Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11 March 2011

Lifting the ban on chewing ’s proposal to amend the 1961 Single Convention

By Martin Jelsma1

January 31 marked the close of the 18- month period during which countries could submit objections to Bolivia’s proposal to remove from the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs the obligation to abolish the practice of coca chewing.

A total of eighteen countries formally notified the UN Secretary General that they could not accept the proposed amendment: the United States, the United Kingdom, KEY POINTS Sweden, Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Russian Federation, Japan, Singapore, • The ban on coca chewing is a violation of Slovakia, Estonia, France, Italy, Bulgaria, indigenous rights and needs to be lifted Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico and Ukraine.2 • The condemnation of coca leaf and tradit- ional use by the 1961 Single Convention The U.S. convened a group of ‘friends of conflicts with the principles and provisions of the convention’ to rally against what they later treaties and declarations perceived to be an undermining of the ‘integrity’ of the treaty and its guiding • The whole of South America expressed principle to limit the trade and use of support for Bolivia’s amendment proposal narcotic drugs exclusively to medical and • The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous scientific purposes. The UN Economic and Issues, in its advisory capacity to ECOSOC, Social Council (ECOSOC or the Council) recommends that Member States support this will have to decide how to proceed, most initiative likely during its substantive session in • The opposing arguments brought forward Geneva this July. in the eighteen objections to Bolivia’s pro- This briefing paper analyses the reasons posal are dubious and contradictory behind the proposed amendment and the • Rejecting the amendment will not make the opposing arguments that have been issue disappear brought forward, and outlines the various • A constructive dialogue is required to re- options to be considered as the fate of solve the legal ambiguities one way or another Bolivia’s proposal is determined. Simply rejecting the amendment will not make the • A WHO expert review of coca leaf is long issue disappear. overdue

Legislative Reform of Drug Policies | 1 THE BAN ON COCA CHEWING: LEGAL different approach to plants from which AMBIGUITIES alkaloids could be extracted. The 1971 Convention did not condemn traditional The decision to ban coca chewing fifty years and ceremonial uses of the plants contain- ago was based on a 1950 report elaborated ing psychoactive ingredients that were in- by the UN Commission of Inquiry on the cluded in the 1971 schedules. Coca Leaf with a mandate from ECOSOC, after a brief visit to and Bolivia. The The Mexican delegate at the 1971 conferen- head of the Commission, Howard B. ce referred to the traditional use of the Fonda, gave an interview in Lima in Sep- peyote cactus (containing the hallucinogenic tember 1949, before beginning his work: substance mescaline) arguing that the “reli- gious rite had not so far constituted a pub- “We believe that the daily, inveterate use lic health problem, still less given rise to illi- of coca leaves by chewing ... not only is cit traffic…. It would clearly be extremely thoroughly noxious and therefore detri- unjust to make the members of those tribes mental, but also is the cause of racial de- liable to penalties of imprisonment because generation in many centers of population, of a mistaken interpretation of the Conven- and of the decadence that visibly shows in tion and thus add an inhuman punishment numerous Indians – and even in some to their poverty and destitution….” 3 mestizos – in certain zones of Peru and Bolivia. Our studies will confirm the cer- The U.S. delegation agreed to “a consensus tainty of our assertions and we hope we that it was not worth attempting to impose can present a rational plan of action ... to controls on biological substances from which attain the absolute and sure abolition of psychotropic substances could be obtained.”4 this pernicious habit.” By excluding from the schedules plants from Fonda’s language reads to us now like a which alkaloids could be extracted, the 1971 relic from a long gone era. But the decision Convention deviated – with good reason – to outlaw coca chewing based on the out- from the guiding rule that was applied with 5 dated report is still in effect today. A scien- zero-tolerance in the Single Convention. tific update formally sanctioned by a UN 1988 Convention. The 1988 Convention agency has not been undertaken since. against Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs and Embarrassingly, therefore, the 1950 report Psychotropic Substances added further con- still counts as the official UN reference fusion on the issue of traditional use. In a document on the coca leaf. new attempt to obtain legal recognition for Peru and did register reserva- traditional uses, Peru and Bolivia negoti- tions regarding the articles banning coca ated paragraph 2 of article 14 into the 1988 chewing when signing the 1961 Conven- Convention, saying that measures to eradi- tion, but both countries later withdrew cate illicit cultivation and to eliminate illicit their objections, Peru upon ratification in demand “shall respect fundamental human 1963 and Argentina in 1979. Bolivia initial- rights and shall take due account of tradi- ly did not sign at all and only acceded to the tional licit uses, where there is historic evi- treaty in 1976, without any reservations. dence of such use.” The 1961 treaty obligation to abolish coca chewing is thus universally in force today, However, the 1988 Convention (articles even though much has happened since that 14.1 and 25) also said that its provisions raises questions about the validity of the ban. should not derogate from any obligations under the previous drug control treaties. 1971 Convention. Only ten years after the Bolivia therefore also made a formal reser- Single Convention, the 1971 Convention vation to the 1988 Convention emphasizing on Psychotropic Substances took a notably that its “legal system recognizes the ances-

2 | Legislative Reform of Drug Policies tral nature of the licit use of the coca leaf the intention of the plenipotentiary con- which, for much of Bolivia’s population, ferences that adopted those conventions.” dates back over centuries.” Peru also re- served the right to legal cultivation,6 and The INCB found that it “does not appear underscored the rights to grow necessary to amend the international drug coca of its indigenous populations.7 control treaties in substantive terms at this stage, but some technical adjustments are National legislation. Like Bolivia, Peru has necessary in order to update some of their always maintained a legal coca market provisions.”12 Summarizing its conclusions under its domestic law and declared coca on the coca leaf, the Board recommended 8 chewing in 2005 as cultural patrimony. that “the conflict between the provisions of Argentina decriminalised coca leaf in 1989 the 1961 Convention and the views and by inserting the following exemption article legislation of countries where the use of coca in its own law: “The possession and con- leaf is legal should be solved. There is a need sumption of the coca leaf in its natural to undertake a scientific review to assess the state, destined for the practice of ‘coqueo’ coca-chewing habit and the drinking of coca or chewing, or its use as an infusion, will tea”,13 calling on the WHO to undertake such not be considered as possession or con- a review. sumption of narcotics.” 9 WHO. In 1992 the World Health Organi- Colombia allows the traditional use of coca zation’s Expert Committee on Drug in its indigenous reserves.10 And the new Dependence (ECDD) undertook a ‘pre- Bolivian Constitution says that the: “State review’ of coca leaf at its 28th meeting. The protects the original and ancestral coca leaf 28th ECDD report concluded that, “the coca as part of the cultural Heritage … in its leaf is appropriately scheduled under the natural state it is not a narcotic.”11 This Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, article poses an absolute legal conflict with 1961, since is readily extractable Bolivia’s obligation under the 1961 Con- from the leaf. The Committee did not vention that needs to be resolved one way recommend coca leaf for critical review.” or another.

INCB. Several of these inconsistencies were It is noteworthy that the Committee did pointed out by the International Narcotics not reconfirm the conclusion that coca leaf Control Board (INCB) in the supplement to should be scheduled because chewing the its Report for 1994. It contained a section on leaves was considered a hazardous practice, “Coca leaf: a need to clarify ambiguities,” but only because it is the raw material for saying that “the Board would like the clarifi- cocaine extraction. Moreover, the Com- cation of the long-standing misunderstand- mittee drew attention to the fact that since ing of the provisions of article 14 of the the 1950 report by the UN Commission of 1988 Convention, which has had some Inquiry on the Coca Leaf “there has been bearing on the debate on coca leaf.” The no official evaluation of coca leaf chewing 14 Board also pointed out that there by WHO.” “were no specific provisions in the 1961 Subsequently, the findings of a 1995 WHO Convention regarding another traditional study on coca/cocaine proved controver- non-medical use of coca leaf, the drinking sial, and were left unpublished due to in- of coca tea ( de coca). Thus, mate de tense U.S. pressure. According to the brief- coca, which is considered harmless and ing kit that summarized the study’s results, legal in several countries in South Ameri- the “use of coca leaves appears to have no ca, is an illegal activity under the provi- negative health effects and has positive sions of both the 1961 Convention and therapeutic, sacred and social functions for the 1988 Convention, though that was not indigenous Andean populations.”15

Legislative Reform of Drug Policies | 3 Indigenous Rights. The 2007 UN Declara- However, the implication – as spelled out tion on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – in the objection by Latvia – is that because recently endorsed by the United States in the purpose of Bolivia’s amendment is “to December 2010 – states that “indigenous maintain a habit and socio-cultural prac- peoples have the right to maintain, control, tice, not a medical or scientific purpose,” protect and develop their cultural heritage, coca leaf chewing still needs to be abol- traditional knowledge and traditional cul- ished. The UK, Canada, Denmark, Bul- tural expressions.”16 garia, Russia and Japan all more or less copied and pasted from the text of the U.S. In May 2009, the Permanent Forum on objection, not adding any further explana- Indigenous Issues, an advisory body to tion. These countries avoid addressing the ECOSOC, stated that it “recognizes the inconsistency of a coca chewing ban with cultural and medical importance of coca in the 1988 Trafficking Convention, whereby the Andean region and other indigenous all measures “shall take due account of tra- regions of South America” and recom- ditional licit uses, where there is historic mended “the amendment or abolishment evidence of such use” (article 14) and with of the sections of the Convention relating the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of to the custom of chewing coca leaf that are Indigenous Peoples, key arguments inconsistent with indigenous people’s brought forward by Bolivia. rights to maintain their traditional prac- tices in health and culture enshrined in Sweden, Germany, France and Italy, how- 7 Articles 11, 24 and 31 of the Declaration.”1 ever, phrase their objections somewhat In April 2010, the Forum welcomed Boli- differently. Sweden says it understands the via’s amendment proposal and “recom- concerns of Bolivia about the conflict mends that Member States support this between the Convention and the traditional 8 initiative.”1 coca leaf chewing. However, Sweden main- OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENT tains that “the Bolivian proposal poses the risk of creating a political precedent and The Bolivian amendment only proposes might directly infringe on the international deleting the reference in article 49 of the framework for the fight against drugs” that Single Convention that “coca leaf chewing “would send a negative signal.” The ‘nega- must be abolished within twenty-five years tive signal’ and ‘political precedent’ phras- from the coming into force of this Conven- ing is also taken up by Italy, France and tion.” The official Spanish version of the Estonia. treaty confusingly uses stronger language: instead of ‘must be abolished’ it says ‘queda- Germany recognizes “that the proposal rá prohibida,’ literally ‘will become prohib- touches upon complex development and ited.’ As the Commentary to the 1961 Con- health policy issues, in addition to the intri- vention specified, that 25-year period cate drugs issues” and is aware of the par- ended on 12 December 1989 (the treaty ticular importance of coca chewing “as part entered into force in 1964). of the cultural identity of the indigenous population, the majority of all Bolivians”. The eighteen objections submitted make Based foremost on “fundamental drug pol- hardly any attempt to argue against what icy consideration” Germany cannot accept Bolivia has actually proposed. The U.S. ob- the amendment, but proposes further dia- jection merely states that the objective of logue with Bolivia and “will give favourable the Single Convention is to limit the use of consideration to the question of convening narcotic drugs exclusively to medical and a conference of states to discuss the issue.” scientific purposes and that Schedule I lists coca leaf as a narcotic drug. No further Convening such a conference is precisely explanation is provided. what most other objecting countries hope

4 | Legislative Reform of Drug Policies to avoid, as mentioned explicitly by Den- fear that allowing Bolivia’s amendment to mark, who “finds no reason for calling a be adopted might open a Pandora’s Box. conference to consider the amendments.” The Single Convention, in this view, must Both France and Italy do refer however to a be regarded as sacrosanct, cast in stone, and ‘dialogue.’ France is “deeply committed” to allowing any changes would jeopardize the the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and “is integrity of the control system. Mexico therefore open to dialogue aimed at arriv- spelled it out in its objection, saying the ing at a solution that would better accom- country: “deems it inadvisable to initiate a modate the tradition of coca leaf chewing process to amend the Single Convention of while maintaining the integrity of the 1961.”19 Single Convention of 1961.” It appears to be forgotten that only a dec- Italy also “underlines the importance of ade after the adoption of the Single Con- respecting the cultural identity and tradi- vention, the U.S. itself proposed numerous tions of indigenous populations, guaran- amendments. “The United States believes it teed by the United Nations Declaration on is now time for the international commu- the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, nity to build on the foundation of the Italy believes that the dialogue aimed at Single Convention, since a decade has given further promoting respect for indigenous a better perspective of its strengths and traditions should be fully coherent with and weaknesses,” the U.S. argued at the time. preserve the integrity of the Single Conven- The UK was the first to support the U.S. tion.” Estonia underscores the importance call to improve the Convention and to con- of dialogue with Bolivia over their concern, vene a Conference of the Parties to discuss “but it needs to be dealt with outside the the proposals, adding some amendment framework of the 1961 Convention.” proposals themselves, which led to the 1972 Protocol amending the 1961 Convention. Perhaps feeling the pressure from the me- At the time, the U.S. did not “regard its dia and thousands of coca-chewing protes- proposals as sacrosanct; it welcomed sug- tors gathering in front of their embassy in gestions for new improvements; it hoped La Paz at the end of January, the U.S. issued also that other countries would come for- a clarifying statement. The U.S. “respects ward with their own proposals.” the culture of indigenous peoples and rec- ognizes that coca chewing is a traditional The main objectors to Bolivia’s current custom in Bolivian culture” and the “posi- proposal, arguing the need to protect the tion of the U.S. government to not support integrity of the treaty by not allowing any the proposed amendment is based on the amendments, were precisely the countries importance to maintain the integrity of the who proposed the first amendments them- 1961 Convention, which constitutes an selves, at which time they argued the need important tool for the global fight against for the control system to develop and im- drug trafficking.” prove. Another disturbing element under- There is a blatant contradiction in a line of lying several objections is that they are es- reasoning that purports to uphold respect sentially saying to Bolivia: “We don’t really for indigenous rights while simultaneously have a problem with coca chewing, but we rejecting the correction of an obvious vio- prefer that you keep violating the Conven- lation of those rights embedded in the tion rather than try to change it according Single Convention. The importance of to the established procedures.” A more defending the “integrity” of the drug con- ‘negative signal’ regarding the integrity of trol treaty system essentially overrules the treaty system is difficult to imagine, indigenous rights, according to the object- coming from countries ostensibly protect- ing countries. Behind this position lies the ing it.

Legislative Reform of Drug Policies | 5 OPTIONS FOR A SOLUTION be the most correct course of action, but it is clear already that most objecting coun- Adoption. The fact that eighteen countries tries (with the notable exception of Ger- objected to the amendment, effectively many) prefer to avoid it. Not only because blocks its automatic adoption. It does not it might be a costly and time-consuming mean, however, that the amendment is effort for such a ‘minor’ adjustment, but rejected outright. Countries can still with- more out of fear it could open a Pandora’s draw their objections, as the first three Box, as other countries might want to use countries that objected last year (Egypt, the opportunity to present other amend- Macedonia and Colombia) have already ments, as happened in 1972. done. In theory, ECOSOC can still decide that the amendment can be approved but Other possible options the Council can not considered binding on countries that consider are explained in the official Com- oppose it, in line with the official Com- mentary. The Council may “refuse to act on mentary on the amendment procedures.20 a proposal to revise the Convention” if an After all, only 18 of the 184 countries that amendment is rejected by one or several are Party to the 1961 Convention (as Parties or could “submit proposed amend- amended by the 1972 Protocol) have filed ments to the General Assembly of the objections, less than ten percent. United Nations for consideration and possible adoption.” However, given the nature of the opposing group, especially the fact that all of the G-8 Ultimately, as article 48 of the Convention countries have objected, it is highly unlikely stipulates, if a dispute arises that cannot be that the amendment could simply be ap- solved through negotiation or mediation, proved. Normally, decisions are taken by such dispute “shall be referred to the Inter- consensus at ECOSOC meetings, though national Court of Justice for decision.” the Rules of Procedure do allow for a vote. Most likely, some agreement will already be Article 47 of the Single Convention states reached through informal negotiations that if “a proposed amendment is rejected before the ECOSOC meeting takes place in by any Party, the Council may decide, in July. the light of comments received from Par- “Dialogue.” Several countries refer in their ties, whether a conference shall be called to objections to their willingness to engage in consider such amendment.” Before coming a constructive dialogue about the concerns to a decision it would “generally be advis- underlying Bolivia’s proposal, especially the able” that the Council consults the Com- conflict with indigenous rights. Spain has mission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), the also offered to play a role in terms of facili- functional body operating under tation or mediation. Though difficult to ECOSOC.21 As mentioned above, the other imagine how the legal conflict could be relevant ECOSOC advisory body, the Per- “dealt with outside the framework of the manent Forum on Indigenous Issues, has 1961 Convention,” it is definitely worth- already presented its recommendation on while to explore the different options in the the matter, namely to support the Bolivian context of a more informal but serious dia- initiative. logue between the interested parties.

Conference of Parties. A conference of the It might be proper to involve indigenous Parties in principle would operate on the peoples representatives in such a dialogue, basis of a simple majority voting procedure, as the UN Special Rapporteur on indige- as did the original 1961 conference and the nous peoples rights, James Anaya, said that 1972 conference that adopted the protocol it “has become a generally accepted prin- amending the Single Convention. Proce- ciple in international law that indigenous durally, calling for such a conference would peoples should be consulted as to any deci-

6 | Legislative Reform of Drug Policies sion affecting them,”22 a right also recog- critical review, which would lead to a nized in the Declaration on the Rights of recommendation by the Expert Committee Indigenous Peoples. The dialogue could regarding the status of the coca leaf under discuss the concerns of the objecting coun- the Single Convention. tries, especially the consequences they feel The Committee, after reviewing all the it would have on them if the amendment available evidence, could either recommend were to be approved, and it could discuss that no change is required, to move coca the merits of two other possible procedures leaf from schedule I to another schedule, or the treaty offers: withdrawal from the treaty to remove coca leaf from the schedules followed by re-adherence with a reserva- altogether. The CND subsequently decides tion, and a WHO review of the scheduling by simple majority vote whether or not to of the coca leaf. adopt the WHO recommendation. Withdrawal & reservation. In case the Hopefully all countries involved are willing amendment is rejected, President Evo to engage in an open and constructive dia- Morales has said that Bolivia will contem- logue about the dilemma Bolivia and other plate withdrawing from the Single Conven- countries allowing coca leaf consumption tion and adhere again with a reservation on are faced with. Simply rejecting the amend- the coca leaf, similar to the reservation ment will not make the issue disappear. Bolivia made upon signing the 1988 Con- The legal conflict will have to be resolved vention.23 Other countries that have voiced one way or another. explicit support for the Bolivian amend- ment such as Spain, , Venezuela NOTES and Uruguay, as well as countries that legally allow coca chewing within their 1. Martin Jelsma coordinates the Drugs & Democra- cy programme at the Transnational Institute (TNI) in country, such as Peru, Argentina and The Netherlands. Colombia could consider joining Bolivia if 2. For an overview with links to the official notifica- it decides to withdraw and re-adhere with tions, see: reservations. Also, in northern Chile and in http://www.druglawreform.info/en/issues/unscheduli the Brazilian Amazon there are ancestral ng-the-coca-leaf/item/1184-objections-and-support- practices of coca leaf consumption. for-bolivias-coca-amendment 3. E/CONF.58/7/Add.l, United Nations Conference In fact, all South American countries have for the adoption of a Protocol on Psychotropic Sub- stances, Vienna, 11 January - 19 February 1971, Offi- signed several declarations by the Union of cial Records, Volume II: Summary records of plenary South American Nations (UNASUR) that meetings, Minutes of the meetings of the General acknowledged that the chewing of coca Committee and the Committee on Control Measures, leaves is an ancestral cultural expression New York, United Nations, 1973, pp. 106-107. that should be respected by the interna- 4. Ibid, p. 38. tional community.24 5. David Bewley-Taylor and Martin Jelsma, Fifty Years of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic WHO review procedure. A review of coca Drugs: A Reinterpretation, TNI Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies, No. 12, March 2011. leaf by the WHO is long overdue, as both the INCB and the WHO Expert Committee 6. Upon signature, Peru deposited “an express res- ervation to paragraph 1 (a) (ii) of article 3, concern- have mentioned. The European Union, ing offences and sanctions; that paragraph includes after discussing Bolivia’s proposed amend- cultivation among the activities established as crimi- ment in several meetings of the Horizontal nal offences, without drawing the necessary clear Drugs Groups, also mentioned that “pursu- distinction between licit and illicit cultivation.” ing the dialogue would remain essential on 7. Colombia deposited a declaration upon ratification saying among other things, “It is the view of Colom- the basis of future scientific studies to be bia that treatment under the Convention of the culti- 25 carried out by the WHO.” Any country vation of the coca leaf as a criminal offence must be can request the WHO to undertake such a harmonized with a policy of alternative development,

Legislative Reform of Drug Policies | 7 taking into account the rights of the indigenous com- Council, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, munities involved and the protection of the environ- Report on the 9th session (19-30 April 2010). ment.” 19. The original Spanish wording is even more clear: 8. Peruvian National Culture Institute, Resolution “no resulta oportuno iniciar ningún proceso de en- 1707/INC of 6 December 2005, miendas a la Convención Única de 1961,” that is, http://www.inc.gob.pe/patrimonio_cultural.shtml?x= “Mexico does not want to start ‘any process of 23 amendments,” (emphasis added). 9. Argentina, Criminal Law N 23.737, 1989, Art. 15. 20. United Nations, Commentary on the Single Con- 10. Article 7 of Law 30: “… reglamentará los cultivos vention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, New York,1973, p. de plantas de las cuales se produzcan sustancias estu- 462: “...always provided that no amendment, how- pefacientes y el consumo de éstas por parte de las ever adopted, would be binding upon a Party not poblaciones indígenas, de acuerdo con los usos y accepting it.” prácticas derivadas de su tradición y cultura.” 21. The Commentary reads: “It was undoubtedly the 11. Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, understanding of the Plenipotentiary Conference Article 384. The Constitution came into effect on 7 that the Council would consult the Commission on February 2009, after more than 61 per cent of voters Narcotic Drugs before taking a decision under article approved its text in a referendum on 25 January 47. It was therefore found not to be necessary to pro- 2009. vide in the treaty expressly for such a consultation. The Council has, however, no legal obligation to ob- 12. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the international tain the views of the Commission before taking drug control treaties, Supplement to the INCB An- action under the terms of article 47, although this nual Report for 1994, p. 9. might generally be advisable.” (p. 463). http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/ar/incb_report_1994_sup plement_en_3.pdf 22. James Anaya, “Indigenous Peoples’ Participatory Rights in Relation to Decisions about Natural 13. E/INCB/1994/1, INCB Report for 1994, Chapter I, Resource Extraction: The More Fundamental Issue of Overview: Evaluation of the effectiveness of the inter- What Rights Indigenous Peoples Have in Land and national drug control treaties, New York, 1995, p 4. Resources,” in Arizona Journal of International and 14. WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence, Comparative Law, 22:1 (2005). Twenty-eighth Report, 836 Technical Report Series, 23. Parties will have a period of twelve months to ob- Geneva 1993. ject to the new reservation. For a legal analysis of the 15. WHO/UNICRI Cocaine Project, Briefing Kit, 3 option of treaty denunciation and reaccession with March 1995. reservation, see: Helfer, L.R., “Not fully committed? http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/docu Reservations, risk and treaty design,” in: Yale Journal ments/who-briefing-kit.pdf. See also: Coca, Cocaine of International Law, 2006, Vol. 31, pp. 367-82. and the International Conventions, TNI Drug Policy http://www.yale.edu/yjil/PDFs/vol_31/Helfer.pdf Briefing, No. 5, April 2003. 24. Declaración Presidencial de Quito, III Reunión 16. Article 31 of the United Nations Declaration on Ordinaria del Consejo de Jefas y Jefes de Estado y de the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Adopted by Gen- Gobierno de la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas eral Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September (UNASUR), 10 August 2009, 2007. http://www.comunidadandina.org/unasur/10-8- 17. E/2009/43 - E/C.19/2009/14, Economic and 09Dec_quito.htm Social Council, Permanent Forum on Indigenous 25. 5443/11 - CORDROGUE 9, Meeting of the Hori- Issues, Report on the 8th session (18-29 May 2009). zontal Working Party on Drugs, 21 December 2010, 18. E/2010/43-E/C.19/2010/15, Economic and Social Summary of discussions, Brussels, 19 January 2011.

TNI Drug Law Reform Project

The project aims to promote more humane, balanced, and effective drug laws. Decades of repressive drug policies have not reduced the scale of drug markets and have led instead to Transnational Institute (TNI) human rights violations, a crisis in the judicial and penitentiary De Wittenstraat 25 systems, the consolidation of organized crime, and the margi- 1052 AK Amsterdam nalization of vulnerable drug users, drug couriers and growers The Netherlands of illicit crops. The project aims to stimulate the debate around Tel: -31-20-6626608 legislative reforms by highlighting good practices and lessons Fax: -31-20-6757176 learned in areas such as decriminalization, proportionality of E-mail: [email protected] sentences, specific harm reduction measures, alternatives to www.tni.org/drugs incarceration, and scheduling criteria for different substances. www.druglawreform.info

8 | Legislative Reform of Drug Policies