Michael Camilleri, OHCHR. Eliminating impunity, access to justice are key elements of the 2016 UNGASS. The International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy states that everyone has the right to accountability. They suggests actions MS can take: create transparent human rights mechanisms, conduct investigations, holding perpetrators accountable, ensure access to appropriate remedies. Here we would like to share national experiences, and showcase diverse approaches.

Barbara Fischer, Vice-Dorector General, Federal Office of Public Health, Switzerland. Very happy to share this panel with OCHHR today. We express our deep appreciation for the pivotal role of OHCHR in drug policy and technical expertise of UNODC – we need both. There is no contradictions between drug control and human rights. They share a common goal: the health and human rights of people. When you treat drug use as a public health priority, you achieve better outcomes for security and human dignity. But this is only as strong as the accountability mechanisms established. The Guidelines provide a practical compass for 3 things: 1- ensure accountability for rights-based monitoring of drug control efforts; 2- providing effective remedies for victims; 3- addressing socio-economic vulnerabilities fuelling the drug market.  We must address the legacy of punitive drug law enforcement. Switzerland remains committed to ensuring that the CND and HRC’s work are complementary and mutually reinforcing.

Michael, OHCHR. We will next hear from Leila de Lima, this could not be more timely, with the ICC initiating proceedings against Duterte for crimes against humanity committed in the name of drug control. Our speaker has been at the forefront of efforts to end impunity and promote accountability. She was a victim of prolonged arbitrary detention.

HE Leila de Lima, House of Representatives of the Philippines. The adoption by consensus of HRC 60/26 reaffirmed a principle that must never be diluted: that drug policies must respect, protect and promote human rights and dignity of individuals and the rule of law. It mirrors the UNGASS Outcome Document, including one that is particularly difficult: the elimination of impunity. I will discuss here the experience of the Philippines’ so called war on drugs to extract policy and legal lessons. It is a case study in how drug control policies can generate human rights consequences. When President Duterte came to office in 2016, he launched a war on drugs against “a narco-state in the making”. For 28 years, as a Mayor, he had enforced an anti-crime programme which consisted in extrajudicial and summary executions of targeted victims. Duterte himself was part of a family involved in trafficking, extortion and organised crime. He only set up a local army supporting his profit from criminal activities. Duterte won the 2016 elections and then carried out a bloody national drug war. The killings reached 26,000 in a few months alone. A regional criminal syndicate installed itself as the national government of the Philippines. This is the equivalent of El Chapo being elected as President of Mexico. This was not an honest effort to eliminate the drug menace. Since he did not believe in human rights, Duterte established a spirit of impunity across the government. He promised to pardon anyone who did get convicted. Despite thousands of cases of killings, no investigation was conducted. The overreliance of punitive enforcement was at the expense of public health responses. Duterte’s drug war was a populist justification of eliminating the competition. The intent was not to manage the drug trade, it was to monopolise it. The ICC case is historic. We witness our former President facing criminal justice in a foreign country because his own country was incapable of prosecuting him. We are in the middle of a transition, with Duterte coming back in 2028, which could relaunch the war on drugs. The current president should realise that persecuting perpetrators is all the more important right now. When drug policy is executed without robust rule of law constraints, the consequences are far-reaching and long enduring. But human rights mechanisms can serve as counter-weights. This is a practical enforcement of the social contract. Dignity is not conditional. Security cannot be purchased at the expense of justice. It must leave no one behind. The Philippines experience challenges all of us, to move beyond rhetoric towards meaningful reform. The framework is clear, the lessons are available. What remains is political will to align drug policy with human rights. Not in theory, but in practice. Full video available here.

Anton Basenko, INPUD. When we discuss the human rights of PWUD, we mention health. But justice is equally important. People have been imprisoned, jailed, subject to torture and ill-treatment. Poor, racialised communities have lived under a system of punishment, rather than protection. In many countries, PWUD are subjected to arbitrary detention, extortion, denial of healthcare, violations of privacy and dignity. There is a cycle of impunity. Addressing it should be at the centre of drug policy. Truth seeking processes, independent investigations. Justice does not end with acknowledgement, there should be real reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. This should include the expungement of criminal records for conducts that should never have been criminalised. Policies that affect our lives cannot continue to be designed without us. We need to be involved in what meaningful remedies look like. When States acknowledge harm, they send a clear message that human rights committed in the name of drug control are never acceptable. We often say that drug policies should always be evidence-based health centres. I would add they should be justice-centred. Community is with you in this journey.

Marta Machado, National Secretary for Drug Policies and Assets Management, Brazil. I thank OHCHR for convening this important discussion and continued leadership in centring human rights in global drug policy debates. 10 years after the UNGASS, we continue to reaffirm that drug policies should be aligned with human rights, health and development, in line with the International Guidelines. We also welcome Resolution 60/26 of the HRC. These frameworks remain essential because drug policies have particularly affected people facing intersecting vulnerabilities and discrimination. It has intersected with racial and gender inequality and unequal access to justice. Historically marginalised communities have been disproportionately affected by violence and incarceration. Women, especially mothers and caregivers are suffering from the consequences of incarceration and criminalisation. Drug policy should address the substances, but importantly the structural issues underlying violence and discrimination. This perspective is reflected in the concept of comprehensive prevention that we are presenting here at the CND this year, including prevention of drug-related violence. Comprehensive prevention systems incorporate prevention, harm reduction, children’s rights, social inclusion, protection from violence and provision of rights. Efforts are complemented with nation-wide harm reduction network. By expanding access to rights, it helps to reduce institutional barriers for people disproportionately affected by violence and exclusion. We work closely with civil society including the Iniciativa Negra and the Mothers of 8th May. It creates space for memory and restorative justice, strengthening guarantees of non-repetition. In regions like the Amazon, we also extend alternative livelihoods programmes. We reinforce institutional presence to address the root causes of involvement in crime. We also believe that drug policies should incorporate an anti-racist approach. Drug policies need to contribute to tackling inequalities. They require implementing these political commitments across territories. We encourage Member States and civil society to address these fundamental problems.

Pavel Bem, Global Commission on Drug Policy and Drug Czar of Czechia. I am pleased to speak as a Global Commissioner but also a member of the Eastern European and Central Asia Commission on Drug Policy. For many years I served as mayor of Prague, and now in a position of national drug coordinator for the second time. In 1990, I had the challenge of drafting the first paper on drug policy, mixing health and human rights in drug policy. The Global Commission has consistently highlighted how global approaches have justified human rights violations, including those in the Philippines, arbitrary detention and the denial of international healthcare. What else should we do to place our public policies based on health and human rights advocacy. So from the perspective of health, I still have to start with what I believe is a fundamental cornerstone for moving forward: the decriminalisation of drug possession. Human rights are the absolute cornerstone of any public drug policy. Decriminalisation is very close to the reality of accessibility of treatment and support. We also see a lot of stigma, however, related to this limited accessibility of care. We also know all these public health threats, overdoses, comorbidities, spread of blood-borne diseases. As the Global Commission, we have documented the paths forward to help restore human dignity. In Canada, the Supreme Court upheld the right to health in relation of the overdose prevention centre. In Malaysia, the provision of NSPs and OAT significantly reduced HIV infections among PWID, just a few years ago. In my own country, we have demonstrated for decade that pragmatic policies, including prevention, treatment, harm reduction can protect both public health and human rights. How can we guarantee non-repetition? Providing health-centred remedies is only part of the solution. Preventing reoccurrence is necessary, and this includes decriminalisation of drug use and possession, as criminalisation is a main driver of incarceration and health and social harms. We also need to embed health-centred approaches in national drug policies, so that governments are accountable. The experience of the Philippines illustrates why this is so important. Thousands have lost their lives because of harmful drug policies. The right to health is absolutely universal. Ensuring access to voluntary, evidence-based policies, treatment, harm reduction, etc. is not just compassionate, it is a concrete remedy and a safeguard against future harm. Justice and public health cannot be achieved without ensuring access to services that save lives.

Massimiliano Bagaglini, Member of the UN Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture. To start from the guidance, it is not yet guidance, it is just advice for national prevention mechanisms on how to implement the optional protocol to the Convention Against Torture. The optional protocol is based on a simple principle: the prevention of torture requires monitoring in all centres of deprivation of liberty, reporting and follow up. The system is based on two pillars: the SPT in Geneva and national prevention mechanisms. The mandate is the same: visits without prior requirement to all places of deprivation of liberty with the aim of establishing a dialogue to prevent torture and human rights violations. All the international instruments converge on the same principle: drug policies must incorporate human rights principles. But the reality is complex and diverse. Zero tolerance war on drugs approaches continue to pose serious risks of torture and ill-treatment. This includes denial of evidence-based treatment, physical and metal abuse, detention in unsanitary centres, denial of food, denial of an adequate standard of living in places of detention, forced labour. The SPT has provided a significant number of recommendations on drug use in prison settings, including the need to provide adequate services and social reintegration programmes. The SPT has underscored the importance of any treatment being evidence-based, holistic and carried out by trained, multidisciplinary medical personnel, and on a voluntary nature. Effective drug strategies must include prevention, harm reduction and out-patient treatment, in communities, to minimise the reliance on deprivation of liberty. In the last annual report of the SPT in 2025, we advised impact of drug policies on effective strategies to prevent torture, and made a call to systematically include national drug policies in the NPMs national monitoring mandates. We are committed to strengthening strategies to prevent torture, and support NPMs in addressing the issue, maintaining contact with civil society that deals with the issue and can offer civil society with a significant contribution in this regard. This issue evolves over time, and we need to adapt our strategy to ensure drug policies that protect the right to health and dignity of all human beings.

State Minister for Law and Justice, Pakistan. I have a question that goes to all panellists here. In Pakistan, we have launched a legal aid pilot project for women incarcerated for drugs. Detainees are identified early and walked through a case management system. Many face significant vulnerabilities. In the context of today’s discussion, how can states better institutionalise access to legal aid and uphold their human rights.

Belgium. I will not be too long, but wanted to add a few comments from our side. I want to thank OHCHR for convening us here on this important issue. I want to give concrete examples of what Belgium has undertaken: 1- probation if a person engages in treatment; 2- possibility for judge to provide treatment and support; 3- drug treatment courts; 4- strong youth focused approach.

IDPC. We have major concerns over the ongoing blatant human rights violations that continue to be committed with impunity in the name of drug control in various regions of the world, including by military forces or under the cover of combatting “narcoterrorism”. Impunity must no longer be a hallmark of the global “war on drugs. We call on the international community to prioritise accountability for serious violations of international law. UN bodies with mandates on drugs, human rights, security, and international criminal law – including the CND – must systematically monitor and address such violations. Where extrajudicial killings are alleged, national authorities must ensure prompt, independent investigations. If there are no credible prospects for domestic accountability, the international community should establish adequately resourced mechanisms. The ultimate aim should be to secure truth, justice, and reparation for survivors, and guarantee non-repetition.

Youth RISE. On the 9th of March, we’re observing the international day on the rights of the child. Violent actions against drugs leads to human rights violations. These violations can have life-long impacts on people’s lives. We provide young people with tools to protect their rights, and develop their own initiatives for justice that meet their own needs. We urge states to apply policies that do no harm. Harm reduction should be non-negotiable.

Skoun, Lebanon. Thank you for giving me the space and for the amazing panellists. From our experience, we would like to bring forward the rights of PWUD caught in humanitarian crises. We’ve worked on this for a while, and saw firsthand how drug policies impact their lives negatively. We have been working and successful in these past few years (and we’re seeing the outcomes in this new war), to make sure that during emergencies PWUD can access their OAT and other humanitarian assistance, including collective shelters, continue to receive services through confidentiality and privacy. This ensures that their needs are not left behind.

European Union. The EU reiterates its full support of people centred drug policies aligned with international law and international human rights law, which is so important in this current context. We have recently adopted a new drug strategy and we will continue to promote a balanced and human rights-based drug policy. We uphold the right to dignity and proportionality. We have just made a joint statement on the death penalty, as recent statistics show that 40% of all executions are done for drugs. 52 countries have joined the joint statement, which underscores the concern over the dramatic increase in drug related offences. We call on governments to address the root causes of engagement in drug trafficking. We call on governments to limit the death penalty to most serious crimes. This statement is particularly important to give the issue more visibility in the context of the CND.

Massimiliano. I don’t know if I can respond directly. In our mandate, we recommend modifications in the normative frameworks. Often, the legislation on drugs is so strict, preventing people from benefiting from parole or alternatives to detention. We need to eliminate these exceptions to promote alternatives to detention.

Marta. I welcome the initiative by Pakistan to focus on women. We have been paying attention to the increase in incarceration of women for drugs, they are pushed to extremely vulnerable situations, and incarceration exacerbates these vulnerabilities. Foreign women arrested for drugs in Brazil is also a reality. They are often victims of human trafficking. We conducted research to see how the justice system would address them. Often, they are considered as perpetrators. But their claims and facts that could show they are victims were not considered in the cases. Access to justice and public defenders is key in these circumstances.

Barbara. Let me add on vulnerability. It always pays to start somewhere, even if it’s only one project. It’s easily digestible if it’s one project instead of a big reform. So it’s commendable to see what Pakistan is doing.

Pavel. I have two suggestions: even in the Czech Republic, where drug use is decriminalised, there are still a lot of men and women incarcerated, and there is a lot of stigma. We have a system of legal assistance for women, in the preparatory phase of the procedure. After some time, we were able to introduce an official government programme paid by the government, providing legal assistance for all those in need.

Anton. I am glad to hear the points from Belgium and the EU. From our experience of implementation of similar projects, it should be free of charge. But this is reliant on available resources. And if we rely on professional lawyers, it’s almost impossible. You would need an army of lawyers, and it would be very expensive. Paralegal work is a useful alternative.