlighted that it is absolutely critical to ensure non-discriminatory access to controlled medicines, harm reduction services and treatment. She also stressed that when we talk about access, this includes accessibility and affordability. It is not enough for something simply to exist on the market; it must also be affordable and practically accessible to the people who need it. And when we are talking about non-discrimination, we have to consider all these aspects of the realisation of the right to health. You may also have seen that our High Commissioner has raised this issue in different statements and dialogues with Member States. In fact, just the day before yesterday I made a statement in the plenary raising precisely this issue: that access to controlled medicines, and access to harm reduction and treatment in a non-discriminatory way, must be ensured and that States have obligations in that regard.

Youth RISE: UNDP recently launched a global consultation on the implementation of the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy five years after their release. Following this consultation process, how will UNDP support Member States in translating the guidelines into concrete national action that addresses the structural barriers facing young people who use drugs, including age restrictions, criminalisation and lack of youth-led service provision?

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Boyan Konstantinov. I do policy work with the HIV and Health Team at UNDP, focusing on human rights, access to health technologies and drug policy. This question actually packages together several different issues. If you are referring to the virtual consultation through the SparkBlue platform, that is a tool we want to use in order to generate direct evidence of rights-based responses that work in countries, so that we can compile and submit that evidence to the expert panel reviewing the drug policy machinery. At UNDP we are of the opinion that it is absolutely crucial that direct evidence from communities, and from countries more generally, is submitted to the panel. The way we conduct consultative processes at this level is by gathering as much direct evidence as possible in different forms. That can include written submissions, oral histories, audio recordings, video recordings. This is how the reports of the Global Commission on HIV and the Law were put together almost 15 years ago: it was not just a few experts sitting somewhere writing a document, but rather a participatory process involving, I would say, thousands of community members, key populations and people living with HIV providing direct evidence about how the law affects them. That is essential for the credibility of any recommendations. The same thing happened with the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy: there were many dialogues across the globe before that document was produced. That is what we want to do now with this report. Coming back to the question of translating the guidance into concrete national action to address structural barriers for young people who use drugs, that is something UNDP has already been doing for a number of years within the UNAIDS framework and beyond. We have, for example, a hub in South Africa that works with LGBTQI+ people and young populations across more than seven African countries, though I would need to double-check the exact number. In the context of drug use, as well as prevention, treatment, care and support services more broadly, we have supported the same kind of process of receiving information about needs, unmet needs and specific realities directly from beneficiaries, rather than assuming experts know it all and can simply design adequate systems. Quite often we have seen that what is proposed is not actually what communities need. That needs to be acknowledged and reflected in strategic documents such as the Global AIDS Strategy that my colleague Eamonn mentioned, because those documents later inform the service packages that countries develop. Those packages need to be adequate to the needs of young people. As I said during the excellent side event organised by Youth RISE, young people are not mini adults. We are talking about a completely different set of needs.

Harm Reduction International, South Asian Drugs and Addictions Research Council (SA-DARC): In the context of significant global HIV funding cuts and the uncertainty surrounding the future institutional role of UNAIDS, how will UNAIDS ensure sustained political and financial commitment to harm reduction for people who use drugs, particularly in countries where domestic financing remains minimal or punitive drug laws persist? Specifically, what safeguards will be put in place to protect community-led harm reduction services from being deprioritised, defunded or absorbed into broader HIV programming in ways that undermine their accessibility, quality and human rights-based approach?

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS): Thanks very much. There are quite a few different parts to that question. If I look at the bigger picture, we do have a number of instruments that structure the response, and they are not always tied to one institutional arrangement. First, there is the political declaration from the high-level meeting on HIV. There will be a new one in June this year, which will be a critical moment for all Member States. Five years ago, they voted and reaffirmed a whole set of commitments, including commitments relevant to the programmes you are referring to and rights-based targets. So this year is going to be crucial for continuity, because it will be another five-year commitment by Member States themselves, and it gives communities, the UN and other partners something to hold them accountable to. The Global AIDS Strategy sits alongside that and takes those targets further. It was agreed in December last year and provides broader guidance. So both of those are continuity instruments for the response. It is not really about one institutional structure; rather, we should think of it as a UN response to HIV that has evolved over time and will continue to evolve. There is the co-sponsored programme structure we are all familiar with, but that has changed before and will keep changing. Funding, of course, is under major pressure across development generally, not only in health or HIV, and for a range of reasons. Perhaps there was too much dependence on a small number of countries, and that has had a clear impact. Civil society felt the brunt of that first, and the effects are now flowing through the wider system. Structural reforms will occur across all UN agencies, not just ours. That is why these commitments governments make are so important for continuity. The question then becomes how we, collectively, continue to advocate so that these programmes continue. This is also where criminalisation comes into the picture. After this event, we actually have a side event on new guidance around decriminalisation, which unpacks even further what is already in the Global AIDS Strategy and in the political declaration. But implementation is the hardest part. We all know that there are many international agreements and declarations that are not effectively implemented. So sustainability is now the key agenda across sectors. That means national ownership and countries increasing their domestic investment. Some of the dramatic cuts we have seen are forcing that conversation. Global mechanisms like the Global Fund are also facing major cuts, and the shift over the next five years and beyond will have to be towards greater domestic investment. We are working with a range of partners, including governments, on this issue of accountability and sustainability.

International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care: How can OHCHR influence Member States to comply with their human rights obligations to ensure safe and rational access to and availability of internationally controlled essential medicines, given that the Human Rights Council has a history of resolutions on this topic but Member States are slow to implement their commitments?

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): Thank you very much for your question, and I would also like to thank the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care for your regular cooperation with us, because we have often received your contributions when drafting our reports, and that has been very helpful. As you may have seen in our last three reports on human rights and drug policy, we addressed this issue and provided guidance and recommendations to governments on what needs to be done. In addition to that, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, the Special Rapporteur on the right to health has also addressed this issue. You may also remember that a few years back Belgium led a number of activities in Vienna, Geneva and New York to raise this issue through a series of events organised in cooperation with other Member States and with OHCHR to promote the human rights dimension of access to and availability of internationally controlled essential medicines. From OHCHR’s side, what we do is continue providing governments with recommendations through our reports and through the wider UN human rights system. Special Rapporteurs and treaty bodies also regularly address this issue. But I would also like to refer to the World Health Organization, which last year unveiled a new guideline aimed at improving global access to controlled medicines. I am sure you are aware of that. The question, though, is how all of these guidelines and recommendations are actually implemented. That is a very difficult question for me to answer in full. We do see some Member States taking specific initiatives, such as the Belgian one I mentioned, and we need to encourage more Member States to take initiatives and bring this issue to the forefront. As I mentioned earlier, access to controlled medicines remains a major issue.

Efforts to Save Children and Empower Women (ESCEW): How can UNDP better support integrated, evidence-based prevention strategies that combine education, vocational training and community development, particularly in contexts where poverty, unemployment and lack of opportunity drive drug-use risks among young people?

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): This is a very complex question, and I am not sure that all parts of it should necessarily be addressed to UNDP. When it comes to normative guidance for prevention, that is usually something for which WHO is responsible. In terms of implementation, however, UNDP, as many of you know, serves as a principal recipient, or principal recipient of last resort, of Global Fund grants in, I believe, 23 countries, though the number keeps changing depending on implementation capacity. We also support a number of multi-country grants. In those countries, we partner with all stakeholders, including the relevant authorities, to support prevention strategies and prevention services, and many of them do include elements of training and education depending on the context. Some also include services in challenging operational environments, if I may borrow the terminology we use for those grants. I am not entirely sure what the part of the question on combining education, vocational training and community development means in practice, so I am not certain I am answering it exactly as intended. If it could be made more precise, I would be very happy to provide additional information in writing.

International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC): Do all UNAIDS co-sponsors now support the new UNAIDS guidance on decriminalisation? And if not, what will UNAIDS do to ensure that all its co-sponsors are aligned with the guidance? Also, how can civil society and community organisations support these efforts?

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS): Thanks very much. This is a very important question. All the co-sponsors were consulted during the development of the new guidance on decriminalisation, and several of them, including Boyan from UNDP here with us, played a substantial role in shaping and strengthening it. Their engagement reflects a shared understanding of the evidence and the urgency of rights-based approaches to drug policy. The guidance itself is not separately endorsed by their governing boards, so it is important to understand it as a technical tool. What truly anchors the collective UNAIDS position is the fact that decriminalisation is explicitly included in the new Global AIDS Strategy. That is the document that went to our board, to Member States and communities, and was debated and adopted. It was endorsed not only by all co-sponsors but also by the Member States on our board. That gives us a strong political foundation across the joint programme. Where we will need civil society and communities the most is in the lead-up to the high-level meeting. How do we jointly and separately advocate to shape the global commitments for the next five years? That is the most powerful tool, because that is what Member States vote on, as they did five years ago and as they have reaffirmed since. As in previous high-level meetings, the participation of community organisations and civil society is essential to ensure that the new political declaration reflects lived realities, human rights principles and the priorities of people living with HIV, key populations, including people who use drugs, and other affected communities. It will be important for civil society to work with national governments and inform their delegates in New York, who will negotiate the political declaration, so that decriminalisation, the 10-10-10 targets, harm reduction and human rights-based approaches remain central in the final text. That will be challenging in the current political climate, but it is essential that governments hear directly from affected people in their own countries.

Drug Policy Centre, NPC, Slum Child Foundation: Could you elaborate on what constitutes a human rights-based approach to drug-use prevention, particularly in relation to Article 33 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 12 of the ICESCR, and how such an approach should inform national prevention policies?

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): Thank you, Peter, for raising this question, and thanks also to Drug Policy Centre, NPC and the other organisations behind it. Peter and I were actually together at another event just before coming here, where I was already discussing this, so I may repeat some of what I said there for the benefit of colleagues here. The first thing we need to determine is what exactly we are trying to prevent. From OHCHR’s perspective, we have been very clear that what should be prevented is harm related to drug use, not the unrealistic goal of preventing all drug use. That prohibitionist idea did not work, and we have seen clearly that it failed. So we need to have a very clear understanding of what we want to prevent. In the context of children, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear that children need to be protected from drug-related harms. The International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy also set out very clearly what needs to be done. Let me repeat what I quoted earlier today. The guidelines state that children have the right to protection from drugs and exploitation in the drug trade, not only drug use but drug trade as well, and we must consider exploitation at every stage. They also have the right to be heard in matters concerning them, with due regard for their age and maturity, and their best interests must be a primary consideration in drug laws, policies and practices. The guidelines further state that governments must take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the conventions, and that those measures should be evidence-based and compliant with broader human rights norms. When we talk about wider human rights norms, we have to think about all the rights of the child, including freedom from torture and ill-treatment. For example, our reports have clearly stated that forced drug testing in schools may amount to torture or ill-treatment. Treaty bodies have also said this. We also need to think about the right to privacy, bodily integrity, and protection from harm. In that framework, prevention also has to include harm reduction measures and harm reduction education where needed, including for children and young people in difficult contexts. Youth RISE is here and has provided very good guidance on how these issues should be framed for youth populations. From a human rights perspective, prevention also means prevention of human rights violations in the context of drug control measures: prevention of torture, of arbitrary detention and arrest, of enforced disappearances, of extrajudicial killings. I could go on with a long list of things that should be prevented and included within the notion of prevention. And finally, it is not enough just to prevent: we also have to ensure accountability and end impunity. On the first day of this session we had an event on this issue, and you saw the evidence that even children are being attacked and killed in the context of drug control. In Rio, for example, 120 people were killed in one day, including children and young people. Our High Commissioner issued a very strong statement, saying that there must be accountability and that the police system itself has to be reformed because of the racism embedded in it. So when we talk about prevention, we need a comprehensive approach: not a narrow one, but one focused on preventing all harms.

Zonta International: How can UNDP further strengthen its work on gender equality and intersectional discrimination in drug policy and development programming, and what impact will the proposed UN Women–UNDP merger have on advancing the rights of women and girls?

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): I am not aware of any proposed UN Women–UNDP merger, so I really cannot comment on that part of the question. I do not know where that information comes from. But on the broader point, UNDP does work extensively on gender equality and intersectional discrimination, including through the UNAIDS Human Rights Reference Group, which is an advisory body that speaks directly to the Executive Director of UNAIDS and provides recommendations and analysis, including on gender and young people. Gender is also mainstreamed in our new strategic plan and is an important component across all our work, whether that is drug policy, development, or other sectors. We are in the process of finalising our new gender strategy, as the previous one expired at the end of 2025. That strategy has strong health and health-equity components and is intended to go beyond binary and heteronormative understandings of data and policy.

Drug Free America Foundation: In advancing rights-based HIV services for people who use drugs, how will UNAIDS also promote prevention strategies that reduce early initiation and protect children and families from long-term health and social harms?

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS): Thanks very much for the question. My own first work in public health was actually on prevention among young people. UNAIDS advances rights-based HIV services for people who use drugs while also prioritising strong HIV prevention strategies that protect children and families. For example, in Fiji, which is seeing a major outbreak of drug-related HIV intersecting with what had been an older sexually transmitted epidemic, UNICEF has recently started work in the education sector on exactly this issue, while other parts of the UNAIDS family are working on harm reduction to prevent further HIV transmission through drug use. So the two parts are complementary and work together. Our Global AIDS Strategy highlights the urgency very clearly. Although children aged 0 to 14 represent only around 3% of people living with HIV, they accounted for 12% of AIDS-related deaths in 2024, so young people are a major priority. UNICEF and WHO are among the strongest partners in the UNAIDS family in leading this work. We work with countries to implement context-specific prevention, to expand early testing, and to ensure sustained access to quality treatment and care for children and adolescents. Our commitment to harm reduction also strengthens families by reducing HIV, viral hepatitis, overdose, poverty and social exclusion. We are also committed to eliminating discrimination in health, education and social systems so that children can access services safely. Where possible, measures should also be taken to reduce the risk that children are exposed to harms arising from parental involvement in the justice system, and sentencing decisions should fully consider the impact of drug-related criminal punishment on children. This includes situations where children may end up in detention alongside a parent. The overall point is that these issues are deeply intersectional, and protecting the rights of children across all of them is vital.

International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC): The OHCHR has played a major role in promoting a rights-based approach to drug policy, both in Vienna and Geneva, and this has contributed to shifting the debates at the CND and the Human Rights Council. Looking ahead, what further actions does OHCHR plan to take to continue advancing this work, and how can civil society and community organisations best support and collaborate with OHCHR in strengthening rights-based drug policies globally?

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR): Thank you, Gloria, and thanks to IDPC for this question. First of all, I want to acknowledge very clearly that whatever we have achieved in Geneva and Vienna, we did not achieve alone. We achieved the three resolutions from the Human Rights Council over the last 10 years since the UNGASS outcome document with the support of Member States, civil society, other stakeholders and UN partners. That has given us a strong mandate to continue. In Vienna as well, with the support of different stakeholders, we have continued our engagement, although you are seeing perhaps half of one person working on this issue in practice, so we also have to be realistic about our resource constraints, especially at this time. But with that said, we will continue advancing human rights in Geneva and Vienna. Looking ahead, one major action this year is that the Human Rights Council has requested OHCHR to produce a report on the human rights implications of drug policy for women and girls. We are currently drafting that report. We have already circulated a call for inputs through the Vienna NGO Committee and other channels, including to Member States. This year we will focus heavily on this report, including through several consultations during the drafting process. When the report comes out in September, we want to promote it not only in Geneva, where it will be presented to the Human Rights Council, but also in Vienna, because the Human Rights Council specifically asked that it be shared with the CND during the reconvened session in December. In addition to that, as you have seen during this CND, we have organised or co-organised around 15 side events on different issues. A few areas where we would particularly like to focus in coming years are prevention, accountability and effective remedies for human rights violations in the context of drug policy, as well as racism in drug control measures. We are also supporting the UN Independent Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in Law Enforcement, which was established after the killing of George Floyd in the US. That mechanism has decided to produce a report specifically looking at law enforcement, drug law enforcement in particular, and racism in that context. Last year, one of its members, Miss Tracy Keats, delivered a strong statement noting that this would be the first UN report focusing specifically on racism and drug policy. That is another very important development coming this year, and when that report is published we intend to bring it not only to Vienna but also to New York and other spaces. I also want to highlight that our work is not only about Vienna, New York and Geneva. On the ground as well, our office is planning to work with other UN partners in different countries to advance implementation of the recommendations coming from these reports. One colleague mentioned earlier that implementation is lacking, and that is true. But we do see some good examples. For instance, in Brazil, where our office and other UN agencies have been quite active, we can see that some progress is happening.

Eurasian Harm Reduction Association (EHRA): How will UNDP continue to support countries in advancing civil society participation and human-rights-based drug policies, in line with the UN System Common Position on drug policy, the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy and the latest Human Rights Council resolution, in the current political and financial context?

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): UNDP actually has a project with the Eurasian Harm Reduction Association that directly engages EHRA in providing analysis on the needs for reform among European Union candidate countries in the area of drug policy, so that is one direct example I can give that is related to EHRA itself. More generally, we work very closely with civil society, as I mentioned in response to another question. When we shape our responses and interventions, and especially at country level, UNDP support has to be requested by the country; we do not parachute ourselves into countries and start offering advice no one asked for. Historically, UNDP’s work has focused a great deal on law and policy reform, legal environment assessments and legal scans. We are now also moving into operationalising the decriminalisation guidance. We work quite extensively with the judiciary on matters related to HIV, key populations, LGBTQI rights, and we would also like to work more with judges on questions of law and drug policy. We also support harm reduction responses and try to support the sustainability of harm reduction for the day when the Global Fund is no longer there, or when grants are restructured and there is a need for much greater national investment. Then there is the development impact of drug policy. That is why the discussion paper presented today was put together: to amplify and catalyse a discourse about how drug policies can be reformed towards less punishment, fewer criminal sanctions, and more health and human rights. That does not only make them fairer and more inclusive; in most cases it also makes them cheaper, because we have evidence that punitive approaches rarely work very well and cost a great deal. UNDP also makes economic arguments for reforms that are effective and cost-efficient. And, of course, amplifying community voices is always something we try to do, in partnership with Secretariat colleagues, OHCHR and other sister agencies.

Youth RISE: In addition to the lack of youth-specific services, traditional models often fail to reach young people who do not identify with the populations or patterns of use these services are designed for. As drug markets and youth communication increasingly shift to digital spaces, how is UNAIDS supporting the integration of digital interventions into national HIV/HCV prevention frameworks to ensure services reach the diverse hidden youth populations currently excluded?

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS): Firstly, UNAIDS recognises very clearly that many young people are currently excluded, or feel excluded, from older prevention models. That has been changing for quite some time. Young people now communicate and live increasingly in the digital world, more so even than five years ago, and all of us are using digital spaces differently than we used to. So we are providing support for countries and for partners such as the Global Fund to ensure that countries adopt innovative, youth-friendly approaches that meet young people where they are, particularly in digital spaces. You can now get counselling online, order testing online, order treatment online, and of course order drugs online as well. The whole world is online, and services have had to change. In Vietnam, for example, we saw a very good case where youth organisations were doing outreach to people who had never, ever accessed community services through traditional fixed-site programmes, and the numbers they reached very quickly were very high. That shows the value not just of digital space and digital tools, but also of using platforms that young people feel comfortable with, often mediated by other young people through NGOs and civil society organisations. Efficient approaches therefore include expanding peer-led online outreach, digital harm reduction education, online counselling, and confidential pathways to testing, whether anonymous testing, self-testing or referral to fixed-site confirmatory services, as well as pathways into prevention, treatment and other support services. In Asia Pacific, for example, we worked with UNODC and young people on the chemsex guidelines to make sure they reached young people who are deeply involved in online networks in ways older populations would not even have thought of. Hidden populations are there. There are young people who do not identify with any of the stereotyped or recognised populations often discussed in these programmes, but who may nonetheless occasionally or casually use drugs or intermittently engage in risk behaviours. The best way to reach them is often through digital spaces, whether directly through the platforms they are using or through NGOs operating there. There are now programmes being inserted into online platforms in partnership with communities. At the same time, digital approaches must be rights-based, protect privacy and avoid reinforcing stigma or surveillance. Sometimes that may even mean not working with certain partners if they are obliged to share information in harmful ways. By supporting digital innovation alongside community-led services, both online and offline, we want to ensure that no young person is left out simply because they cannot or do not wish to access traditional services. Many countries have already moved a long way in this area, not just in HIV but across health and other services. At the same time, the dynamics of digital spaces and AI are changing constantly, and the risks young people face are increasing.

Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs (VNGOC): Thank you very much. We still have many questions left, so we will ask the remaining ones in writing, and the replies will be sent through the Vienna NGO Committee so that they can be shared. We apologise for not being able to finish everything, but there were many questions and the time was very limited. Thank you very much to everybody for being here today with us, and thank you to the panellists.