E_CONF_34_24_EF
Correct misalignment Change languages order
E/CONF.34/24 e-conf-34-24-e.pdf (English)E/CONF.34/24 e-conf-34-24-f.pdf (French)
E/CONF.S4/24 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs New York — 24 January - 25 March 1961 Official Records Volume I : Summary Records of plenary meetings UNITED NATIONS United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs New York — 24 January - 25 March 1961 Official Records Volume I : Summary Records of plenary meetings UNITED NATIONS - NEW YORK, 1964 INTRODUCTORY NOTE This volume contains, in addition to the list of delegations and other necessary preliminary documents, the corrected and edited summary records of the plenary meetings of the Conference which were distributed in provisional form as documents E/CONF.34/SR.1-43. The corrected and edited summary records of the Committees of the Conference, together with a selection of the technical documents and the text of the Convention, the third draft of the Convention and the Final Act, are included in Volume II. United Nations documents are indicated by symbols composed of letters and figures. A list of such documents referred to in these records will be found at the end of Volume II. A/CONF.34/24 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales number: 63. XI. 4 Price: $U.S. 2.50 (or equivalent in other currencies) CONTENTS Page Resolution 689 J (XXVI) of the Economic and Social Council convening the Conference IX List of delegations and Secretariat of the Conference XI Report of the Credentials Committee XIX Organization of the work of the Conference XXI Division of the Convention and outline time-table XXIII Rules of procedure XXV SUMMARY RECORDS OF PLENARY MEETINGS Page First meeting — Tuesday, 24 January 1961, at 3.45 p.m. Opening of the Conference 1 Election of Chairman 2 Adoption of the rules of procedure 2 Election of the Vice-Presidents 3 Appointment of the Credentials Committee 3 Second meeting — Wednesday, 25 January 1961, at 3 p.m. Organization of work 4 General statements: United Kingdom 4 Federal Republic of Germany 4 Brazil 5 Canada 5 Iran 5 United Arab Republic 6 Pakistan 6 United States of America 6 Netherlands 7 Third meeting — Thursday, 26 January 1961, at 10.35 a.m. General statements (continued): Lebanon 7 Thailand 7 India . 7 Burma 8 France. 9 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 9 Federal Republic of Germany 9 Yugoslavia 10 Turkey 10 Dahomey 10 Page Fourth meeting — Friday, 27 January 1961, at 10.35 a.m. General statements (continued): Denmark 10 Hungary 11 Australia 11 Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic .. . 11 Afghanistan 12 Greece , . 12 Bulgaria 12 Indonesia 12 China 13 Guatemala 13 Israel 13 Czechoslovakia 14 Republic of Korea 14 Poland 14 Madagascar 15 Mexico 15 Philippines 16 Fifth meeting — Friday, 27 January 1961, at 3.5 p.m. General statements (concluded): Jordan 16 World Health Organization.. 16 Ghana 16 Adoption of the rules of procedure (resumed from the first meeting) 16 Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft): Article 2 (Substances under control); Article 3 (Changes in the scope of control) 16 iii United Nations Conference for the adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Page Sixth meeting — Monday, 30 January 1961, at 10.35 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued) 19 Article 2 (Substances under control); Article 3 (Changes in the scope of control) — (Continued) 20 Seventh meeting — Tuesday, 31 January 1961, at 10.35 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 30 (Medical and scientific purposes) 25 Article 40 (Manufacture) 26 Article 41 (Trade and distribution) 28 Eighth meeting — Tuesday, 31 January 1961, at 3.5 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 41 (Trade and distribution) (continued) 30 Article 42 (International trade) 33 Article 42 bis (Special provisions concerning the carriage of drugs in first-aid kits); Article 43 (Measures of supervision and inspection) 35 Article 25 (Special administration) 36 Ninth meeting — Wednesday, 1 February 1961, at 10.35 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 31 (National Opium agencies); Article 32 (Restrictions on international trade in opium and poppy straw); Article 33 (Limitation of stocks); Article 34 (Disposal ©f confiscated opium and poppy straw) 32 Tenth meeting — Thursday, 2 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 31 (National opium agencies); Article 32 (Restrictions on international trade in opium and poppy straw); Article 33 (Limitation of stocks); Article 34 (Disposal of confiscated opium and poppy straw) — (Continued) 41 Eleventh meeting — Monday, 6 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. Appointment of technical committee 47 Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 31 (National opium agencies); Article 32 (Restrictions on international trade in opium and poppy straw); Article 33 (Limitation of stocks); Article 34 (Disposal of confiscated opium and poppy straw) — (Continued) 47 Twelfth meeting — Tuesday, 7 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. Appointment of drafting committee 53 Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 35 (Restrictions on the cultivation or growth of the coca bush); Article 36 (National coca leaf agencies); Article 37 (Restrictions on the international trade in coca leaves and crude cocaine); Article 38 ^Special provisions relating to coca leaves in general).. 53 Page Thirteenth meeting— Wednesday, 8 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 39 (Prohibition of cannabis) 58 Fourteenth meeting— Tuesday, 14 February 1961, at 2.50 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 2 (Substances under control) (resumed from the sixth meeting) 63 Fifteenth meeting — Wednesday, 15 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 3 (Changes in the scope of control) (resumed from the sixth meeting) 65 Article 41 (Trade and distribution); Article 42 (International trade); Article 43 (Measures of supervision and inspection) — (Resumed from the eighth meeting). 68 Sixteenth meeting— Wednesday, 15 February 1961, at 3.5 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued) 69 Article 30 (Medical and scientific purposes) (resumed from the seventh meeting) 71 Article 40 (Manufacture) (resumed from the seventh meeting) . 71 Article 41 (Trade and distribution) (continued) 71 Article 42 (International trade) (continued) 72 Article 42 bis (Special provisions concerning the carriage of drugs in first-aid kits) (resumed from the eighth meeting) 72 Article 43 (Measures of supervision and inspection) (continued) 72 Seventeenth meeting — Thursday, 16 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 4 (Obligations of the parties); Article 20 (Administration of the estimate system); Article 21 (Administration of the statistical returns system); Article 26 (Information to be furnished to the Secretary-General); Article 27 (Statistical returns to be furnished to the Board); Article 28 (Estimates of production and drug requirements); Article 29 (Limitation of manufacture and importation) 73 Eighteenth meeting— Thursday, 16 February 1961, at 3.5 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 4 (Obligations of the parties); Article 20 (Administration of the estimate system); Article 21 (Administration of the statistical returns system); Article 26 (Information to be furnished to the Secretary-General); Article 27 (Statistical returns to be furnished to the Board); Article 28 (Estimates of production and drug requirements); Article 29 (Limitation of manufacture and importation) — (Continued) 78 Article 22 (Measures to ensure the execution of the provisions of the Convention) 80 Contents Page Ninteenth meeting—Friday, 17 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 22 (Measures to ensure the execution of the provisions of the convention) (continued) 84 Article 5 (The international control organs); Article 6 (Expenses of the international control organs); Article 7 (Constitutional position and continuity of functions of the Commission); Article 8 (Privileges and immunities of members of the Commission); Article 9 (Committees of the Commission); Article 10 (Decisions and recommendations of the Commission); Article 11 (Functions of the Commission) 87 Twentieth meeting — Monday, 20 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 5 (The international control organs); Article 6 (Expenses of the international control organs); Article 7 (Constitutional position and continuity of functions of the Commission); Article 8 (Privileges and immunities of members of the Commission); Article 9 (Committees of the Commission); Article 10 (Decisions and recommendations of the Commission); Article 11 (Functions of the Commission) — (Continued) 89 Article 13 (Composition of the Board); Article 14 (Terms of office of members of the Board); Article 15 (Privileges, immunities and remuneration of members of the Board); Article 16 (Rules of procedure of the Board); Article 17 (Delegation of authority of the Board); Article 18 (Decisions of the Board); Article 19 (Functions of the Board) 90 Twenty-first meeting — Monday, 20 February 1961, at 3.5 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued) : Article 13 (Composition of the Board); Article 14 (Terms of office of members of the Board); Article 15 (Privileges, immunities and remuneration of members of the Board); Article 16 (Rules of procedure of the Board); Article 17 (Delegation of authority of the Board); Article 18 (Decisions of the Board); Article 19 (Functions of the Board) — (Continued) 94 Article 23 (Reports of the Board to the Council and parties) 97 Article 12 (Secretariat of the Commission); Article 24 (Administrative services of the Board) 100 Twenty-second meeting — Tuesday, 21 February 1961, at 10.35 a.m Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued) 100 Article 35 (Restrictions on the cultivation or growth of the coca bush) (resumed from the twelfth meeting) 100 Article 36 (National coca leaf agencies); Article 37 (Restrictions on the international trade in coca leaves and crude cocaine) — (Resumed from the twelfth meeting) .. 100 Article 38 (Special provisions relating to coca leaves in general) (Resumed from the twelfth meeting) 103 Article 47 (Treatment of drug addicts) 103 Page Twenty-third meeting— Monday, 27 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. Tribute to the memory of H.M. King Mohammed V of Morocco 104 Consideration of the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 47 (Treatment of drug addicts) (continued) 105 Twenty-fourth meeting — Monday, 27 February 1961, at 3.5 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 47 (Treatment of drug addicts) (Continued) 105 Article 12 (Secretariat of the Commission); Article 24 (Administrative services of the Board) — (Resumed from the twenty-first meeting) 114 Twenty-fifth meeting — Tuesday, 28 February 1961, at 11.5 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 12 (Secretariat of the Commission); Article 24 (Administrative services of the Board) — (Continued). 116 Article 7 (Constitutional position and continuity of functions of the Commission); Article 10 (Decisions and recommendations of the Commission); Article 11 (Functions of the Commission); Article 13 (Composition of the Board); Article 14 (Terms of office of members of the Board); Article 15 (Privileges, immunities and remuneration of members of the Board); Article 16 (Rules of procedure of the Board); Article 19 (Functions of the Board); Article 23 (Reports of the Board to the Council and parties) — (Resumed from the twentieth and twenty-first meetings) 120 Twenty-sixth meeting — Monday, 6 March, 1961, at 11.15 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued) 120 Article 44 (International co-operation) 120 Article 45 (Penal provisions) 122 Twenty-seventh meeting — Monday, 6 March 1961, at 3.5 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 45 (Penal provisions) (continued) 124 Article 46 (Seizure and confiscation) 128 Twenty-eighth meeting — Wednesday, 8 March, 1961, at 3.10 p.m. Tribute to the memory of Mr. G. B. Pant 129 Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued) 129 Article 26 (Information to be furnished to the Secretary-General) (Resumed from the eighteenth meeting) .. 129 Article 27 (Statistical returns to be furnished to the Board) (Resumed from the eighteenth meeting) 129 Article 28 (Estimates of production and drug requirements) (Resumed from the eighteenth meeting) 132 v United Nations Conference for the adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Page Article 29 (Limitation of manufacture and importation) (Resumed from the eighteenth meeting) 134 Article 20 (Administration of the estimate system) (Resumed from the eighteenth meeting) 134 Twenty-ninth meeting — Thursday, 9 March 1951, at 10.50 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 20 (Administration of the estimate system) (continued) 135 Article 21 (Administration of the statistical returns system (resumed from the eighteenth meeting) 136 Article 4 (Obligations of the parties) (resumed from the eighteenth meeting) 136 Article 27 (Statistical returns to be furnished to the Board) (resumed from the previous meeting) 136 Article 22 (Measures to ensure the execution of the provisions of the Convention) (resumed from the eighteenth meeting) 136 Thirtieth meeting — Thursday, 9 March 1951, at 3.10 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 22 (Measures to ensure the execution of the provisions of the Convention) (continued) 139 Article 20 (Administration of the estimate system) (resumed from the previous meeting) 140 Article 21 (Administration of the Statistical returns system) (resumed from the previous meeting) 141 Thirty-first meeting — Thursday, 16 March 1961, at 8.30p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 7 (Constitutional position and continuity of functions of the Commission) (resumed from the twenty-fifth meeting) 142 Article 10 (Decisions and recommendations of the Commission) (resumedfrom the twenty-fifth meeting). 142 Article 11 (Functions of the Commission) (resumed from the twenty-fifth meeting) 142 Article 13 (Composition of the Board) (resumed from the twenty-fifth meeting) 142 Article 14 (Terms of office of members of the Board) (resumed from the twenty-fifth meeting) 144 Article 15 (Privileges, immunities and remuneration of members of the Board) (resumed from the twenty-fifth meeting) 144 Article 16 (Rules of procedure of the Board) (resumed from the twenty-fifth meeting) 144 Article 19 (Functions of the Board) (resumed from the twenty-fifth meeting) 144 Article 23 (Reports of the Board on the Council and parties) (resumed from the twenty-fifth meeting).. 144 Thirty-second meeting —Friday, 17 March 1961, at 2.45 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 45 (Penal provisions) (resumed from the twentyseventh meeting) 145 Article 46 (Seizure and confiscation) (resumed from the twenty-seventh meeting) 148 Page Article 25 (Special administration) (resumed from the eighth meeting) 148 Article 44 (International co-operation) (resumed from the twenty-sixth meeting) 149 Article 49 (Entry into force) 149 Thirty-third meeting — Monday, 20 March 1961, at 10.15 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 31 (National opium agencies) (resumed from the eleventh meeting) 150 Article 32 (Restrictions on the international trade in opium and poppy straw) (resumed from the eleventh meeting) 150 Article 33 (Limitations of stocks) (resumed from the eleventh meeting) 152 Article 34 (Disposal of confiscated opium and poppy straw) (resumed from the eleventh meeting) 153 New paragraph proposed by Canada and the United States of America 153 Article 36 (National coca leaf agencies); Article 37 (Restrictions on the international trade in coca leaves and crude cocaine) — (Resumed from the twentysecond meeting) 153 Article 39 (Prohibition of cannabis) (resumed from the thirteenth meeting) 153 Thirty-fourth meeting — Monday, 20 March 1961, at 2.55 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Statement by the representative of the ILO 155 Article 39 (Prohibition of cannabis) (continued) 155 Article 48 (Languages of the Convention and procedure for acceptance) 156 Thirty-fifth meeting — Tuesday, 21 March 1961, at 10.15 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 48 (Languages of the Convention and procedure for acceptance) (continued) 164 Article 49 (Entry into force) (resumed from the thirtysecond meeting) 165 Article 50 (Territorial application) 167 Thirty-sixth meeting — Tuesday, 21 March 1961, at 3.15 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Areicle 50 (Territorial applicarion) (continued) 169 Article 50 bis (Territories for the purpose of articles 27, 28, 29 and 42) (new article proposed by the Netherlands) 170 Article 51 (Termination or previous international treaties) 171 Article 52 (Transitional provisions) 174 Article 53 (Denunciation) 175 Article 54 (Amendments) 175 Article 55 (Disputes) 177 Thirty-seventh meeting — Wednesday, 22 March 1961, at 11.15 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 56 (Reservations) 178 vi Contents Page Thirty-eighth meeting — Wednesday, 22 March 1961, at 3.10 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 56 (Reservations) (continued) 182 Article 57 (Notifications) 186 Article 1 (Definitions) 186 Thirty-ninth meeting — Thursday, 23 March 1961, at 11. 15 a.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued): Article 42 (International trade) (resumed from the sixteenth meeting) 188 Article 3 (Changes in the scope of control) (resumed from the fifteenth meeting) 188 Article 42 bis (Special provisions concerning the carriage of drugs in first-aid kits) (resumed from the sixteenth meeting) 188 Article 11 (Functions of the Commission) (resumed from the thirty-first meeting) 188 Article 2 (Substances under control) (resumed from the fourteenth meeting) 189 Schedules 190 Page Fortieth meeting — Thursday, 23 March 1961, at 3.20 p.m. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (continued) : Schedules (continued) 191 Draft resolutions 195 Report of the Credentials Committee 201 Forty-first meeting — Friday, 24 March 1961, at 11.15 a.m. Report of the Credentials Committee (concluded) 201 Draft resolutions (resumed from the previous meeting) 205 Forty-second meeting — Friday, 24 March 1961, at 3.30 p.m. Draft resolutions (continued) 207 Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Final reading 207 Forty-third (final) meeting — Saturday, 25 March 1961, a 11.20 a.m Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Final reading (concluded) 212 Draft resolutions (resumed from the forty-first meeting, and concluded) 216 Final Act 216 Closure of the Conference 216 vii RESOLUTION 689 J (XXVI) OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL CONVENING THE CONFERENCE The Economic and Social Council, Recalling its resolutions 159 II D (VII) of 3 August 1948 and 246 D (IX) of 6 July 1949 requesting the preparation of a draft of a single convention in order to replace by a single instrument the existing multilateral treaties relating to the control of narcotic drugs, to reduce the number of international treaty organs exclusively concerned with such control and to make provision for the control of the production of raw materials of narcotic drugs, Noting that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs has completed such a draft, 1. Requests the Secretary-General to transmit the draft of the Single Convention adopted by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs at its twelfth and thirteenth sessions to all States Members of the United Nations and States Members of the specialized agencies and of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to the World Health Organization, other specialized agencies, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Permanent Central Opium Board and Drug Supervisory Body, and to the International Criminal Police Organization; 2. Invites the States and organizations referred to in paragraph 1 above to transmit to the Secretary-General their comments on the draft not later than 1 October 1959; 3. Requests the Secretary-General to prepare, and to communicate to these States and organizations by 31 December 1959, a compilation of the comments received by the Secretariat by 1 November 1959; 4. Decides to convene, in accordance with Article 62, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations, and with the provisions of General Assembly resolution 366 (VI) of 3 December 1949, a plenipotentiary conference for the adoption of a single convention on narcotic drugs to replace the existing multilateral treaties in the field; 5. Requests the Secretary-General: (a) To call such a conference within a reasonable period, in the light of the time-limits mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 above; (b) To invite to the conference: (i) The States mentioned in paragraph 1 above; (ii) The World Health Organization and other specialized agencies interested in the matter, with the same rights as they enjoy at sessions of the Economic and Social Council; (iii) The Permanent Central Opium Board and Drug Supervisory Body, with the same rights as these two organs enjoy at sessions of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs; (iv) The International Criminal Police Organization, with the same rights as this organization enjoys at sessions of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs; (c) To prepare provisional rules of procedure for the conference. ix LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES DELEGATIONS AFGHANISTAN Representative: Mr. A. H. Tabibi, Counsellor, Permanent Mission. ALBANIA Representative: H.E. Mr. R. Malile, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate representative: Mr. K. Andoni, Counsellor, Permanent Mission. ARGENTINA Representative: Dr. C. Ortiz de Rozas, Counsellor of Embassy, Permanent Mission. AUSTRALIA Representative: Mr. H. S. Warren, Collector of Customs, Victoria. Alternate Representatives: Dr. A. Johnson, Senior Medical Officer, Commonwealth Department of Health; Mr. R. J. Prowse, Department of Customs and Excise; Mr. C. E. Mackenzie, Department of Customs and Excise, Canberra; Mr. P. C. J. Curtis. Representative: Mr. L. Mendizabal. BOLIVIA BRAZIL Representative: Mr. A. G. R. Bittencourt, Minister Plenipotentiary, Delegation to the Organization of American States. Alternate Representative: Mr. A. J. Regattieri Ferrari, Second Secretary of Embassy, Ministry of External Relations. Parliamentary Adviser: Mr. M. Leuzzi, Member of the House of Representatives. BULGARIA Representative: H.E. Mr. Y. Tchobanov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Mr. M. Grinberg, First Secretary, Permanent Mission; Mr. D. D. Stamboliev, First Secretary, Permanent Mission; Mr. M. Molerov, First Secretary, Permanent Mission. BURMA Representative: U Tin Maung, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternative Representatives: U Ba Sein, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Revenue; U Kyin, Commissioner of Excise; U Tun Pe, Officer on Special Duty, Shan States Government. BYELORUSSIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC Representative: Prof. C. S. Shadursky, Chairman, Pharmacology Department, Minsk Medical Institute. Alternate Representative: Mr. A. E. Gurinovich, First Secretary, Permanent Mission. CAMBODIA Representative: H.E. M. Nong Kimny, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. C. Measketh, Minister Plenipotentiary, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations. CANADA Representative: Mr. E. R. Curran, Q.C., Legal Adviser, Department of National Health and Welfare. United Nations Conference for the adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Alternate Representative: Mr. K. C. Hossick, Representative on the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Technical Adviser: Mr. R. C. Hammond, Chief, Division of Narcotics Control, Department of National Health and Welfare. Adviser: Mr. G. Mathieu, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission. Observer: Mr. Justice G. E. Tritschler, Court of Appeal, Manitoba CHAD Representative: H.E. Mr. J. P. Toura Gaba, Minister of Foreign Affairs. CHILE Representative: H.E. Mr. D. Schweitzer, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. V. Rioseco, Counsellor, Permanent Mission. CHINA Representative: Mr. Wei Hsioh-Ren, Minister Plenipotentiary, Permanent Mission. Alternate Representatives: Mr. Liang Chi-Kwei; Mr. Cha Hsiu, Technical Counsellor, Permanent Mission. Advisers: Mr. Wang Meng-hsien, First Secretary, Permanent Mission; Mr. Huang Shung Chai, First Secretary, Permanent Mission. Secretary: Mr. Wu Yung fa. CONGO (LEOPOLDVILLE) Representative: Mr. J. Maboti, Member of Parliament; Alternate Representative: Mr. Van Nieuwenborg, Chief Pharmacist and Technical Adviser, Ministry of Public Health. xii COSTA RICA Representative: H.E. Mr. G. Ortiz Martin, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. O. Chavarra Poll, Consul General, New York. CZECHOSLOVAKIA Representative: Mr. Z. Cernik, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Miss M. Veliskova, Official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Adviser: Mr. Z. Nejedly, Second Secretary of Embassy, Permanent Mission. DAHOMEY Representative: H.E. Mr. L. Ignacio-Pinto, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Rrepresentative: Mr. Zoller DENMARK Representative: H.E. Mr. A. Hessellund-Jensen, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. J. H. Koch, Legal Adviser to the Pharmaceutical Division of the National Health Service, Ministry of the Interior. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Representative: H.E. Mrs. M. Bernardino, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. EL SALVADOR Representative: H.E. Mr. M. R. Urquia, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. List of representatives Alternate Representatives: Mr. F. A. Carrillo, Minister Plenipotentiary, Permanent Mission; Mr. F. Vega-Gomez, Minister Plenipotentiary, Alternate Representative to the United Nations. FINLAND Representative: Mr. H. Blomstedt, First Secretary of Embassy, Permanent Mission. FRANCE Representative: Mr. P. Millet, Minister Plenipotentiary, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Dr. Mabileau, Divisional Inspector of Health; Mr. R. Establie, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Permanent Mission to the European Office of the United Nations. GERMANY, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF Representative: Mr. H. Danner, Minister Counsellor, Federal Ministry of the Interior. Alternate Representative: Mr. G. Brunner, Second Secretary, Office of the Permanent Observer. GHANA Representative: Mr. J. A. Kuntoh, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission. Adviser: Mr. S. B. Adjepong, Chief Pharmacist, Ministry of Health. GREECE Representative: H.E. Mr. P. Economou-Gouras, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Mr. B. Vitsakis, Counsellor of Embassy, Permanent Mission; Mr. J. Gregoriades, First Secretary of Embassy, Permanent Mission. GUATEMALA Representative: Mrs. A. de Arenas. HAITI Representative: Mr. E. Jean-Louis, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission. HOLY SEE Representative: Monsignor J. H. Griffiths. Alternate Representatives: Monsignor T. J. Flynn; Father Gallagher. Advisers: Father Re; Mr. J. J. Murtagh; Mr. W. D. Walsh. HUNGARY Representative: H.E. Mr. P. Mod, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Mr. I. Vertes, Director of the Pharmaceutical Centre in Budapest. Mr. J. Benyi, Second Secretary, Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Advisers: Mr. T. Lorinc, Counsellor, Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Mr. J. Horvath, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission; Mr. J. Tardos, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission; Mr. T. Aranyi, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission. INDIA Representative: Mr. B. N. Banerji, Member, Central Board of Revenue. Alternate Representatives: Mr. T. Raj, Narcotics Commissioner; Mr. V. A. Kidwai, First Secretary, Permanent Mission; Mr. R. S. Gae, Joint Secretary and Legal Adviser to the Government of India, Ministry of Law. INDONESIA Representative: H.E. Mr. S. Wirjopranoto, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. S. Prawirosoejanto, Chief of the Pharmaceutical Division, Department of Health. xiii United Nations Conference for the adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Advisers: Police Commissioner I. Soedradjat, Assistant Head of the Indonesian National Central Bureau of Interpol; Mr. Sutanto, Second Secretary of Embassy, Permanent Mission. IRAN Representative: Mr. H. A. Azarakhsh, Director General of the Narcotics Control Department, Ministry of Public Health. Alternate Representatives: Mr. F. Zand Fard, First Secretary, Permanent Mission; Mr. A. A. Farahmand, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission. IRAQ Representative: H.E. Mr. A. M. Pachachi, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Mr. I. T. Kittani, First Secretary, Permanent Mission; Miss F. Kamal, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission. ISRAEL Representative: H.E. Mr. M. S. Comay, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Miss H. Hareli, Counsellor, Permanent Mission; Mr. Y. Zidon, Vice-Consul, New York; Mr. M. Elizur, Counsellor, Permanent Mission; Colonel M. Shaham, Counsellor, Permanent Mission; Mr. E. Marom, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission. ITALY Representative: Mr. M. Franzi, Counsellor, Permanent Mission. Alternate Representative: Mr. G. Scolamiero. JAPAN Representative: H.E. Mr. K. Matsudaira, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. K. Chikaraishi, Counsellor, Permanent Mission; Mr. H. Asahina, Chief, Division of Narcotics, Ministry of Health and Welfare; Mr. T. Nakajima, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission; Mr. S. Kadota, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission. JORDAN Representative: Mr. Y. J. Joury, First Secretary, Permanent Mission. KOREA (REPUBLIC OF) Representative: Mr. Duk Choo Moon, Consul General, New York. Alternate Representatives: Mr. Suk Tae Limb, Consul, New York; Mr. Hyun Yuen Lee, Narcotics Control Section, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. LEBANON Representative: H.E. Mr. G. Hakim, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. LIBERIA Representative: Mr. A. Johnson. Alternate Representative: Mr. Jacob N. Cisco. MADAGASCAR Representative: Mr. R. Andriamaharo. MEXICO Representative: H.E. Mr. Oscar Rabasa, Ambassador. Alternate Representatives: Mr. J. Castaneda, Alternate Representative to the United Nations; Mr. J. Barona Lobato. General Secretariat: Mr. J. Calvillo, First Secretary, Permanent Mission. Adviser: Mr. R. Illescas Frisbie. MONACO Representative: Mr. M. Palmaro, Consul General, New York. List of representatives Alternate RepresentativeMr. J. Dube. MOROCCO Representative: H.E. Mr. El Mehdi Ben Aboud, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. M. Warzazi, Secretary to the Permanent Mission. NETHERLANDS Representative: H.E. Mr. C. W. A. Schurmann, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Mr. A. Kruysse, Deputy Director-in-Chief of Public Health, Ministry of Social Affairs and Public Health; Miss J. D. Pelt, First Secretary of Embassy, Permanent Mission; Mr. R. H. Fein, Second Secretary of Embassy, Permanent Mission; Mr. F. G. Boulonois, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. NEW ZEALAND Representative: Dr. D. P. Kennedy, Director of the Division of Public Health, Department of Health. Alternate Representative: Mr. R. W. Sharp, Permanent Mission. NICARAGUA Representative: H.E. Mr. L. M. Debayle, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Adviser: Mr. J. Roman, Counsellor, Permanent Mission. NIGERIA Representative: H.E. A. M. Ngileruma, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Advisers: Mr. C. O. Ifeagwu, First Secretary, Permanent Mission; Mr. P. C. Asiodu, First Secretary, Permanent Mission. NORWAY Representative: H.E. Mr. S. A. Nielsen, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. J. Arvesen, Attache, Permanent Mission. PAKISTAN Representative: Mr. M. Aslam, Member of the Central Board of Revenue. Alternate Representative: Mr. A. K. A. Karim, Officer of the Central Board of Revenue and Secretary of the Narcotics Board. PANAMA Representative: H.E. Dr. C. A. Quintero, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Deputy Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. O. A. Sosa, Director of the Pharmaceutical and Narcotic Drugs Division, Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare and Public Health. PARAGUAY Representative: Mr. M. Solano Lopez, Minister Counsellor, Alternate Representative to the United Nations Permanent Mission. PERU Representative: Mr. M. F. Maurtua, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission. Counsellor: Mr. J. Estrella. PHILIPPINES Representative: H.E. Mr. F. A. Delgado, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Mrs. S. D. Campomanes, Chief, Narcotic Drugs Division of Bureau of Internal Revenue; Mrs. C. M. Fernandez, Assistant Chief, Narcotic Drugs Division, Bureau of Internal Revenue; Mr. E; D. Espinosa, Chief Drug Inspector, Bureau of Health. XV United Nations Conference for the adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs POLAND Representative: H.E. Mr. B. Lewandowski, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Mr. J. Machowski, Counsellor, Permanent Mission; Mr. S. Bukowski, Director of the Department of Pharmacy, Ministry of Health. Advisers: Mr. A. Czarkowski, First Secretary, Permanent Mission; Mr. W. Wieczorek, Counsellor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. PORTUGAL Representative: Mr. L. S. de Oliveira, Second Secretary of Embassy, Permanent Mission. ROMANIA Representative: Mr. F. Stoiana, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission. SENEGAL Representative: H.E. Mr. O. S. Diop, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. L. Niang. SPAIN Representative: Mr. J. de Pinies, Alternate Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Mr. N. Diaz Lopez, Inspector General of the Pharmaceutical Division, Public Health Department; Mr. G. Manueco, Secretary of Embassy, Permanent Mission. SWEDEN Representative: H.E. Mrs. A. Rossel, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Advisers: Dr. D. L. Goldberg, M. D., Royal Caroline Institute, Stockholm; Mr. G. V. E. Krook, Head of the Narcotics Section, Swedish National Board of Health. SWITZERLAND Representative: Mr. J. P. Bertschinger, Chief of Section, Federal Public Health Department. Alternate Representative: Mr. M. von Schenck, Secretary of Legation, Office of the Permanent Observer to the United Nations. THAILAND Representative: Mr. C. Posayanonda, Deputy Director-General, Ministry of Finance. Alternate Representatives: Mr. S. Viseshsiri, Chief, International Health Division, Ministry of Public Health; Mr. P. Punnapayak, Chief, Food and Drug Control Division, Ministry of Public Health. TUNISIA Representative: Mr. Chadli Ayari. TURKEY Representative: H.E. Mr. T. Menemencioglu, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representatives: Mr. M. Ozkol, Director General of the Internal Trade Department, Ministry of Trade; Prof. I. Lutem, Legal Adviser, Permanent Mission; Mr. A. Cankaya, Head of the Narcotics Bureau, Ministry of the Interior; Mr. S. Acba, Director of the Opium Section, Istanbul; Prof. S. Kaymakcalan, Director of the Institute of Pharmacology, University of the Aegean, Smyrna. Adviser: Mr. M. Kustaloglu, Second Secretary, Permanent Mission. UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC Representative: Mr. O. O. Bogomolets. Alternate Representative: Mr. G. H. Buvailik. Adviser: Mr. I. G. Neklessa. List of representatives UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS Representative: H.E. Mr. K. K. Rodionov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. Alternate Representatives: Mrs. V. V. Vasileva. Mr. A. M. Belonogov. Mr. G. F. Kalinkin. Miss E. V. Yakovleva. UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC Representative: Major-General A. A. Fahmi, Under Secretary, Ministry of the Interior. Alternate Representatives: Mr. A. Ismail, Director General of the Pharmaceutical Department, Ministry of Public Health; Mr. A. Noureldine, Attorney General's Office; Mr. A. A. Khamis, First Secretary, Permanent Mission. UNITED KINGDOM Representative: Mr. T. C. Green, Assistant Secretary, Home Office. Alternate Representative: Mr. G. B. T. Barr, Assistant Legal Adviser, Home Office. Advisers: Mr. E. G. Kellett, Principal Scientific Officer, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; Mr. J. L. Simpson, Counsellor, Legal Adviser, Permanent Mission; Mr. M. W. Erroch, First Secretary, Permanent Mission. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Representative: Mr. H. J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury. Alternate Representative: Mr. H. L. Giordano, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury. Advisers: Mr. C. I. Bevans, Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty Affairs, Department of State; Mr. C. de Baggio, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury; Dr. N. B. Eddy, M.D., Special Consultant to the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases, Department of Health, Education and Welfare; The Hon. H. Ellenbogen, Judge, Court of Common Pleas of Alleghany County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Mr. S. M. Finger, Senior Adviser, Permanent Mission; Dr. H. Isbell, M.D., Director, Addiction Research Center, Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Mr. C. G. Parker III, Adviser, Economic and Social Affairs, Permanent Mission; Mr. R. W. Rinden, Office of International Economic and Social Affairs, Department of State. URUGUAY Representative: H.E. Mr. E. Rodriguez Fabregat, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Alternate Representative: Mr. C. Montero-Bustamente, Envoy Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Mission. VENEZUELA Representative: Mr. R. D. Berti, Head of the Pharmaceutical Division, Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. Alternate Representative: Mr. S. Holz, Head of the Pharmacology Division, National Institute of Hygiene. Adviser: Dr. T. Alvarado, Minister Counsellor, Permanent Mission. YUGOSLAVIA Representative: Mr. D. Nikolic, Adviser to the Committee on Foreign Trade. Alternate Representatives: Mr. B. Karapandza, CounseEor, Permanent Mission; Mr. M. Tapavicki, First Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. PERMANENT CENTRAL OPIUM BOARD Representatives: Sir Harry Greenfield; Mr. H. May; Mr. E. S. Krishnamoorthy; Mr. L. Atzenwiler, Secretary of the Board. DRUG SUPERVISORY BODY Representatives: Prof. J. Joachimoglu; Mr. L. Atzenwiler, Secretary of the Body. xvii United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drags MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS REPRESENTED BY OBSERVERS CEYLON Observers: Mr. A. Edward, Counsellor, Permanent Mission; Mr. H. O. Wijegoonawardena, Counsellor, Permanent Mission. SPECIALIZED AGENCIES WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION Representative: Dr. H. Halbach, M.D., Chief, Addiction Producing Drug Section. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION Representative: Mr. H. Reymond, Director of the Liaison Office with the United Nations. INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION Representative: Dr. F . de Tavel, M.D., Medical Adviser. Alternate Representative: Mr. F . X. Byrne. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Category B INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL POLICE ORGANIZATION INTERPOL Representative: Mr. J. Nepote, Deputy Secretary General. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES Representative: Dr. L. Longarzo. INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF WOMEN LAWYERS Representative: Miss R. Rothenberg. WORLD ALLIANCE OF YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATIONS Representative: Mr. D. F . McClelland. EXPERT INVITED BY THE CONFERENCE UNDER RULE 35 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE Major General A. A. Safwat, Director-General of the Permanent Anti-Narcotics Bureau of the League of Arab States. SECRETARIAT Mr. G. E. Yates, Executive Secretary; Mr. A. Lande, Deputy Executive Secretary; Mr. A. Messing-Mierzejewski, Secretary; Mr. G. Wattles, Legal Adviser; Mr. O. Braenden; Mr. H. Idoyaga; Mr. P. Lowes; Mr. S. Sotiroff. xviii REPORT OF THE CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE 1 1. At its first plenary meeting held on 24 January 1961, the Conference, in accordance with rule 4 of its rules of procedure, appointed a Credentials Committee consisting of the following States : Costa Rica, El Salvador, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Spain, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and United States of America. 2. The Credentials Committee met on 6 March 1961. The following representatives were present: Costa Rica, El Salvador, New Zealand, Philippines, Spain, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and United States of America. On the proposal of the representative of the Philippines, Dr. Gonzalo Ortiz of Costa Rica was unanimously elected Chairman. 3. The Secretariat reported to the Committee that, of the States which had sent representatives to the Conference, sixty-four had furnished in respect of their representatives credentials duly issued by the Head of State or Government or by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in accordance with rule 3 of the rules of procedure. Those States were as follows : Afghanistan Albania Argentina Australia Bolivia Brazil Bulgaria Burma Byelorussian SSR Canada Chad Chile China Congo (Leopoldville) Costa Rica Czechoslovakia Dahomey Denmark Dominican Republic El Salvador Finland France Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana Greece Guatemala Haiti Holy See Hungary India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Korea, Republic of Lebanon Liberia Mexico Monaco Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Nigeria Norway Pakistan Panama Philippines Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Thailand Tunisia Turkey Ukrainian SSR USSR United Arab Republic United Kingdom United States Venezuela Yugoslavia 1 Circulated as document E/CONF. 34/18. 4. The Secretariat further reported that nine States had furnished in respect of their representatives provisional credentials which did not fully meet the requirements of rule 3 of the rules of procedure. Those States were as follows : Cambodia Peru Italy Romania Jordan Senegal Madagascar Uruguay Paraguay 5. The representative of the United States introduced a motion that the Committee take no decision regarding the credentials submitted on behalf of the representatives of Hungary. In his view, continued non-compliance by the Hungarian Government with United Nations resolutions made it desirable for the Committee, by adopting his motion, to follow the example set in the General Assembly for several years past. 6. The representative of the USSR opposed the United States motion. The Hungarian People's Republic, he said, was a Member of the United Nations and participated in the work of the present Conference under resolution 689 adopted by the Economic and Social Council at its twenty-sixth session. An invitation to take part in the Conference had been addressed to the Government of the Hungarian People's Republic at Budapest by the United Nations Secretariat. The Hungarian delegation's credentials had been properly drawn up in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution of the Hungarian People's Republic and the rules of procedure of the present Conference. The delegation of the Hungarian People's Republic was taking an active and fruitful part in the work of the Conference. Furthermore, the representative of the Hungarian People's Republic had been elected Vice-President of the Conference. 7. The United States motion was adopted by 6 votes to 1. 8. The representative of the USSR stated that he considered the participation of the so-called Chinese representative in the work of the Conference to be unlawful, since only a delegation accredited by the Government of the People's Republic of China could be the lawful representative of China. He proposed that the credentials of the so-called Chinese representative be not recognized as valid. 9. The representative of the United States opposed the USSR proposal, which he considered out of order since the Economic and Social Council in calling the Conference 1 had directed that the Members of the 1 Economic and Social Council resolution 639 J (XXVI) of 28 July 1958. xix United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs United Nations should be invited; the Republic of China was a Member of the United Nations, and its Government was the only one qualified to represent China in the Conference. The representative of the United States then asked the Chairman for a ruling on whether or not the USSR proposal was out of order. 10. After a discussion, in which the Chairman, referring to resolutions of the General Assembly on the representation of China 1 , stated his opinion that the USSR proposal was out of order and appealed to the USSR representative to reconsider it, the Chairman ruled the proposal out of order. The ruling was challenged by the representative of the USSR. The representative of the USSR stated that, notwithstanding the Chairman's opinion, the General Assembly resolutions on which the Chairman based his refusal to put the USSR proposal to the vote had nothing whatever to do with the Conference, inasmuch as the Conference was not an integral part of the General Assembly. The Chairman's ruling was sustained by 6 votes to 1. 11. The representative of the USSR, without making any proposal, stated that he also felt bound to record 1 General Assembly resolutions 1307 (XIII) of 10 December 1958, 1351 (XIV) of 22 September 1959 and 1493 (XV) of 8 October 1960. his attitude to the credentials presented by the delegation of the Republic of the Congo. The Soviet Government recognized as the sole lawful Government of the Republic of the Congo the Government headed by Antoine Gizenga, deputy of the late Patrice Lumumba. The Soviet delegation was consequently unable to accept as valid, credentials which did not emanate from that Government. 12. The representative of the United States recalled that the General Assembly had decided 1 to accept credentials issued by Mr. Kasavubu as Head of the State. 13. The Committee approved the report unanimously. 14. The representative of the USSR stated that his vote in favour of the report should not be interpreted as a modification of his previous positions against the validity of the credentials of the so-called Chinese representative as well as the credentials issued on behalf of the Republic of the Congo and in favour of the validity of the credentials of the representatives of the Government of the Hungarian People's Republic. 1 General Assembly resolution 1498 (XV) of 22 November 1960. xx ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK OF THE CONFERENCE 1 Note by the Secretary-General Terms of Reference 1. The Conference has been called by the Economic and Social Council to adopt "a single convention on narcotic drugs to replace the existing multilateral treaties in the field" (operative paragraph 4 of resolution 689 J (XXVI)). The draft text of the Single Convention before the Conference (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add. 1) has been prepared by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in accordance with the instructions of the Economic and Social Council in resolutions 159 II D (VII) and 246 (IX). Organization of the Conference 2. The draft rules of procedure (E/CONF.34/2) are based generally on those adopted by recent plenipotentiary conferences held by the United Nations for the adoption of treaties, including the 1960 Conference on the Law of the Sea and the 1958 Conference on International Commercial Arbitration. Certain organizational matters, dealing with the composition and credentials of delegations, the election of officers, the appointment of a General and a Credentials Committee, the power to appoint other Committees, rules for the conduct of business, records, and the functions of the Secretariat, are regulated by the rules of procedure. The present paper is concerned with the organizational structure to be set up and the method of working of the Conference to be followed within these rules. General Committee 3. As set out in Rule 16, the function of the General Committee is to assist the general conduct of the business of the Conference and the co-ordination of its work. The General Committee is, however, not concerned with the substance of the Draft Convention. 4. It is the usual practice to elect a General Committee which provides a balanced representation of the main regions of the world. In the case of this Conference, regard should no doubt also be had (as in the composition of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs) to representation of the drug manufacturing and raw material (opium, poppy, straw, or coca leaf) producing countries, and of countries in which narcotics constitute a serious social problem. As the addition with voting rights of chairmen of such committees as the Conference may set up might imperil this balance, Rule 14 provides that, on the invitation of the President of the Conference, these chairmen may participate in 1 Circulated as document E/CONF.34/3. the meetings of the General Committee, but without vote. Drafting Committee 5. As the Drafting Committee will not be concerned with decisions of substance, it is not necessary that all members of the Conference should be represented on it. It should include, particularly, legal advisers, and all the official languages of the Convention should be represented on it. Groups or sub-committees of the Committee could then be made responsible for checking, in co-operation with the Secretariat, the different language versions of the Convention. Technical Committee 6. This would be a small Committee set up to consider the questions arising out of the Convention with a substantial scientific element, particularly the contents of the Schedules. As agreed with the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the Economic and Social Council, the Secretary-General will make arrangements for this Committee to meet for up to two weeks beginning at the third week of the Conference. Since, like the Drafting Committee, it will not make decisions of substance, it is not necessary that all members of the Conference should be represented on it. It might consist of technical advisers possessing medical, pharmaceutical and chemical qualifications, whose attendance for a limited period would be arranged by Governments. The terms of reference of the Committee might be: (a) Examination of the contents of the Schedules in document E/CN.7/AC. 3/9 Add. 1, in particular: (i) addition, deletion or revision of entries; (ii) transfer of entries from Schedule I to Schedule II or vice versa. {b) Examination of the definitions contained in paragraph references 3-11, 14, 23-25 and 32 of document E/CN.7/AC. 3/9 from the scientific aspect. There are, of course, other aspects, generally outside the competence of such a Committee, which have to be taken into account in formulating the definitions; for example, which terms should be defined, whether parts of the plant containing relatively little of the dangerous active principle should be covered or not by the Convention, and so on. Other Committees 7. The major question remains of how to divide up the substantive work on the Convention. The main fac-United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs tors to be taken into consideration are as follows: (a) The comments of Governments (E/CONF.34/1) have shown that, while there is a considerable area of agreement, there are also some ten questions on which there are major differences to be resolved; (b) In the main the various parts of the Draft Convention interlock very closely; (c) On a number of points in the Draft Convention, there are a relatively limited number of countries which have particular knowledge of and interest in the subject-matter; (d) After consultation with the Commission and the Council, the Secretary-General has made material arrangements, and delegations in turn have no doubt made their own internal arrangements, on the basis that not more than one formal meeting will be held at a time. 8. These factors taken together suggest the adoption of a subsidiary conference structure of smaller ad hoc committees or working groups rather than of a committee, or committees, of the whole; this flexible type of organization was successfully followed in the case of the 1958 Conference on International Commercial Arbitration. In the circumstances of the present Conference, it also seems that this type of organization would enable the work to be handled more expeditiously than a heavier committee structure. 9. Such ad hoc committees or working groups, which might be appointed for each principal article or group of articles on which a decision in the plenary is not feasible without more detailed consideration, would be appointed under Rule 18 and chosen so as to represent the principal tendencies or views. 10. The function of such ad hoc committees would be to submit an agreed proposal to the plenary Conference. If that proved impossible, they would be expected to submit two, or at any rate a limited number of, proposals in such form that the plenary Conference could vote on them with the minimum of amendment. Stages of Procedure 11. The preliminary work consists of: (a) Election of President and adoption of the agenda; (b) Adoption of rules of procedure, since the rules of procedure govern the officers and committees to be elected, the adoption of at any rate some parts of them is necessary at this stage. If preferred, the rest of the rules can be adopted provisionally, and taken up again at a laters tage. (c) Election of Vice-Presidents, General Committee and Credentials Committee; (d) Consideration by the General Committee and the plenary Conference of the order of business of the Conference, for which the present document is designed as a working paper. 12. The substantive work consists of: (e) Opening statements of delegations; (f) Consideration of the draft text in detail; (g) Adoption of the Convention as a whole; (h) Consideration of and voting on Conference resolutions, if any; (j) Final stages— (i) reading of Final Act and Convention; (ii) signing of Final Act and Convention. 13. Procedure on stages (e) and (f) might be outlined, for the purpose of illustration, as follows: Stage (e) — Opening statements: In accordance with established custom, those delegations which wished to do so would have an opportunity of making general statements on the Draft Convention and on important questions in it. At this stage there would be no debate, detailed consideration of texts, votes or other decisions. 14. Stage (f) — Consideration of the draft text in detail: It has been suggested in paragraphs 7-10 above that, from the point of view of the main work of the Conference, a flexible ad hoc committee or working group structure is likely to prove more efficient and more expeditious than a more rigid structure. The procedure at this stage might be as follows: (a) An article,.or group of closely-related articles — Articles 2 and 3 for instance—would be given a first reading by the Plenary. If discussion showed either general agreement on the whole, or that a small number of well-defined questions could be clearly settled by a vote, the Plenary might then refer the article or articles to the Drafting Committee. If, however, further work was required to reach an acceptable compromise text, or alternative proposals were necessary to enable clear decisions to be taken, the Plenary would refer the Articles to an ad hoc committee or a working group. The ad hoc committee or working group would then draw up, if possible a single proposal, otherwise a minimum number of proposals, on which the Plenary could then take decisions, including decisions on any further amendments or additions put forward in the Plenary itself, and refer the articles to the Drafting Committee. (b) The Drafting Committee would submit a single text to the Plenary drawn up in accordance with the instructions it had received under paragraph (a) above. (c) The plenary would vote on the text and any amendments. Since these would be decisions of substance, Rule 38 would apply to such votes. (d) When the whole Convention has been voted in parts in this way, the Drafting Committee should be given an opportunity to examine the Convention for any discrepancy, and suggest either drafting changes or, if a question of substance were involved, an alternative text, which would then have to be voted on by the Plenary in accordance with Rule 38. 15. The Convention as a whole would then be put to the vote in the Plenary. xxii DIVISION OF THE CONVENTION AND OUTLINE TIME-TABLE 1 Note by the Secretariat 1. For the purpose of the discussions of the Conference it will be necessary to divide the draft convention into a number of parts. If suggestions generally on the lines of paragraph 14 (a) of the note by the Secretary-General on the organization of the work of the Conference (E/CONF.34/3) are adopted, each of these parts will call for separate discussion in the plenary followed, where necessary, by exam* ination by an ad hoc committee. These parts cannot, of course, be self-contained since the whole convention interlocks to a certain extent: the Chair will, however, see to it that the necessary links between different parts are taken into account. 2. The most convenient order for discussion and decision naturally differs considerably from the best arrangement of material in the final text. For instance, it is usual to place the article on definitions at the beginning of a convention, but the definitions have to be considered pari passu with the articles to which they relate, and then reviewed at the end. 3. In order to provide a basis for discussion, the following division into "parts" is tentatively suggested: (a) Scope of the convention and method of bringing additional substances under control — Articles 2 and 3, less the Schedules, on which latter the Technical Committee will report (paragraph (j) below); (b) National Control; general — Articles 25, 30, 40-43; (c) National Control; opium poppy and poppy straw — Articles 31-34; (d) National Control; coca leaf — Articles 35-38; (e) National Control; cannabis — Articles 39; (/) National Measures: Treatment of drug addicts — Article 47; 2 (g) International Organs and obligations of Governments to them: Information to be furnished by governments — Articles 4, 20, 21, 26-29; (A) International Organs and obligations of Governments to them: Measures exercisable by the Board in case of non-compliance — Article 22; (/) International Organs: Constitution, functions and secretariat — Articles 5-19, 23, 24; 3 0 ) Technical questions: these are the questions to be referred to the Technical Committee (see E/CONF.34/3, paragraph 6); (k) Direct measures against the illicit traffic — Articles 44-46; (/) Final clauses — Articles 48-57; 4 (m) Definitions — Article 1: most of these will have been dealt with in the course of previous discussion, but no doubt the Drafting Committee will be asked to review them as a whole; Preamble (if any). 1 Circulated as document E/CONF.34/C.1/L.1. 2 Article 47 was in fact discussed in the plenary meeting only and at the twenty-fourth plenary meeting was referred to the Drafting Committee. 3 Only articles 7, 10,11,13-16, 19 and 23 were in fact discussed by this Committee. Articles 5 and 6 were referred to the Drafting Committee at the twentieth plenary meeting; Articles 8 and 9 were deleted at the twentieth plenary meeting; Articles 17 and 18 were deleted at the twenty-first plenary meeting; while Articles 12 and 24 were replaced at the twenty-fifth plenary meeting by the Afghanistan, Brazil, Denmark and United States joint amendment (E/CONF.34/L.10). * Articles 48-57 were in fact discussed in the plenary only, at its thirty-fourth to thirty-eighth meetings. xxii i United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 4. Time-Table. If the Conference is to be completed in the eight weeks scheduled, approximately the following time-table will have to be observed: First week: Organization of Conference and general statements (E/CONF.34/3, paragraph 13). Second to sixth week, inclusive: About three "parts" as discussed above, each week. Of the 13 parts suggested, perhaps as many as 9 or 10 may require ad hoc committees. During the third and fourth weeks, the Technical Committee will work in parallel with the ad hoc committees. Seventh and eighth weeks: Finish "parts" and their ad hoc committees and their reports; adoption of the convention as a whole; Final Act and Conference resolutions. xxiv RULES OF PROCEDURE 1 CHAPTER I. — Representation and credentials Composition of delegations Rule 1. — The delegation of each State participating in the Conference shall consist of an accredited representative and such alternate representatives and advisers as may be required. Alternates or advisers Rule 2. — An alternate representative or an adviser may act as a representative upon designation by the Chairman of the delegation. Submission of credentials Rule 3. — The credentials of representatives and the names of alternate representatives and advisers shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary if possible not later than twenty-four hours after the opening of the Conference. The credentials shall be issued either by the Head of the State or Government, or by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Credentials Committee Rule 4. — A Credentials Committee shall be appointed at the beginning of the Conference. It shall consist of nine members who shall be appointed by the Conference on the proposal of the President. It shall examine the credentials of representatives and report to the Conference without delay. Provisional participation in the Conference Rule 5. — Pending a decision of the Conference upon their credentials, representatives shall be entitled provisionally to participate in the Conference. CHAPTER II. — Officers Elections Rule 6. — The Conference shall elect a President and eighteen Vice-Presidents. These officers shall be elected on the basis of ensuring the representative character of the General Committee provided for in Chapter III. The Conference may also elect such other officers as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions. 1 Circulated as document E/CONF.34/2. Chapters I, II, III and rules 45-47 of chapter VII were adopted at the first plenary meeting; the remainder was adopted at the fifth plenary meeting. Except in the case of the General Committee (Rule 14), each committee, sub-committee and working group shall elect its own officers. Rule 7. — The President shall preside at the plenary meetings of the Conference. Rule 8. — The President, in the exercise of his functions, remains under the authority of the Conference. Acting President Rule 9. — If the President is absent from a meeting or any part thereof, he shall appoint one of the VicePresidents to take his place. Rule 10. — A Vice-President acting as President shall have the same powers and duties as the President. Replacement of the President Rule 11. — If the President is unable to perform his functions, a new President shall be elected. The President shall not vote Rule 12. — The President, or Vice-President acting as President, shall not vote but may appoint another member of his delegation to vote in his place. Application to committees Rule 13. — The rules of this Chapter shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the proceedings of committees, sub-committees and working groups. CHAPTER III. — General Committee Composition Rule 14. — There shall be a General Committee, which shall comprise the President and Vice-Presidents of the Conference. The President of the Conference, or, in his absence, a Vice-President designated by him, shall serve as Chairman of the General Committee. Chairmen of other committees may be invited by the President to participate without vote in the work of the General Committee. Substitute members Rule 15. — If the President or Vice-President of the Conference finds it necessary to be absent during a meeting of the General Committee, he may designate a member of his delegation to sit and vote in the Committee. XXV United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Functions Rule 16. — The General Committee shall assist the President in the General conduct of the business of the Conference and, subject to the decisions of the Conference, shall ensure the co-ordination of its work. CHAPTER IV. — Establishment of other committees and appointment of committee members Establishment of Committees Rule 17. — In addition to the general Committee and Credentials Committee, the Conference may establish such committees and working groups as it deems necessary for the performance of its functions. Each committee may set up subcommittees and working groups. Appointment of Members of Committees and Working Groups Rule 18. — 1. Except in the case of the General Committee, members of committees oi* working groups of the Conference shall be appointed by the President, subject to the approval of the Conference, unless the Conference decides otherwise. 2. Members of sub-committees and working groups of committees shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee in question, subject to the approval of that committee, unless the committee decides otherwise. CHAPTER V. — Secretariat Duties of the Secretariat Rule 19. — 1. The Executive Secretary, appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, shall act in that capacity at all meetings. He may appoint a deputy to take his place at any meeting. 2. The Executive Secretary shall provide and direct such staff as is required by the Conference, shall be responsible for making necessary arrangements for meetings and generally shall perform other work which the Conference may require. Statements by the Secretariat Rule 20. — The Executive Secretary or his deputy may make oral or written statements concerning any question under consideration. CHAPTER VI. — Conduct of business Quorum Rule 21. — A quorum shall be constituted by the representatives of a majority of the States participating in the Conference. In a committee, sub-committee or working-group the quorum shall be constituted by a majority of the members of the Committee, sub-commitee or working group concerned. General powers of the President Rule 22. — In addition to exercising the powers conferred upon him elsewhere by these rules, the President shall declare the opening and closing of each plenary meeting of the Conference, direct the discussions at such meetings, accord the right to speak, put questions to the vote and announce decisions. He shall rule on points of order, and subject to these rules of procedure, have complete control of the proceedings and over the maintenance of order thereat. The President may propose to the Conference the limitation of time to be allowed to speakers, the limitation of the number of times each representative may speak on any question, the closure of the list of speakers or the closure of the debate. He may also propose the suspension or the adjournment of the debate on the question under discussion. Speeches Rule 23. — No person may address the Conference without having previously obtained the permission of the President. The President may call a speaker to order if his remarks are not relevant to the subject under discussion. Points of order Rule 24. — During the discussion of any matter, a representative may raise a point of order, and the point of order shall be immediately decided by the President in accordance with the rules of procedure. A representative may appeal against the ruling of the President. The appeal shall be immediately put to the vote and the President's ruling shall stand unless overruled by a majority of the representatives present and voting. A representative raising a point of order may not speak on the substance of the matter under discussion. Time-limit on speeches Rule 25. — The Conference may limit the time to be allowed to each speaker and the number of times each representative may speak on any question. When the debate is limited and a representative has spoken for his allotted time, the President shall call him to order without delay. Closing of list of speakers Rule 26. — During the course of a debate the President may announce the list of speakers and, with the consent of the Conference, declare the list closed. He may, however, accord the right of reply to any representative if a speech delivered after he has declared the list closed makes this desirable. Adjournment of debate Rule 27. — During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move the adjournment of the debate xxvi Rules of Procedure on the question under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. The President may limit the time to be allowed to speakers under this rule. Closure of debate Rule 28. — A representative may at any time move the closure of the debate on the question under discussion, whether or not any other representative has signified his wish to speak. Permission to speak on the closure of the debate shall be accorded only to two speakers opposing the closure, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. If the Conference is in favour of the closure, the President shall declare the closure of the debate. The President may limit the time to be allowed to speakers under this rule. Suspension or adjournment of the meeting Rule 29. — During the discussion of any matter, a representative may move the suspension or the adjournment of the meeting. Such motions shall not be debated, but shall be immediately put to the vote. The President may limit the time to be allowed to the speaker moving the suspension or adjournment. Order of procedural motions Rule 30. — Subject to rule 24, the following motions shall have precedence in the following order over all other proposals or motions before the meeting: (a) To suspend the meeting; (b) To adjourn the meeting; (c) To adjourn the debate on the question under discussion; (d) For the closure of the debate on the question under discussion. Proposals and amendments Rule 31. — Proposals and amendments thereto shall normally be introduced in writing and handed to the Executive Secretary of the Conference, who shall circulate copies to the delegations. As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to the vote at any meeting of the Conference unless copies of it have been circulated to all delegations not later than the day preceding the meeting. The President may, however, permit the discussion and consideration of amendments, or motions as to procedure, even though these amendments and motions have not been circulated, or have only been circulated the same day. Decisions on competence Rule 32. — Subject to rule 30, any motion calling for a decision on the competence of the Conference to discuss any matter or to adopt a proposal or an amendment submitted to it shall be put to the vote before the matter is discussed or a vote is taken on the proposal or amendment in question. Withdrawal of motions Rule 33. — A motion may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before voting on it was commenced, provided that the motion has not been amended. A motion which has thus been withdrawn may be reintroduced by any representative. Reconsideration of proposals Rule 34. — When a proposal has been adopted or rejected it may not be reconsidered unless the Conference, by a two-thirds majority of the representatives present and voting, so decides. Permission to speak on the motion to reconsider shall be accorded only to two speakers opposing the motion, after which it shall be immediately put to the vote. Invitations to technical advisers Rule 35. — The Conference may invite to one or more of its meetings any person whose technical advice it may consider useful for its work. Application to Committees Rule 36. — The rules of this chapter shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the proceedings of committees, sub-committees and working groups. CHAPTER VII. — Voting Voting rights Rule 37. — Each State represented at the Conference shall have one vote. Required majority Rule 38. — 1. Decisions of the Conference on all matters of substance shall be taken by a two-thirds' majority of the representatives present and voting. 2. Decisions of the Conference on matters of procedure shall be taken by a majority of the representatives present and voting. 3. If the question arises whether a matter is one of procedure or of substance, the President of the Conference shall rule on the question. Any appeal against this ruling shall immediately be put to the vote and the President's ruling shall stand unless overruled by a majority of the representatives present and voting. 4. Decisions of a committee, sub-committee or working group on matters of substance and procedure shall be taken by a majority of the members present and voting. xxvii United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Meaning of the expression "representatives present and voting" Rule 39. — For the purpose of these rules, the phrase "representatives present and voting" means representatives present and casting an affirmative or negative vote. Representatives who abstain from voting shall be considered as not voting. Method of voting Rule 40. — The Conference shall normally vote by show of hands or by standing, but any representative may request a roll-call. The roll-call shall be taken in the English alphabetical order of the names of the States participating in the Conference, beginning with the delegation whose name is drawn by lot by the President. Conduct during voting Rule 41. — 1. After the President has announced the beginning of voting, no representative shall interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of the voting. The President may permit representatives to explain their votes, either before or after the voting, except when the vote is taken by secret ballot. The President may limit the time to be allowed for such explanations. 2. For the purpose of this rule, "voting" refers to the voting on each individual proposal or amendment. Division of proposals and amendments Rule 42. — A representative may move that parts of a proposal or of an amendment shall be voted on separately. If objection is made to the request for division, the motion for division shall be voted upon. Permission to speak on the motion for division shall be given only to two speakers against. If the motion for division is carried, those parts of the proposal or of the amendment which are subsequently approved shall be put to the vote as a whole. If all operative parts of the proposal or of the amendment have been rejected, the proposal or the amendment shall be considered to have been rejected as a whole. Voting on amendments Rule 43. — When an amendment is moved to a proposal, the amendment shall be voted on first. When two or more amendments are moved to a proposal, the Conference shall first vote on the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal and then on the amendment next furthest removed therefrom, and so on until all the amendments have been put to the vote. Where, however, the adoption of one amendment necessarily implies the rejection of another amendment, the latter amendment shall not be put to the vote. If one or more amendments are adopted, the amended proposal shall then be voted upon. A motion is considered an amendment to a proposal if it merely adds to, deletes from or revises part of that proposal. Voting on proposals Rule 44. — If two or more proposals relate to the same question, the Conference shall, unless it decides otherwise, vote on the proposals in the order in which they have been submitted. The Conference may, after each vote on a proposal, decide whether to vote on the next proposal. Elections Rule 45. — All elections shall be held by secret ballot unless otherwise decided by the Conference. Rule 46. — 1. If, when one person or one delegation is to be elected, no candidate obtains in the first ballot a majority of the representatives present and voting, a second ballot restricted to the two candidates obtaining the largest number of votes shall be taken. If in the second ballot the votes are equally divided, the President shall decide between the candidates by drawing lots. 2. In the case of a tie in the first ballot among three or more candidates obtaining the largest number of votes, a second ballot shall be held. If a tie results among more than two candidates, the number shall be reduced to two by lot and the balloting, restricted to them, shall continue in accordance with paragraph 1 above. Rule 47. — When two or more elective places are to be filled at one time under the same conditions, those candidates obtaining in the first ballot a majority of the representatives present and voting shall be elected. If the number of candidates obtaining such majority is less than the number of persons or delegations to be elected, there shall be additional ballots to fill the remaining places, the voting being restricted to the candidates obtaining the greatest number of votes in the previous ballot, to a number not more than twice the places remaining to be filled; provided that, after the third inconclusive ballot, votes may be cast for any eligible person or delegation. If three such unrestricted ballots are inconclusive, the next three ballots shall be restricted to the candidates who obtained the greatest number of votes in the third of the unrestricted ballots, to a number not more than twice the places remaining to be filled, and the following three ballots thereafter shall be unrestricted, and so on until all the places have been filled. Equally divided votes Rule 48. — If a vote is equally divided on matters other than elections, the proposal shall be regarded as rejected. Application to Committees Rule 49. — The rules of this Chapter shall be applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the proceedings of committees, sub-committees and working groups. CHAPTER VIII. — Languages and records Official and working languages Rule 50. — Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be the official languages of the Conference. xxviii Rules of Procedure English, French and Spanish shall be the working languages. Interpretation from a working language Rule 51. — Speeches made in any of the working languages shall be interpreted into the other two working languages. Interpretation from official languages Rule 52. — Speeches made in either of the two official languages shall be interpreted into the three working languages. Interpretation from other languages Rule 53. — Any representative may make a speech in a language other than the official languages, In this case he shall himself provide for interpretation into one of the working languages. Interpretation into the other working languages by the interpreters of the Secretariat may be based on the interpretation given in the first working language. Summary records Rule 54. — Summary records of the plenary meetings of the Conference and of the meetings of the General Committee and of any Committee of the Whole shall be kept by the Secretariat. They shall be sent as soon as possible to all representatives, who shall inform the Secretariat within three working days after the circulation of the summary record of any changes they wish to have made. Language of documents and summary records Rule 55. — Documents and summary records shall be made available in the working languages. CHAPTER IX. — Public and private meetings Plenary meetings and meetings of committees Rule 56. — The plenary meetings of the Conference and the meetings of committees shall be held in public unless the body concerned decides otherwise. Meetings of sub-committees or working groups Rule 57. — As a general rule meetings of a sub-committee or working group shall be held in private. Communique to the press Rule 58. — At the close of any private meeting a communique may be issued to the press through the Executive Secretary. CHAPTER X. — Observers for States not participating in the conference Rights of Observers for States Rule 59. — A State which has been invited to the Conference but which is not participating in it by an accredited representative may appoint an observer to it. The name of the observer shall be communicated without delay to the Executive Secretary, if possible not later than twenty-four hours after the opening of the Conference. Such observers shall have the right to participate in the deliberations of the Conference and of those committees, sub-committees and working groups to which they are invited by the President, the Conference, the Chairman of the body in question, or this body itself. These observers shall not have the right to vote but may submit proposals which may be put to the vote at the request of any delegation participating in the Conference or other body as the case may be. CHAPTER XI. — Observers for specialized agencies, other intergovernmental bodies, and non-government organizations Rights of Observers for Organizations Rule 60. — 1. Observers for specialized agencies and other intergovernmental bodies invited to the Conference may participate in the deliberations of the Conference and its committees, sub-committees and working groups with respect to items of concern to their respective organizations. These observers may submit proposals regarding such items, which may be put to the vote on the request of any delegation participating in the Conference, or other body as the case may be. 2. Written statements of such specialized agencies and intergovernmental bodies shall be distributed by the Executive Secretary to the delegations and observers at the Conference. 3. Observers for the International Criminal Police Organization and other non-governmental organizations may also be permitted by the Conference to sit at public meetings of the Conference, its committees, sub-committees and working groups. At the invitation of the President, the Conference, the Chairman of any other body in question, or this body itself, the observers may address orally or in writing the Conference or these bodies on any subject indicated in the invitation. Such written statements shall be distributed by the Executive Secretary to all delegations and observers. CHAPTER XII. — Amendment Amendment of Rules Rule 61. — These rules of procedure may be amended by a decision of the Conference. xxix SUMMARY RECORDS OF PLENARY MEETINGS FIRST PLENARY MEETING Tuesday, 24 January 1961, at 3.45 p.m. Acting President: Mr. NARASIMHAN (Under-Secretary for Special Political Affairs, representing the Secretary-General) later: President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Opening of the Conference Mr. NARASIMHAN (Under-Secretary for Special Political Affairs), on behalf of the Secretary-General, declared the Conference open. He said that the Convention to be adopted had three objects. The first was to replace by a single instrument the nine existing international treaties, the oldest of which dated back half a century, simplifying and clarifying them and adapting them to the economic and social changes which had occurred over the years. The discoveries in chemistry and pharmacology, the improvement of transport and communications and the more rapid response of trade to demand necessitated the continual adjustment of control. The provisions should therefore be made more flexible so that they could be amended without the need to convene international conferences and conclude new treaties. The second object of the Convention was to reduce the number of international bodies concerned with the control of narcotic drugs. For that purpose, the draft provided for the merger of the Permanent Central Opium Board and the Drug Supervisory Body. On the other hand, it called for the establishment of a committee to hear appeals against certain decisions of the new body. The appeals committee would function only intermittently, but it would nevertheless constitute another new body. Some governments had expressed doubts about the need for the committee and it would be for the Conference to decide that point. In addition, the General Assembly, in its resolution 1587 (XV), had made some recommendations to the Conference with a view to simplifying the organization of the Secretariat. The third object of the Convention was to regulate the production of raw materials. Control of the production of manufactured drugs had been ensured by the Convention of 1931 and the Protocol of 1948, but there was no international instrument regulating the production of agricultural raw materials: the opium poppy and opium, the coca leaf and the cannabis plant. Large numbers of small-scale growers were engaged in such production, which was therefore much more difficult to control than the production of manufactured drugs, and as yet it had not been possible to reach agreement on that subject. The Protocol of 1953, which had been designed to control the production of opium, had not been ratified by the requisite number of producing countries, and the solutions it proposed had in part been reformulated in the draft Convention. Fortunately, in many countries national measures concerning opium had gone far beyond the requirements of the treaties and offered excellent models for the Convention. In the case of the coca leaf, efforts were of more recent date and considerably less experience had been gained in techniques of control, but the problem was geographically much narrower. With regard to cannabis, the studies of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs had clarified many aspects of the problem which had been virtually unknown a decade before. It was clear that the cultivation of hemp for the sake of its fibre should not normally cause difficulties from the point of narcotics control, and it was almost universally agreed that its cultivation for other purposes should be prohibited altogether. The formulation of measures for the control of agricultural raw materials which would be both adequate and practicable was undoubtedly the most difficult part of the Conference's task. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which determined international policy in the matter of control, would continue to have a dual source of authority and a dual set of functions: on the one hand under the Convention, and on the other under the Charter as a functional commission of the Economic and Social Council. In practice, that dual role had not created any real difficulties and had the great advantage of offering great flexibility in matters in which flexibility was particularly useful, for a treaty system was not easily adaptable to new situations. The Commission, with its authority deriving partly from the Charter, had made it possible for the treaty system to be supplemented by the method most characteristic of modern international organizations, that of technical assistance. In the past, when countries had been unable to meet their treaty obligations, it had very often been less through lack of good will than through lack of resources, especially administrative and technical resources. As yet, the technical assistance given in the sphere of narcotic drugs had been comparatively modest, but it had already yielded good results and should in the future help to secure the much more effective implementation of treaty obligations. The participants in the Conference had undoubtedly been pleased to note that the General Assembly, at its recent session, had increased the allocation for special supple1 2 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs mentary technical assistance in the sphere of narcotics control. In view of that, the Conference could concentrate on provisions which should clearly form the subject of international legal obligations and those which would make it possible, if necessary, to extend those obligations, leaving aside those matters for which such provisions were not essential. The Conference's work, which was very heavy, would thus be greatly eased. If the treaty system was to work effectively, the participation of virtually all governments was necessary, and from that point of view the situation with regard to narcotic drugs had been very encouraging in the past. Nevertheless, it was not an easy matter to draft a convention incorporating the greatest possible number of improvements and susceptible of accession by the greatest possible number of States, and some compromise would be necessary. Election of Chairman Mr. MATSUDAIRA (Japan) proposed Mr. Karl Schurmann as President of the Conference. His outstanding qualities and his vast experience in international affairs made him a natural choice as the man to guide the Conference in bringing its difficult task to a successful conclusion. Mr. SCHWEIZER SPEISKY (Chile), Mr. AZARAKHSH (Iran), Mr. CURRAN (Canada), Mr. BANERJI (India), Mr. MILLET (France), Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom), Mr. DIOP (Senegal), Mr. FINGER (United States of America) and Mr. DELGADO (Philippines) supported the nomination. Mr. Schurmann (Netherlands) was elected President of the Conference by acclamation and took the Chair. The PRESIDENT said that he was deeply grateful to the members of the Conference for the confidence they had shown in him. In particular, he thanked the representative of Japan and all those who had supported his nomination. Having only recently become acquainted with the problem of narcotics, he could claim to be without bias and he would do his best to direct the proceedings with the utmost impartiality and expedition. The international system of narcotics control which the Conference was to modernize dated from the beginning of the century. It had worked well and had a number of past and present achievements to its credit. The system had thus been well tested and embodied a number of features which should certainly be perpetuated and reinforced. It endeavoured to reconcile the need for narcotics for medical use with the need to curb a traffic which was a serious public evil and a heavy economic burden in a number of countries. The system had been largely successful in regulating the trade in narcotics for medical purposes and had, on the whole, minimized the over-production of narcotics and their leakage into the illicit traffic, which had been such a serious problem in the 'twenties, when the League of Nations had begun to deal with the question. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs had not therefore proposed any major changes in the parts of the Convention dealing with the national control of the production, distribution and use of narcotics, coupled with the general supervision by the Commission and with the statistical checks carried out by the Permanent Central Opium Board and the Drug Supervisory Body. The enforcement services which operated directly against the illicit traffic had certainly improved a great deal, but much remained to be done in the field, particularly in view of the rapid expansion of trade and communications. The Conference would no doubt consider the possibility of introducing generally acceptable improvements in the relevant articles of the draft Convention. Another aspect of particular interest was the increasing realization of the economic and social loss involved in the illicit drug traffic and drug addiction. While that loss was especially serious in the under-developed countries, it was no less felt in a number of developed countries too. The large-scale reforms undertaken by the Governments of Iran, Afghanistan and Thailand to stop the production and use of opium in those countries were thus a good augury for the Conference. The Under-Secretary for Special Political Affairs had pointed out that, by reason of the dual nature of the functions of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, it would not be necessary to make provision in the Convention for technical assistance measures that could be better handled under the Commission's other function. In their comments, governments had not perhaps given sufficient weight to that consideration; it should, however, be kept in mind, since it could lighten the task of the Conference and enable a simpler and more streamlined Convention to be produced. To draw up a good Single Convention would require much hard work and a spirit of co-operation and giveand-take. Undoubtedly all the representatives would give of their best so as to devise an instrument that would be both effective and generally acceptable. Only thus could narcotic drugs be kept from peddlers and addicts and their use be restricted to the sufferers who really needed them. Adoption of the rules of procedure (E/CONF.34/2) The PRESIDENT proposed that the Conference should adopt chapters I, II and III, and rules 45-47 of chapter VII of the provisional rules of procedure (E/CONF. 34/2), and consider the other rules at a future meeting. Mr. FINGER (United States of America) considered that, in elections, account should be taken not only of equitable geographical distribution and of the technical qualifications of candidates, but also of the keen interest taken in the subject by many countries. He therefore proposed that the number of vice-presidents should be increased from fourteen to eighteen and rule 6 of chapter II amended accordingly. First plenary meeting — 24 January 1961 3 Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) supported the proposal for an increase in the membership of the General Committee, which would enable all areas of the world to be represented as well as the main producing and consumer countries. Chapter I, chapter II, as amended, chapter III and rules 45 to 47 of chapter VII of the provisional rules of procedure were adopted. The PRESIDENT said that the rest of the rules of procedure would be considered provisionally adopted. Election of the Vice-Presidents The PRESIDENT said that eighteen vice-presidents would be elected in accordance with rule 6 of the rules of procedure. The election would be by secret ballot, as provided in rule 45. To expedite the proceedings, he read out the names of the countries which had expressed a special interest: Afghanistan, Brazil, Dahomey, France, Hungary, India, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sutanto (Indonesia) and Mr. Arvesen (Norway) acted as tellers. A vote was taken by secret ballot. Number of ballot papers 66 Number of valid ballots 66 Required majority 34 Number of votes obtained: United States of America . . 66 Brazil 65 Japan 65 United Kingdom 65 Iran 64 Mexico 64 Peru 64 Turkey 64 Afghanistan 63 France 63 India 63 Dahomey 62 Pakistan 61 Switzerland 61 United Arab Republic 61 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 60 Thailand 50 Hungary 48 Morocco 8 Bolivia 4 Bulgaria 3 Chile 3 Indonesia 3 Argentina 2 Canada 2 China 2 Spain 2 Italy 2 Norway 2 Sweden 2 Yugoslavia 2 Burma 1 Colombia 1 Costa Rica 1 El Salvador 1 Finland 1 Greece 1 Iraq 1 Ireland 1 Jordan 1 Lebanon 1 Liberia 1 Nigeria 1 New Zealand . . 1 Poland 1 Having obtained the required majority, the United States of America, Brazil, Japan, the United Kingdom, Iran, Mexico, Peru, Turkey, Afghanistan, France, India, Dahomey, Pakistan, the United Arab Republic, Switzerland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Thailand and Hungary were elected to the vice-presidency. Mr. ISMAIL (United Arab Republic) proposed that the Conference should invite the Director-General of the Permanent Anti-Narcotics Bureau of the League of Arab States in view of his experience. The secretariat of the League would defray the travel expenses. Mr. HAKIM (Lebanon) supported the proposal. The League of Arab States, a regional organization recognized by the United Nations, took a special interest in narcotics problems. The PRESIDENT, after consulting the Conference, noted that there were no objections. Accordingly, he said that he considered the proposal to have been adopted and that the Secretariat of the Conference would send the invitation in question. Appointment of the Credentials Committee The PRESIDENT said that, after consulting a number of delegations, he was able to propose the following countries as members of the Credentials Committee: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Spain, Morocco, Nigeria, New Zealand, the Philippines, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Credentials Committee was appointed with the membership proposed by the President. The meeting rose at 6 p.m. 4 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs SECOND PLENARY MEETING Wednesday, 25 January 1961, at 3 p.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Organization of work (E/CONF.34/3 and E/CONF.34/C.1/L.1) The PRESIDENT suggested that the Conference should approve the arrangements outlined in the secretariat's notes concerning the organization of work, the division of the draft Convention into parts and the timetable of the Conference (E/CONF.34/3 and E/CONF. 34/C. 1/L. 1) which had been considered by the General Committee at the morning meeting. It was so agreed. * General statements Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that narcotics control had two aspects: the limitation of production to legitimate purposes and the prevention of illicit traffic. The object was to eliminate abuses without hindering the use of narcotics for therapeutic purposes or impeding scientific progress. Scientists were hoping to develop substances which would have all the advantages and none of the dangers of the existing analgesics, and it was important not to hamper their research. For the Single Convention to be effective, it had to be universally acceptable. Actually, even if the draft before the Conference (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l) had simply reproduced the provisions of the nine existing instruments, it would have been difficult to agree upon it, since many of those provisions were controversial. As examples he would mention only the 1936 Convention and the 1953 Protocol, the second of which had been ratified by fewer than thirty States and was still not in force. But the third draft contained, in addition, some entirely new provisions, the inclusion of which would make its acceptance still more difficult. The Conference should not forget that it was preferable to leave out even desirable provisions if they were likely to prove unacceptable to a substantial number of States. It was evident from the comments of governments (E/CONF. 34/1 and Add.l & 2) that the draft under consideration contained many provisions of that kind, and the Conference would have to show a genuine spirit of compromise if it wished to prepare a universally acceptable instrument. The draft Convention was the fruit of many years' work, but the time at the disposal of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs at its annual sessions was limited. The second draft (E/CN.7/AC.3/7), dating from 1956, had been very different from the first (E/CN.7/AC.3/3). * As a consequence of this decision, the order in which the provisions of the draft single Convention were discussed is that given in para. 3 of document E/CONF.34/C.1/L. 1. At its twelfth and thirteenth sessions, the Commission had had before it the comments of Governments on that draft, but had been unable to consider the questions of principle involved; and the same was true in the case of the third draft. A number of the provisions contained in the latter had given rise to considerable differences of opinion and had been included by a small majority only. The draft therefore needed to be very carefully reviewed. Another pitfall to be avoided was that of going intoexcessive detail. The Convention should keep to general principles and trust governments to carry those principles into effect in their national legislation. He echoed the remarks made at the first plenary meeting concerning the part to be played by technical assistance in helping governments to strengthen their national controls. He next turned to those provisions which his government would have difficulty in accepting: firstly, article 2, paragraph 1 (c), of the draft Convention, and article 3. It was for governments to decide, after consultation with the medical profession, whether or not the therapeutic properties of a substance justified its prohibition. Unless the provisions of those articles were modified, or article 56 allowed the possibility of making reservations thereto, the United Kingdom might be unable to ratify the Convention. Article 32 was also open to grave criticism. It reproduced the provisions of article 6 of the 1953 Protocol, one of its most controversial articles, which had prevented numerous States, including the United Kingdom, from ratifying the Protocol. The provisions of article 32 were very dangerous, for if several of the countries, named in paragraph 1 (a) ceased to produce opium, as Iran and Afghanistan had already decided to do, there might eventually be only one country remaining, which would have a monopoly of the production of opium for medical and research purposes. He was not suggesting that the country would necessarily abuse its position, but the fact remained that such a monopoly would create a disturbing situation for the importing countries. Nor could the United Kingdom Government accept the mandatory provisions of article 41 concerning the use of official counterfoil books for prescription forms and the use of international non-proprietary names to designate drugs, or the provisions of article 47 regarding the compulsory treatment of drug addicts. Other provisions, while they did not present major difficulties for the United Kingdom, would none the less need to be amended, and his delegation would return to the matter during the consideration of the individual articles. The detailed study of the Convention would be a heavy task, but if the Conference approached it realistically, with determination and in a spirit of compromise, it should be possible to complete it in the time available. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) said that the idea of replacing the existing agreements by a Single Convention was more than ten years old. The Second plenary meeting — 25 January 1961 5 third draft submitted by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs was the fruit of long study. Many of the provisions had met with general support and would not require any long discussion; but the voluminous document containing the comments of governments showed that the same was not true of all articles. However, whatever disagreements there might be, the determination of delegations to find common ground would undoubtedly enable the differences to be overcome. The Federal Republic of Germany was ready to accept any compromise solutions compatible with the principles on which its national legislation was based. He was convinced that, given a spirit of co-operation, the Conference would succeed in drawing up a Single Convention which would be effective and generally acceptable. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that his delegation would spare no effort to collaborate in the work of the Conference, which was a landmark in the history of international co-operation in the field of narcotics control. The object was not only to consolidate the existing conventions and protocols, but also to bring them up to date and to adapt them to future requirements. Brazil, like many other countries, considered that full acceptance by all countries concerned was essential to the success of the new Convention, and that compromise solutions must be found for the controversial provisions. It would therefore be desirable, when once the principles had been settled, to modify the document so that certain States would not make too many reservations. His government was in general agreement with the draft. It recognized that penalties should and could be prescribed as part of the fight against the illicit traffic and that a mandatory embargo should be provided for in the spirit of the 1931 Convention; in principle, it supported all the types of control proposed in the draft. However, it noted certain omissions in the draft and thought that some aspects required careful study, in order that state sovereignty be not infringed. Brazil had a long tradition in the control of narcotics: it had been one of the signatories to the Hague Convention of 1912, and had ratified and applied all subsequent international instruments concerning narcotics. In 1936 it had established the Brazilian National Narcotics Control Commission which had broad powers and was in touch with international technical agencies. The effectiveness of control manifestly depended on national legislation. In that connexion he could say that Brazil possessed one of the most complete and up-to-date legislative systems to be found in the narcotics field. The first laws establishing penalties for illicit traffic had entered into force in 1921. As a consequence of the conference held at Sao Paulo in 1959 the Brazilian Government was contemplating the establishment of a special federal department to take vigourous measures in close collaboration with the National Commission, against the planting, traffic and use of cannabis, which occurred commonly in the north and north-east of Brazil. The statistics published by the Permanent Central Opium Board showed the enviable position of Brazil with regard to the legitimate use of narcotics as compared to the other countries of the hemisphere. In the same way, addiction to opium, morphine, heroin and cocaine did not exist on a large scale in Brazil. On the other hand, the definite increase which had taken place in cocaine traffic had aroused the deep concern of the international agencies involved. In view of that grave situation, his government had convened an Inter-American meeting to discuss the illicit traffic in cocaine and coca leaf; the meeting, which had taken place in March 1960 at Rio de Janeiro, had been attended by the representatives of twelve countries, by Mr. Yates, the Director of the United Nations Division of Narcotic Drugs, and by a representative of Interpol. The report of the fifteenth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs dealt in detail with the important results of that meeting, which reflected the determination of the participating countries to repress cocaine and coca leaf smuggling. His government believed that in that respect Brazil and the American countries concerned were among the leaders of the international fight against the illicit narcotics traffic. It was gratifying to note that many of the measures proposed in the draft Convention, such as those concerning the treatment of drug addicts and the regulation of the narcotics supply and traffic, had been embodied in Brazilian legislation for some time. He expressed the hope that the differences of opinion still prevailing would be resolved, so that the Conference might successfully complete its appointed task. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that his government's position was described in the comments on the third draft of the Single Convention. However, he wished to stress again that, in an undertaking as important as narcotics control, the number of countries acceding to the Single Convention should be as close as possible to the ideal of universality, which was essential to satisfactory international action. The best method of ensuring that universality of acceptance would, in his view, be to seek the maximum possible simplification of the convention compatible with effectiveness. As the chairman of the drafting committee which had prepared the draft Convention, he thought that it represented a considerable advance, but hoped that it might be still further improved and deliberately simplified. Canada had signed all the existing narcotics treaties and was aware of the need for vigorous legislative measures. Indeed, a proposal providing penalties ranging up to life imprisonment for narcotics traffickers had just been submitted to the Canadian Parliament. His delegation would be pleased to take part in drawing up an instrument that would be accepted by the greatest possible number of States and would further strengthen international narcotics control. Mr. AZARAKHSH (Iran) said that nations had not been successful in their centuries-old struggle against 6 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs drug addiction until they had begun to work together at the international level. The countries suffering from that scourge had agreed to make enormous sacrifices, but, as they intensified their efforts, the ever-rising price of narcotics attracted traffickers and the struggle was becoming daily more difficult. Moreover, drug addiction was like a contagious disease: no country could be certain that it would be spared. Therefore, when a country like Iran at great cost prohibited the cultivation of the poppy to abolish that evil, it was in fact ehminating a source of danger to the health of the whole world and benefiting all mankind. The fight against drug addiction thus demanded close and genuine international co-operation. At the beginning of the century, opium and opium derivatives, easy to produce but difficult to control, had been the only known agents for easing pain and treating certain illnesses. Since then synthetic drugs had been discovered, which were very easy to control, less costly and often much more effective. Opium had consequently lost much of its significance, and some day mankind might be entirely free from its bondage to narcotics. Upon the adoption of the Single Convention, all countries should give proof of their good intentions by introducing very severe measures for the limitation of the production and the control of the distribution of addiction-producing substances. Mr. ISMAIL (United Arab Republic) said that he was very happy to participate in a conference dealing with a problem that was so vital to many countries, including his own. The United Arab Republic was neither a producer nor a consumer of narcotic drugs but it was, unfortunately, one of the victims of the illicit traffic, particularly in cannabis and opium. The United Arab Republic fully appreciated the efforts made by the United Nations to rid the world of that scourge, and it supported the draft Single Convention, both for reasons of principle and because of its sheer necessity and urgency. The success of the Conference depended on the firm determination of all countries to achieve that aim, and the provisions in article 22 were a step in the right direction; but no effort could succeed without the full co-operation of the countries which were producers of natural narcotics or manufacturers of synthetic drugs. In recent years, the government of his country had intensified the campaign against the illicit traffic, in particular by making the penalties more severe. It had also established a hospital for the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts. Every country was under a moral obligation to make the Convention an effective instrument serving the interests of the entire world. On behalf of mankind, therefore, his delegation urged all States to give it their full and whole-hearted support. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) said that he would make detailed comments when the draft Convention was being considered article by article. He was convinced that the Conference, at which so many countries were represented, would reach unanimous agreement on the adoption of national and international measures for the suppression of the illicit traffic as soon as possible and on banning the non-medical use of narcotics. The provisions must be easy to apply in all countries, the methods of control being left to the discretion of the national authorities. His government was convinced that the divergencies of view on some of the provisions could be ironed out if a realistic approach was adopted and that the Conference would produce a generally acceptable Convention. Lastly, he emphasized the importance of the treatment of drug addicts. That was primarily the responsibility of the national authorities, but the under-developed countries had particular need of special assistance in order to establish the necessary treatment centres and train the personnel they required. Mr. GIORDANO (United States of America) recalled that the idea of a Single Convention had been a United States initiative. For more than half a century, the United States had been advocating the international control of narcotic drugs. On the initiative of the United States, the International Opium Commission had met at Shanghai in 1909; it had been largely responsible for the conclusion, three years later, of the first International Opium Convention, signed at The Hague. Since that time, it had been necessary to adapt international control to technological advances. The result had been a multiplicity of treaties, but the principles of the Hague Convention were still the basis of international narcotics control. International control had developed over the last fifty years. Although progress had been relatively slow, every agreement concluded during that period had represented the maximum commitment that governments had been ready to accept. Some governments had made enormous efforts to eliminate drug addiction and to control the production of opium; Iran was a notable example. Although considerable success had been achieved in the control of the illicit traffic, the limitation of the production of opium and coca leaf and the suppression of drug addiction, much still remained to be done. The over-production of opium, the excess of which found its way into the illicit traffic, was still a serious problem. Even though great strides had been made in controlling the legitimate trade in narcotic drugs, smuggling continued to be a serious threat. If the illicit drug traffic was to be eliminated, it was essential to limit the production of opium to medical and scientific needs only. The United States Government would support, in principle, the provisions of the draft Single Convention placing opium production under international control, as a necessary requirement for an effective instrument. It would also support the provision relating to the treatment of drug addicts, which it had been urging for many years. The purpose of the Conference was to simplify the international control machinery, but it should be especially careful not to weaken the international control system. Views might differ regarding the way in which Third plenary meeting — 26 January 1961 7 the principles were to be stated, but if the struggle against the illicit drug traffic was to continue, it was essential to show mutual understanding and arrive at an acceptable convention under which every nation would assume its responsibility in the field of narcotics. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) welcomed the opportunity to replace the existing agreements by a single instrument covering every problem in the field of narcotic drugs. Although the system of control had been clearly defined in the Conventions of 1925 and 1931 and the 1948 Protocol, it was often difficult to apply the existing agreements to a situation resulting from new developments. It was therefore necessary both to improve the existing system and, when drafting the new Convention, to try to anticipate future developments. Another possible danger was that the international instruments might go beyond what was necessary in the field of international co-operation for the protection of public health. A basic principle should be that the national authorities were responsible for preventing the abuse of drugs and for deciding whether a certain drug should be placed under stricter control, or even totally prohibited. He would return to that point when the schedules were being discussed. The Netherlands delegation supported the proposed merger of the Permanent Central Opium Board and the Drug Supervisory Body. The high reputation and authority of those two bodies were largely based on the high standard of the work they had done. Accordingly, any move to vest in the control Board functions other than those previously exercised by the predecessor bodies should be approached with caution. Probably, the International Narcotics Commission rather than the Board should be made responsible for supervising the application of the Convention. As had been pointed out by earlier speakers, the Convention should be acceptable to as many countries as possible. One of the fields in which most difficulties were likely to arise was that of mutual assistance in penal matters. The penal law of different countries reflected widely differing moral, religious and cultural traditions. For that reason, agreement in that field would be achieved only if the Parties were not too much bound by provisions which might be at variance with their own penal law. He wished to mention the special position of the Benelux countries, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. When that union, which was a customs union, had come fully into operation, it would be necessary to consider the Benelux territory as one unit for the purpose of the performance of some of the obligations under the Convention. The meeting rose at 4.20 p.m. THIRD PLENARY MEETING Thursday, 26 January 1961, at 10.35 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) General statements (continued) Mr. HAKIM (Lebanon) said that one of the Purposes of the United Nations was to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character; the control of narcotic drugs was one of the most important of those problems. There was need to codify the existing regulations and bring them up to date; it was also necessary to establish effective control organs at the national and international level to regulate the production of and trade in narcotic drugs. By combining the principal international treaties on narcotic drugs, the Single Convention would provide a secure basis for efficient international co-operation in that field. However, a few controversial points and technical problems remained to be solved before the instrument could be adopted. Mr. POSAYANONDA (Thailand) said that, because of its geographical position, Thailand was a transit point for the illicit traffic in opium and it had therefore had a hard struggle to control the traffic, although opium smoking itself had been banned since 1945. The free exchange of views which had taken place at the first session of the South-East Asia Consultative Group on Opium Policy and Narcotics Enforcement, held in Thailand in December 1960, had been very helpful to his country. His government welcomed the Single Convention and would be happy to co-operate in working out appropriate texts for those articles which would have to be modified in order to make the Convention generally acceptable. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that his country attached very great importance to the question of control over narcotic drugs and that the "prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes" of such drugs had been embodied in the Constitution of India. His government was anxious that the progress it was making should not be jeopardized through inaction on the part of others, and also that increased scientific knowledge, improved communications and the increasing tensions of modern life should not lead to the replacement of one form of addiction by another, perhaps even more pernicious. Already, heroin had replaced raw opium, and a mixture of barbiturates and heroin was being commonly used; in the future, yet more potent synthetics might increasingly find their way into the illicit narcotics traffic. It was therefore urgent that the existing international agreements on the subject should be not only consolidated, codified and simplified, but also substantially strengthened where necessary. The maximum degree of international co-operation should be the objective in that field, but his delegation wished also to urge that the efforts of the Conference 8 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs should be directed towards achieving the very best possible solutions. The adequacy of supplies of approved narcotic substances was important for both public health and commerce, but commercial considerations had to be subordinated to the interests of public health where necessary. It had also been authoritatively stated that the problem of control over natural drugs at source was greater than that of the control of the more refined products, but his delegation had doubts on that point. Control over the cultivation of the poppy, cannabis and coca plants was certainly difficult; however, the progress made by his and certain other Governments showed that, with the assistance of international bodies, and when there was the assurance that any sacrifice of commercial interests would not go unreciprocated, a great measure of success could be achieved. On the other hand, refined products and synthetic drugs which were manufactured in small laboratories, easily portable and hard to distinguish from harmless chemical substances which were in constant use, presented even more difficult problems. It was in the illicit traffic in drugs of that kind that the highest profits were made, and his delegation considered that the question of control in that field should be given at least equal importance with that of control over natural substances. The draft under discussion was the result of many years of effort and his delegation thought that its basic approach was sound. India was one of the small number of countries which were signatories to all the existing treaties, conventions and protocols on the subject; it was therefore a matter of some disappointment to his Government that the Opium Protocol of 1953, the provisions of which were being enforced in India, had not yet come into force. He hoped that the deliberations of the Conference would secure more general acceptance of those provisions as incorporated in the draft, with whatever minor modifications proved necessary. His delegation had difficulty in fully understanding why some countries hesitated to accept those provisions, but would make every effort, as the discussions proceeded, to understand their problems and hoped that all representatives would show the same spirit of understanding. His government was conscious of its great responsibilities as a large opium producer and exporter. Since the signing of the 1912 Treaty progressively tighter measures for the control of the cultivation and distribution of the drug had been imposed; oral consumption, even for quasi-medical purposes, had been abolished with effect from April 1959, and such leakages as occurred were very few in proportion to the size of the country and the acreage under opium cultivation. Fears had been expressed that a scheme of control which contemplated the limitation of the number of countries producing opium for export would lead to a monopoly, but his delegation felt that the important thing was that control should be effective and that the lawful producers should not exploit their position. In that connexion, his government had made it clear that its policy was to sell opium not so much for profit as with a view to ensuring adequate supplies only to those who could make use of it for medical purposes. U TIN MAUNG (Burma) recalled that the international control of the traffic in narcotic drugs was a relatively recent development, the first international conference on narcotic drugs not having been convened until 1909. Since that time, there had been a growing awareness of the need for international consultation and control, particularly since the end of the Second World War. Burma had automatically become a party to seven out of the eight existing narcotics treaties when it had achieved its independence, in January 1948. It had acceded to the 1948 Protocol and was considering acceding to the 1953 Protocol. The opium habit had been introduced into Burma by immigrants and had become a serious problem, the number of registered consumers in the country reaching 48,000 by 1940. Control was complicated by the fact that there were different regulations for Burma proper, the Kachin Hill Tracts, the Shan States west of the Salween River and the Shan States east of it. After the war, the opium shops had not been reopened in Burma proper and the Kachin States, but in the Shan States the sale of opium under licence had been permitted. In February 1948, a government policy had been laid down prohibiting the non-medical use of opium in the whole of the Union of Burma. The main points of the programme were the prohibition of poppy cultivation and its replacement by cash crops, the prohibition of the trade in and consumption of opium, the treatment of addicts and the prevention of illicit traffic. Unfortunately, Burma had shortly afterwards been plunged into a state of war by a series of uprisings and the incursions of defeated Kuomintang troops from China, which had prevented the wide-spread application of the policy. It was, however, continuing to struggle against tremendous odds to cleanse the country of the opium habit. An encouraging development had been the publication by the Shan State Government of a strongly worded executive instruction prohibiting poppy cultivation west of the Salween River. The Burmese Government hoped to receive technical assistance from the specialized agencies, not only for the introduction of new cash crops in place of the opium poppy but also for the rehabilitation of the populations concerned. It also needed the assistance and close co-operation of neighbouring States, with which it would be happy to exchange information. Burma was aware of its international obligations and had shown its willingness to co-operate with other countries in controlling the illicit traffic in and consumption of narcotic drugs. It was in general agreement with the draft of the Single Convention now before the Conference, but it had one serious objection to make. Burma was not recognized as an opium-producing country under article 32(1) and therefore, under article 34, would be bound to destroy any opium it confiscated. The Conference should explore the possibility of amending the draft Convention so as to enable non-producing countries to sell confiscated opium to manufacturing countries for medical and scientific purposes. In that way, Burma would be able to recoup some of the large sums of money it was paying out in rewards for opium seizures. Third plenary meeting — 26 January 1961 9 There were other defects in the draft before the Conference, which should be removed. In its deliberations, the Conference should bear in mind that, in order to be effective, the Convention must be universally acceptable. Mr. MILLET (France) said that great progress had been made in the control of narcotic drugs and expressed the hope that the Single Convention would be adopted in 1961. He did not wish at that stage to comment on provisions which his government regarded as unsatisfactory in the draft, for its views were well known, but he wished to stress one principle which the Conference should bear in mind when considering amendments to the draft: all proposals should be aimed at either simplifying or improving the existing system, never at complicating or weakening it. With that principle in mind, he expressed the hope that the parties to existing international instruments would not accept less satisfactory provisions than those subscribed to by them earlier. The Single Convention was intended to replace all the existing international agreements relating to narcotic drugs. There would be no objection to that if the new text had the same scope as the former agreements; but he did not think that that was the case. In particular, chapter IX of the draft, entitled "Measures against illicit traffickers", was not a satisfactory substitute for the 1936 Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs. If more satisfactory provisions for international co-operation could not be agreed upon, perhaps the 1936 Convention might remain in force. The parties to it which thought that they could not settle for anything less could then continue to apply its provisions. Another question which had been given careful consideration by the competent services of the French Government was the scope of the control measures to be applied to the different drugs. They did not suggest any discrimination. All raw materials from which narcotics could be extracted obviously had to be placed under strict control; but the control measures should be realistic and effective. His delegation had reservations regarding the effectiveness of the provisions in the draft relating to the control of poppy straw, for some of them would be impossible to apply. It was happy to see that that view was shared not only by some other delegations but also by the Permanent Central Opium Board and the experts who had studied the question at the request of the Secretariat. He expressed the hope that the Conference would adopt more adequate provisions. Nor could the problem of synthetic drugs be disregarded. The Conference should adopt provisions which were at least the equivalent of those laid down in the 1931 Convention and the 1948 Protocol and recommended in the resolutions adopted by the Economic and Social Council. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that his country was a signatory to the Conventions of 1925 and 1931 and the Protocols of 1946 and 1948, as well as a member of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs; his delegation was ready to co-operate with other delegations, in a spirit of mutual understanding, in the drawing up of a convention which would be effective in the fight against the illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs. Experience had proved how important it was for the success of that fight that effective control measures should be taken by all governments to regulate the lawful production and preparation of narcotics and to suppress illicit production and manufacture. Careful supervision was also necessary to ensure that the drugs were used for medical and scientific purposes only. The success of international narcotics control depended entirely upon strict national control measures, and the obligations of participating States should be specified clearly in the convention. Any system of international control involved both large and small countries, with differing economic and social features and structures and different levels of living. Accordingly, it was undesirable that the Single Convention should lay down detailed requirements regarding the internal measures to be taken by governments, since they could best be decided upon by the national authorities themselves. The draft Single Convention was, in the main, a successful attempt to codify the existing agreements on the subject. Some of its provisions, however, did not appear in previous conventions and infringed the sovereign rights of States. That was true of certain of the provisions taken from the 1933 Protocol which, after eight years, had still not come into force for the reason that the provisions in question were unacceptable to most countries, including opium-producing countries. The draft also gave an exclusive list of the countries—including his own—entitled to produce opium for export; and it prohibited the import of opium or poppy straw from countries not parties to the Convention. That provision infringed the sovereign right of a country to export the products of its labour, and in any case the provisions of an agreement could never apply to States not parties thereto. Furthermore, the control organs set up under the draft convention would be not merely technical organs but supra-governmental bodies, empowered to impose economic sanctions. All governments recognized the necessity of international control and of uniform national measures, and if the Single Convention did not infringe sovereign rights, all countries would be ready to become parties. Those provisions which imposed limitations on the participation of countries in the Convention violated the principle of the equality of States and conflicted with the objectives of the Convention, since effective international control depended on participation by as many States as possible. Among the States not invited to the Conference were the German Democratic Republic, which had implemented all the provisions of the 1925 and 1931 Conventions; the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, which was an important producing and exporting country; the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; and the Mongolian People's Republic. Moreover, there was no legitimate representative of the Chinese nation at the Conference. Mr. BRUNNER (Federal Republic of Germany), speaking in exercise of his right of reply, said that one 10 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of the bodies mentioned by the Soviet Union representative, the so-called "Democratic Republic of Germany", lacked all the legal characteristics of statehood and was merely a zone of Germany controlled by the Soviet Union. His government was recognized by more than ninety States as the legitimate spokesman for the whole German nation. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that his government attached great importance to the Conference; Yugoslavia was a small country and not a large producer of opium, nor did opium represent a serious economic or social problem there, but his government was nevertheless anxious to assist in fighting the scourge of addiction. His delegation believed that effective control at both the national and the international level was indispensable. Since the basic Conventions of 1925 and 1931 had been drawn up, scientific progress and changed conditions had revealed gaps in the international control system. With regard to the draft of the Single Convention, he said that not enough account had been taken of Economic and Social Council resolution 730 B (XXVIII) calling for the provisional control of new narcotic drugs. Likewise, some of the provisions on poppy straw were unlikely to have any practical effect; extract of poppy straw (paste) represented a real danger to addicts, yet no adequate provisions had been made for its control. In the case of opium, it was rightly laid down that opium was not to be imported from countries not parties to the Convention, but there was no such provision regarding other drugs. The time spent in drawing up the 1953 Protocol had not been wasted, since a useful interchange of views had taken place, but the fact that some of its provisions had proved unacceptable should be borne in mind in the drawing up of the present convention. The Single Convention should be simple, flexible and acceptable to as many countries as possible, but at the same time it had to be effective. Mr. MENEMENCIOGLU (Turkey) said that the objective of the Conference was to determine what control measures would be most effective and also acceptable to the countries which would have to carry them into effect. His delegation felt that the draft text before the Conference provided an excellent point of departure. Despite the differences of viewpoint evidenced in the footnotes to the third draft and in the government comments thereon, he hoped that representatives would take a broad view and place the interests of mankind as a whole above all national and private interests. His delegation would continue to show a spirit of co-operation. Turkey had always shown such a spirit in its accession to the various conventions on narcotic drugs, and it had even brought some of its laws relating to opium into line with the 1953 Protocol although that protocol had not come into force. Furthermore, the Turkish police authorities responsible for the suppression of the illicit traffic in narcotics had always co-operated and would continue to co-operate with international control organizations and with the appropriate national authorities. Mr. ZOLLNER (Dahomey) said that, although his country was not a producer of narcotic drugs and had no illicit traffic, it wished to co-operate with other countries in solving their narcotics problems, and particularly with the other African countries south of the Sahara in protecting that area from such evils. The enforcement of strict control measures by some States might well lead to the appearance of an illicit traffic in countries, like his own, where it had been unknown in the past. His government welcomed the Single Convention, which would simplify control measures and so make them more effective. It was difficult to see how it could be interpreted as weakening any of the measures already in force. The meeting rose at 11.55 a.m. FOURTH PLENARY MEETING Friday, 27 January 1961, at 10.35 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) General statements (continued) Mr. KOCH (Denmark) said that his government believed that no effort should be spared to ensure that natural and synthetic narcotic drugs were produced and used for strictly medical and scientific purposes only. In his own country, whose per capita consumption of medicaments was among the highest in the world, partly because of Denmark's highly developed social security system and the ease of access to medical facilities, the task was no easy one, but the small size of the country and the homogeneity of the population facilitated control and made it possible for the central health department to keep track of every prescription of narcotic drugs. The illicit traffic was virtually nonexistent and drug addiction was not a serious social problem. There were very few cases of addiction and the Government had not had to consider abandoning its principle that the medical treatment of addicts should not be compulsory. The Danish Government fully recognized the need for international co-operation in the control of narcotic drugs; it participated in the international control system and would continue to co-operate in the fight against the abuse of narcotics, not only in its own interests but as a contribution to the health and welfare of mankind. Control measures necessarily involved restrictions on the trade in narcotic drugs, even when they were to be used for legitimate purposes, and the supply of certain drugs might have to be cut off completely. There Fourth plenary meeting — 27 January 1961 11 was an inevitable conflict between the need to protect human beings from the evils of narcotic substances and the advantages of their use in the fight against sickness and pain. It was thought in Denmark that the medical profession should have the widest possible freedom in the treatment of patients and the prescription of drugs. His government therefore believed that the Single Convention should attempt to keep a proper balance. Some of its provisions, such as those empowering the international organs to prohibit certain drugs and establish a mandatory embargo might unduly hamper medicine and science and deprive countries of drugs which they considered to be of essential therapeutic value. His government therefore urged that the particular safeguards to be adopted should be decided by each government; he urged that not on grounds of State sovereignty but in consideration of health interests in general. Provided that the legitimate use of drugs was not hampered, his delegation was, however, in favour of giving the control system sufficient elasticity to cover whatever dangerous drugs might be discovered in the future. His government fully supported the view that the control system should be under the auspices of the United Nations, and also that the Convention should be drafted so as to be universally applicable and acceptable. Mr. MOD (Hungary) said that his government had taken an active part in the codification of the international regulations on narcotic drugs and was anxious to make its contribution to the drafting of a Single Convention. To be effective, however, such a Convention should be open to all countries, and it was regrettable that the People's Republic of China, the world's largest country, the Mongolian People's Republic, the Korean Democratic People's Republic, the People's Republic of Viet-Nam and the German Democratic Republic had not been invited to the Conference. Political issues were undoubtedly out of place at a technical conference, but they had been raised by the failure to invite the countries he had mentioned. The exclusion of the countries concerned also raised a technical problem since some of them were important producers, manufacturers and exporters of narcotics. Naturally, the parties would accept extensive obligations under the Single Convention; but true co-operation would not be achieved if it contained provisions which impaired the dignity or sovereignty of any State. The Conference should remember that, each State had evolved in its own peculiar way, and the Convention should not contain any regulations which did not serve its fundamental purposes. The Conference's work would be facilitated if it were based on earlier agreements which had been accepted by most States and at the same time took into account changing political and economic circumstances, as a result of which certain earlier regulations had become obsolete. The drafting and application of the Convention would be simplified if the text was brief and if the working out of some internal control measures was left to the States themselves. His delegation looked upon the draft Convention as a basis for negotiations which would lead to the drafting of a suitable instrument for preventing the abuse of narcotics without impeding their use for medical purposes. Mr. WARREN (Australia) said that the control of narcotic drugs presented a problem which could only be solved by international co-operation. The existing arrangements were highly developed and steadily improving, and the new proposals in the Single Convention, some of which were controversial, needed to be carefully examined with a view to preserving a climate of willing co-operation. For example, article 3 would give the proposed International Narcotics Commission the power to impose mandatory prohibitions on certain drugs, a provision regarding which the United Kingdom representative had expressed his government's concern. The Yugoslav and French representatives had also indicated that the provisions for the stringent control of poppy straw would not, in their view, be practicable. His own delegation had reservations concerning article 32, which gave a restrictive list of the countries permitted to produce and export opium and poppy straw; several of the countries mentioned were, in fact, neither exporters nor producers of those substances. With regard to control measures in his own country, he said that control in Australia was somewhat complicated by the fact that domestic administration was largely in the hands of the individual state governments. Mr. BOGOMOLETS (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that the Single Convention should make every reasonable provision for the use of narcotic drugs for humanitarian and scientific purposes while containing adequate safeguards against the abuse of narcotics and the illicit traffic. It should also be universal; the Convention would be acceptable to all States only if the interests of all countries were respected. In drafting the Convention, the Conference should respect the right of peoples freely to dispose of their natural wealth and resources, which had been recognized in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). The adoption of a restrictive list of producing countries or the establishment of mandatory limitations on producing countries as to quantity and nomenclature would be an act of intervention in the domestic affairs of such States, an infringement of their sovereignty and a violation of their right to dispose of their economic resources. His delegation could not accept those provisions of the draft Convention. His delegation was also unable to accept those provisions of the draft Convention which gave the Control Board excessive authority, the right to impose a mandatory embargo, the power to conduct inquiries in the territory of States Parties to the Convention, and the right to regulate the production and trade of countries not parties to the Convention. The Convention should be made acceptable to the greatest possible number of States. In that connexion, he pointed out that the absence of the German Democratic Republic, an important producer of narcotic drugs, would prejudice the work of the Conference, since the basis of an international narcotics control system was its universality. 12 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan) said that the convening of the Conference was a further important step taken by the United Nations in the legal and social fields. Over the past fifty years, nine separate conventions concerning the use and control of narcotic drugs had come into being, and the Single Convention would be a milestone in the field of the codification of international law. It would encourage nations to fulfil their obligations with regard to the positive control of narcotic drugs at the national and international levels, and would further improve the system of international control, which was already much more effective than that in force at the time of the League of Nations. Afghanistan was a party to most of the previous conventions on narcotic drugs and for centuries had been a producer and exporter of opium. Afghanistan's interest in narcotic drugs had, however, always been humanitarian rather than commercial, and in 1957 the Government had banned the cultivation of opium. The Director of the Secretariat's Division of Narcotic Drugs had been invited to visit Afghanistan to study the problems of the former opium cultivators, and on the basis of his recommendations plans were being considered for the diversification of agriculture and for technical assistance to offset the economic losses incurred. The Afghan Government had co-operated in submitting annual data to the appropriate United Nations organs and had assisted the Middle East Narcotics Survey Mission in its work. Similar missions to other parts of the world would assist in the struggle against illicit traffic and facilitate regional co-operation in that field. Afghanistan was also co-operating with its neighbour country, Iran, which had imposed a similar ban on the cultivation of the poppy. He expressed the hope that the neighbouring countries would co-operate with Afghanistan. Mr. ECONOMOS-GOURAS (Greece) said that for many decades his country had had a highly centralized national system for strict control over the import, processing and use of narcotic drugs, and had achieved most satisfactory results. Particular importance should be given to the problem of heroin; in his delegation's view the use of heroin even for therapeutic purposes should be prohibited in all countries. The World Health Organization's Expert Committee on Addiction-producing Drugs, after careful study, had reached the conclusion that heroin could be adequately replaced in the medical field by less dangerous narcotic preparations. The use of heroin had been prohibited in Greece since 1926, when all the stocks of heroin in the country had been destroyed, and he hoped that the five or six countries which had not yet prohibited the use of heroin would soon do so. His delegation looked forward to the adoption of a convention which would be acceptable to all countries and, at the same time, effective in curbing and ultimately eradicating the medically unauthorized use of drugs. Mr. GRINBERG (Bulgaria) said that the competent authorities in Bulgaria had not previously had an opportunity to state their views on the third draft of the Single Convention. His country, which was a producer of narcotic drugs, was in favour of the consolidation of previous international agreements in a Single Convention. Although drug addiction had never been a social problem in Bulgaria, every step towards the eh'rnination of that social evil was regarded by his government as having great humanitarian importance. While generally welcoming the draft Convention as a serious attempt to simplify the international control system and to make it more flexible, his delegation had serious reservations with regard to certain provisions. The principle of universality was essential to the Convention, since drug addiction could not be contained by national boundaries. His delegation accordingly regretted that the true representatives of the Chinese people, and the German Democratic Republic, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of Mongolia, had not been invited to participate in the Conference. Similarly, his delegation opposed article 48 of the Convention in so far as it would prevent the accession of some countries to the Convention. Furthermore, he opposed the idea that the functions of the future Control Board should include such farreaching prerogatives as for instance the right to impose mandatory embargoes; the failure of the 1953 Protocol had proved that most States were unwilling to submit to substantial infringements of their sovereignty. It was important that the provisions of the Convention should be practicable and should be acceptable to all interested countries. With regard to cannabis control, he said that Bulgaria, like many other European countries, cultivated hemp for industrial purposes, but the variety of hemp grown did not contain any active addiction-producing substances. His delegation therefore regretted that the draft did not contain any provision to allow the continued cultivation of hemp, despite its economic importance to many countries. In addition, as had been pointed out by previous speakers, the measures relating to poppy straw were impracticable. Mr. WIRJOPRANOTO (Indonesia) said that one of the Indonesian Government's first decisions, after the establishment of the Republic, had been to put a stop to the production of opium and to prohibit opium smoking. His government had also demonstrated its eagerness to co-operate in international narcotics control by acceding to the 1953 Protocol. A Single Convention was needed to modernize and simplify the existing international control system, because scientific knowledge and practical experience in narcotics control had outdistanced existing international agreements. While the Conference, under its limited terms of reference, could not deal with the social conditions that were the fundamental cause of drug addiction, it could curtail the opportunities for the development of addiction by increasing the effectiveness of the international control system. His delegation was in general agreement with the draft submitted, but wished to emphasize that the Fourth plenary meeting — 27 January 1961 13 Single Convention should be open to any State that wished to become a party to it, since the co-operation of all countries producing and manufacturing narcotics in sizeable quantities was essential to its success. In that connexion, he regretted that the People's Republic of China was not represented at the Conference. Indonesia maintained a very strict control of narcotic drugs; the Government had recently vested the right to import and distribute narcotic drugs in a single state institution, thereby substantially eliminating the danger of illicit traffic, and the cultivation of the coca bush had been restricted to controlled areas. The Indonesian Government, considering that the Convention deserved the widest possible support and recognizing that the more stringent provisions of the draft might deter some States from acceding, thought that reservations to the Convention should be admissible within reasonable limits. Furthermore, since many economically less developed and newly independent countries lacked the technological and administrative staff, facilities and money needed to develop effective national programmes of narcotics control, his government hoped that United Nations technical assistance to national control programmes would be expanded. Consideration should also be given to the dangers inherent in the increasing manufacture of synthetic drugs in the more industrialized countries. He hoped that, after the Single Convention had been approved, the international community would turn its attention to removing the social conditions which were the fundamental cause of the narcotics problem. Mr. WEI (China) said that the narcotics situation left no room for complacency. Drug addiction still constituted a serious threat to health and social progress and a heavy financial burden. The forces spreading addiction were still formidable. For humanitarian reasons, every State should be willing to make greater sacrifices of national sovereignty and to co-operate more closely with others in preventing the abuse of narcotics. China had a special interest in narcotics control. The Chinese people, more than any other, had experienced the tragic consequences of drug addiction. For over a century the Government of China had sought to eliminate opium smoking and to prevent poppy cultivation; in modern times, its national control organs were among the most effective in the world, and the punishment of addicts and illicit traffickers was more severe than treaty obligations required. China had taken part in the work of the international conferences on opium, and its representatives had served on the Permanent Central Opium Board and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs for many years. His delegation considered that a good foundation had already been laid for an international control system. Steady progress had been made towards the goal of limiting the use of narcotic drugs to medical and scientific purposes. A procedure had been established whereby any new narcotic drug, whether natural or synthetic, could be placed under international control. It was also gratifying to note that no appreciable quantities of narcotic drugs were being diverted from the licit drug trade into illicit channels. Furthermore, although the 1953 Protocol was not yet in force, all the opium-producing countries had control systems which more or less satisfied the standards set by the Protocol. His delegation thought that the Single Convention should incorporate those provisions which had worked well in the past, and should change those which had proved ineffective or inadequate. It should be a more effective instrument for the control of narcotic drugs than existing agreements; it should be flexible enough to be capable of adjustment to rapid scientific and technological developments; and it should include a programme for the control of the agricultural raw materials which were the main sources of the illicit traffic. Commenting on the statement of the USSR representative at the third plenary meeting, he pointed out that the Economic and Social Council had been authorized to invite any States and agencies it chose to take part in the Conference. His government was the only legitimate government of China, and was recognized as such by the vast majority of States Members of the United Nations. Mrs. AMPARO DE ARENAS (Guatemala) said that her government attached great importance to the establishment of mandatory international regulations through a Single Convention. Although there might be differences of opinion regarding form, her delegation was convinced that all countries would support the substantive proposals for the prevention of the abuse of narcotic drugs and the illicit traffic. She hoped that the Conference would draft and adopt an effective and realistic convention which could be accepted by as many countries as possible. Progress in the control of narcotic drugs would only be made if the international and humanitarian aspects of the problem were given precedence over national interests. The institution of production control was bound to create problems for countries in which the production of narcotics had long been a source of income. Her delegation urged that technical and economic assistance should be given, on request, to underdeveloped countries whose economies were directly affected by their co-operation in the control of the production of and illicit traffic in narcotics or whose attempts to suppress ancient customs met with strong resistance. No country was safe from the narcotics problem, and a strict international control of production and of the illicit traffic was therefore essential. Guatemala would co-operate fully in maintaining such strict control. Mr. COMAY (Israel) said that the production and consumption of narcotics were not a serious problem in his country. The preparation, manufacture and possession of narcotic drugs were prohibited, and the use of certain preparations for medicinal and scientific purposes was strictly regulated. No plants were cultivated for drug extraction, and, although the number of addicts was not large, great efforts were made to solve their problems. 14 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Because of its geographic position between countries which were substantial producers of narcotics and countries where the consumption of narcotics was large and addiction wide-spread, Israel had to deal with a constant flow of illicit traffic across its territory. The Israel police force had seized hundreds of kilogrammes of opium and hashish year after year; one traditional smuggling route had been effectively sealed off. Much better results could, however, be obtained if Israel could secure the co-operation of the authorities in the neighbouring countries. Unfortunately, as the Middle East Narcotics Survey Mission had pointed out in its report of November 1959, there was no co-operation whatever between enforcement authorities with respect to the large-scale illicit traffic from Jordan to the United Arab Republic via Israel. The reason for that situation was purely one-sided, and was connected with the economic boycott practised by the League of Arab States against Israel. Israel had repeatedly offered its co-operation to its neighbours, both at meetings of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and through Interpol. That offer still stood. The Single Convention should be so formulated as to gain the widest possible acceptance since its success would depend on the voluntary co-operation of the governments concerned. The stringent enforcement measures contemplated, such as the proposed mandatory embargo, might well go beyond what some governments would be willing to accept. Furthermore, control measures should be flexible enough to take account of the special aspects of individual narcotic substances, as well as the continued impact of research. In general, his government approved the draft Convention. Mr. CERNIK (Czechoslovakia) said that the fact that the German Democratic Republic, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the Mongolian People's Republic had not been invited to take part in the Conference and that the People's Republic of China was not legitimately represented would be detrimental to its work. The principle of the equality of States had been infringed, and Article 1 (3) of the Charter concerning international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character had been ignored. The Conference should see that all countries were, at least, given the opportunity to become parties to the Convention. Unfortunately, under the procedure for acceptance provided in article 48 of the draft Convention, some States might be prevented from acceding to the Convention. His delegation believed that the Convention should deal with the question of control in general terms only, and that specific measures and the establishment of control should be regulated by the individual States. In examining articles 27, 28 and 31 of the draft Convention, the Conference should bear in mind that in a number of countries plants which could be used for the production of narcotic drugs were cultivated for the industrial production of consumer goods. In such cases control of the cultivation of the plant was impracticable. Drug addiction was a social problem and could not be fought solely by medical means. Unless the medical treatment, rehabilitation and care in closed institutions mentioned in article 47 were preceded by preventive care based on educational, cultural and economic measures, the elimination of drug addiction would be long delayed. The Single Convention should reflect the fact that measures to raise the living level of the population, ensure the right to work and recreation after work, and to provide security in sickness and old age, general medical treatment and public health education were essential to the effective elimination of drug addiction. Mr. MOON (Republic of Korea) said that his government found the third draft of the Single Convention satisfactory as a whole but hoped that the Conference would reconsider a number of provisions which conflicted with Korean law. His government, deeply concerned by the increase in the illicit drug traffic in its area, had acceded to the Opium Protocol of 1953 and had enacted the Narcotic Drug Law of 1957, under which stringent measures were being taken to control the traffic in and use of narcotic drugs. He protested at the statements made by some representatives regarding the representation of certain countries, including his own. In resolution 689 J (XXVI) the Economic and Social Council had requested the Secretary-General to invite all States Members of the United Nations and members of the specialized agencies. As his country was a member of most of the specialized agencies, it had a good claim to be represented. Furthermore, his government was the only legitimate government of Korea and it spoke for the Korean people. It was regrettable that the Conference, which should be working in a spirit of co-operation to carry out its task, was wasting its time on questions of representation. Mr. MACHOWSKI (Poland) said that his country was only a minor consumer of narcotic drugs and had no addiction problem because of its very effective narcotics laws, under which the health authorities were responsible for all matters connected with narcotic drugs. In practice, such drugs were administered and supplied only by doctors and pharmacists under state supervision and control. The high level of professional ethics in the medical profession and the severe penalties for infringement of the law had combined to eliminate the non-medical use of narcotics in Poland. His country had always been aware of its responsibilities in the field of international control; one of its first acts after achieving independence at the end of the First World War had been to accede to the 1912 and 1914 Conventions and, besides enacting domestic legislation, it had participated in the elaboration of more recent international instruments. It had also been one of the first countries to prohibit the use of heroin and drugs manufactured from imported cannabis. The cannabis grown in Poland had no narcotic properties. Experience had shown that success in the field of narcotics control depended, first and foremost, upon the goodwill and co-operation of States. It would therefore be both inappropriate and futile to attempt to include Fourth plenary meeting — 24 January 1961 15 in the Single Convention any provisions tending to replace voluntary co-operation by compulsory measures. The control organs functioning under the Convention should concentrate on the co-ordination and encouragement of national control measures, one of their major activities being the dissemination and exchange of information and experience. His delegation had grave objections to articles 32 and 37 of the third draft, which restricted the number of States entitled to export certain drugs. Such provisions were incompatible with the principle of the equality of States and with every State's sovereignty over its natural resources. His delegation would propose amendments to those articles. As several delegations had stressed, to be effective, the control of narcotic drugs had to be world-wide; it followed therefore that the Convention should satisfy the criterion of universal acceptability. The first condition for the universal acceptability of the Convention was universal representation at the Conference, but that had not been achieved. As a result of the discriminatory procedure that had been adopted with regard to invitations, the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republics of Korea and VietNam, the People's Republic of Mongolia and the Democratic Republic of Germany were not represented. As those countries were important producers and consumers of natural and synthetic drugs, their absence would inevitably be prejudicial to the work of the Conference. The second condition for universal acceptability was that no State should be deprived of the right to become a party to the Convention, but the draft did not fulfil that condition. Article 48 would have to be amended to ensure that the Convention would be open for signature by all countries. His delegation categorically rejected the statement made at the third plenary meeting by the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, who had denied the sovereign rights of the Democratic German Republic and claimed to represent the whole of Germany. Such a statement was particularly inappropriate when coming from the representative of a government that was mentioned in the Estimated World Requirements of Narcotic Drugs for 1961 as not having carried out its obligations under the 1948 Protocol. The Democratic German Republic, on the other hand, was mentioned as having done so. There could be no question that that country was exercising its sovereign rights. Its declaration of accession to the international narcotics treaties of 1912, 1925 and 1931 had been transmitted to the appropriate quarters through the diplomatic channel, with the result that, under article 21 of the 1931 Convention, it had been invited to submit annual reports on narcotic drugs, which it was doing regularly. Mr. ANDRIAMAHARO (Madagascar) said that his government wished to become a party to the Convention, not because drug addiction was a major problem in Madagascar, but because it realized the need for international co-operation. By becoming a party to the Convention, it hoped to protect its people from any future danger of drug addiction and help other countries to solve their narcotics problems. However, he was a little apprehensive about the Conference's chances of success. In spite of international efforts over fifty years and the adoption of many international instruments relating to narcotic drugs, the illicit traffic was still going on. Furthermore, the countries which were reluctant to accede to the Geneva Convention of 1936 or had reservations regarding it were still of the same mind. The third draft was excellent and with some minor changes should be generally acceptable. Like the French representative, he thought that all proposals to amend the draft should be aimed at either simplifying or improving the present system. The work of the Conference would be facilitated if the Convention was not so framed that it would automatically supersede all existing narcotics treaties. Article 51 might be amended in such a way that some earlier instruments would remain in being. His delegation also had some proposals to make about schedules I and II. Mr. BARONA (Mexico) said that if the Single Convention was to be universally acceptable, all delegations had to agree on certain principles. The general principles of international law recognized by civilized nations should be respected; there should be no violation or infringement of the sovereignty of States; each country should be responsible for control within its borders; international control procedures should be simplified, although not to the point of.weakening the present system; effective international co-operation should be achieved; offences should be defined so that the ringleaders of the drug traffic as well as the distributors and middlemen could be brought to justice; lastly, because the problem was world wide, its solution had to be world wide also; and the Convention, therefore, should be universally acceptable. The draft contained one very promising provision, relating to the addition of new substances to the various Schedules by a decision of the control organs and without the need for a new agreement. His delegation welcomed the new departure in principle, but had not yet had time to consider what risks or disadvantages, if any, it might involve. Since 1947 or even earlier, the Mexican Government had been taking strong and continuing measures to prohibit the cultivation of the opium poppy and cannabis and to prevent the transit of illicit drugs through Mexican territory. Severe penalties for narcotics offences were laid down in the Federal Penal Code, which prohibited bail or release on parole in such cases. The legitimate trade in narcotic drugs was strictly controlled under the Health Code. Preventive measures, including air reconnaissance of areas where the opium poppy or marijuana might be grown and strict police supervision of those and frontier areas, had been greatly improved. The consumption of such drugs as morphine, heroin, cocaine and of pharmaceutical products based on them was very low in Mexico and the percentage of drug addicts was very small. The Mexican Government was also determined to play its part in the international control of narcotics. 16 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drags There were some differences of opinion regarding certain provisions of the draft Convention but they were to be welcomed, as discussion would give delegations an idea of each other's problems. Mr. QUINTERO (Philippines) said that the cultivation of plants yielding narcotics was not a problem in the Philippines. In order to co-operate with international efforts for the control of narcotics, the Philippine Government had banned the cultivation of the opium poppy and cannabis and there was a bill before the Philippine parliament to ban the cultivation of the coca bush and the production of heroin. The greatest narcotics problem in the Philippines was the illicit traffic in opium, which was smuggled in from the mainland of China via Hong Kong and North Borneo. Thanks to the efforts of the United Kingdom and Philippine delegations to the United Nations Opium Conference, the 1953 Protocol contained a territorial application clause (article 20) which would be helpful in controlling the illicit traffic, but the Protocol had not yet come into force. He welcomed the fact that its provisions had been included in the draft of the Single Convention. The draft was a satisfactory piece of work, on which its authors were to be congratulated. Some articles could be improved, but he trusted that it would command unanimous support. The meeting rose at 12.50 p.m. FIFTH PLENARY MEETING Friday, 27 January 1961, at 3.5 p.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) General statements (concluded) Mr. JOURY (Jordan), exercising his right of reply, said he wished to reply to the allegations made by Israel concerning the illicit traffic in the Arab countries. Jordan was taking the strictest measures to curb such traffic, in close co-operation with the League of Arab States and the United Nations bodies concerned, which alone were competent to deal with the matter. It was true that Jordan did not collaborate with Israel; its position in that respect was well known. He hoped that the Conference would succeed in carrying out the task assigned to it. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) said that he was glad to be able to take part in a conference completing a task in which WHO had been collaborating ever since its inception on the basis of a number of international conventions. WHO's observations on the draft text stemmed from the experience it had acquired during the past twelve years of common endeavour, as also from the experience of the Health Committee of the League of Nations. They were based on the need to protect the community from the risks inherent in the growing use of narcotic drugs. The criterion of "risk to the community" was essential in determining how far control was to extend, as the World Health Assembly and the Executive Board of WHO had confirmed in approving those observations. Whenever WHO was called upon to advise on the control of new narcotic drugs or on the problems posed by their therapeutic application and possible abuse, on research into* new anaesthetics or on the treatment of addicts, it took the safety of the public as its sole guiding principle. He was at the disposal of the Conference for any clarifications that might be desired concerning the technical role of his organization under existing agreements or the new convention. Mr. KUNTOH (Ghana) said that the new convention would not be effective unless all countries acceded to it. Although Ghana was not a producer of narcotic drugs, it appreciated the dangers inherent in the illicit traffic. Effective control would unquestionably be of great benefit to mankind. Nevertheless, only the general principles on which it was to be based should be codified, the parties being left free to decide upon control procedures which would be in conformity with their own legislation. He was ready to co-operate to the fullest extent in working out a system which would make it possible to improve the control and use of narcotic drugs, and protect mankind from serious dangers. The PRESIDENT declared the general debate closed. Adoption of the rules of procedure (E/CONF.34/2; E/CONF.34/L.1) (resumed from the 1st plenary meeting) The PRESIDENT suggested that the Conference should adopt those parts of the rules of procedure which had been provisionally approved and drew attention to the Indian amendment to rule 38, paragraph 1 (E/CONF.34/L.1). Mr. BANERJI (India) explained that the amendment was intended to give greater precision to the rule, which did not define matters of substance. I t would be preferable to state that decisions on all matters other than procedural ones should be taken by a twothirds majority. The PRESIDENT thought that perhaps it was not necessary to change the wording of the rule, since the words "matters of substance" would be understood to cover everything other than procedural matters. The parts of the rules of procedure which had been approved provisionally at the 1st plenary meeting were adopted. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.l and 2) Article 2 (Substances under control) Article 3 (Changes in the scope of control) Mr. CURRAN (Canada), directing his remarks to article 2 only, thought first of all that there should be a more exact indication as to which provisions of the Convention were applicable to the various narcotic drugs shown in each schedule. Fifth plenary meeting — 27 January 1961 17 Secondly preparations which were exempt from international control were in Canada subject to the same control as the drugs covered by international control, and it was to be feared that certain manufacturers might seek to take advantage of the exempting provisions of the Convention as a means of arguing that there should be no national control. It should therefore be made clear that acceptance of the clauses relative to exemptions from international control would not be construed as weakening national regulations. Finally, the total prohibition referred to in article 2, paragraph 1 (e), relating to the narcotic drugs shown in schedule IV, might well be regarded by the medical profession as constituting unwarranted interference in the practice of medicine and a reflection on the competence of the medical profession to use drugs in accordance with their therapeutic value. The words "small amounts" for medical research were in any case too vague. It would be preferable to say "such amounts as may be necessary for research only..." Furthermore, it appeared that many countries were also in favour of a recommendation rather than a mandatory provision. It was to be hoped that the Conference would arrive at a formula acceptable to all which would not oblige Canada to reject even a recommendation of the Commission or, if it accepted it, would not place it in a difficult position vis-a-vis the Canadian medical profession. Mr. WARREN (Australia) said that his Government regarded as particularly dangerous the clause in article 3, paragraph 3, which authorized the Commission to place a new substance in schedule IV if it considered that its ill effects were not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages. Australia had completely prohibited the import and export of heroin, cannabis and ketobemidone, which were not produced or manufactured in Australia. For the Australian Government, therefore, it was simply a question of principle: every State should be free to decide, in the light of the views of its medical profession, whether a particular substance should be completely prohibited. The provisions of articles 2 and 3 infringed that right. Admittedly, certain narcotic drugs should be completely prohibited; but the prohibition should be the subject of a recommendation only, as in the case of the existing agreements. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) said that he, too, could not approve the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1 (e). If physicians used a substance despite the fact that it could produce harmful effects, a government should not prohibit its therapeutic application. Article 2, paragraph 5, stated that the schedules were to form an integral part of the Convention. That would mean that any change in the schedules would constitute an amendment to the text of the Convention as ratified by the legislative organs of the Federal Republic. The latter would then be obliged to enact new legislation to that effect, which might entail prolonged delays. It would be preferable to retain the procedure for the inclusion of new substances provided in the 1948 Protocol. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) agreed that article 2 should indicate more clearly which provisions applied to each narcotic drug. As far as paragraph 1 (e) was concerned, it would be difficult, or even impossible, for his government to agree to a convention which included a clause absolutely prohibiting certain drugs on the basis of a decision by an international body. Experience had shown that certain countries were entirely justified in refusing to accept such a provision; in any event it was unnecessary, since the Commission could always make recommendations. Nevertheless, in view of the importance attached by some participants to that clause, and in an endeavour to meet their view, the United Kingdom delegation would support a solution which was generally acceptable such as, for example, the inclusion of a recommendation only. Mr. KENNEDY (New Zealand) entirely shared the views of the United Kingdom representative. He considered that article 2, paragraph 1(e), should take the form of a simple recommendation. It would be a mistake to give an international body the power to prohibit. It was for the government of each country to decide the question, after consulting the competent bodies and the medical profession. In accordance with the resolution adopted in 1954 by the World Health Assembly, New Zealand had prohibited the import and export of heroin, but not its use for medical purposes, particularly in cases of certain forms of cancer and in gynaecology. No cases of addiction due to heroin had been reported in New Zealand; it was in fact very little used. There was therefore no need to prohibit it completely. Mr. TILAK RAJ (India) agreed to article 2 in principle. Paragraph 1 (e) authorized small quantities of the drugs listed in schedule IV for scientific and clinical research purposes, and the prohibition of such highly dangerous drugs would not therefore impede the progress of science. A number of countries, including India, had already prohibited the manufacture of, trade in, and use of heroin. According to current knowledge, the therapeutic properties of the substances enumerated in schedule IV did not outweigh their dangers. If future research led to some other conclusion, there was suitable provision in the convention to the effect that the substances in question could always be deleted from schedule IV. The statistics published by the Permanent Central Opium Board showed that world production of heroin and ketobemidone was small and their consumption was in decline. If licit production of even small quantities was recognized, the dangers of diversion of these drugs into illicit channels would be greatly enhanced. Nevertheless, there should be sufficient safeguards oj legitimate medical interests written into the convention. 18 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs India produced and consumed some cannabis drugs, but if the Conference decided to retain cannabis products in schedule IV, the Indian delegation would refrain, in the general interest of agreement, from raising any objections. Dr. MABILEAU (France), referring to article 2, paragraph 1 (e), said he could see no objection to schedule IV, which would enable the most dangerous narcotic drugs to be listed. The therapeutic drugs included other substances which possessed similar advantages and had not the same disadvantages. Ever since its tenth session the Commission on Narcotic Drugs had stressed the desirability of drawing up a list of new natural and synthetic drugs whose dangerous properties were not counterbalanced by their therapeutic advantages, and the French Government realized that the use of the most dangerous substances should be condemned. In the past, however, some countries had taken prohibition measures on the advice of international experts, but had been obliged to reverse their decisions at the request of leading members of the national medical corps. Accordingly, it would be desirable to formulate an international recommendation, without going so far as actual prohibition, and taking into account the opinion of the medical profession in every case. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said he had no objection in principle to the division of narcotics into four schedules. The use of the narcotics listed in schedule IV was absolutely prohibited in the Soviet Union, even for medical purposes. In order that the Convention might be generally accepted, and to avoid any constitutional difficulty at the time of its adoption, the prohibition should take the form of a recommendation only. In the last analysis countries themselves must decide; the effectiveness of control would depend primarily on the scrupulous observance of the provisions of the national law. With regard to paragraph 1, he said the words "except as otherwise provided" at the end of sub-paragraphs (b) and (d) were too vague. The control measures should be defined either in footnotes or by reference to the relevant parts of the Convention. The phrase "for other than medical or scientific purposes" in paragraph 4 was also too vague, and there again the drafting should be improved. Mr. KUNTOH (Ghana) considered that article 2, paragraph 1 (e), should be a mere recommendation. Mr. MENEMENCIOGLU (Turkey) did not share the apprehensions expressed by certain delegations with regard to article 2, paragraph 1 (e). The substances listed in schedule IV had not come into use only recently; experience with a number of patients over a long period had shown that they were undoubtedly dangerous. There would be no question of including a drug in schedule IV as soon as it appeared. With regard to national sovereignty, he said that all countries would have to agree to make certain concessions in that connexion if any international control was to be established. The schedules formed an integral part of the Convention and the procedure laid down for the amendment of schedule IV was the same as that for all the other articles. There was no need for any particular anxiety on that subject. Paragraph 1 (e) was not intended to hamper medical and scientific research, to which there was an express reference, but to obviate the widespread administration of medicaments whose value had not been proved. That was amply justifiable from the humanitarian point of view. Article 2 was fully in keeping with the principle followed in the past that national or private interests should be subordinated to those of the health of mankind. Mr. VERTES (Hungary) was opposed to article 2, paragraph 2, which provided for unduly strict control measures and took no account of the purposes for which the plants in question were cultivated or used. Mr. AYARI (Tunisia) considered that article 2, paragraph 3, should provide for stricter control. With regard to paragraph 1 (e), while it would be better to make it a recommendation, his delegation hoped that States would take steps at the national level to prohibit the substances in question. Mr. HOLZ (Venezuela) said that the health authorities in his country had prohibited the use of heroin and ketobemidone, which they considered very dangerous, but he thought that a recommendation in the Convention would be enough. Mr. NICOLIC (Yugoslavia) agreed with the representatives of the United Kingdom and the USSR that article 2 might be improved. For the sake of compromise, the Yugoslav Government would agree that paragraph 1 (e) should be in the form of a recommendation, although in Yugoslavia the use of heroin had been prohibited for many years. On the question of poppy straw, he agreed with the Hungarian representative that the provisions of article 2, paragraph 2, should be revised. "Poppy paste", which required very strict control because of its high morphine content, should be listed in the schedule. Mr. FRANZI (Italy) confirmed his government's views on article 2, as given in its comments (E/CONF.34/1), and was pleased to see that they were shared by other delegations. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands), referring to his Government's comments, said that it would be very difficult for him to accept article 2, paragraph 1 (e). The proposed prohibition had no precedent in international instruments on narcotic drugs. The United Nations and the Economic and Social Council had made recommendations in that sense, as a result of which the Netherlands had tightened its control measures, and the existing national and international regulation of the most dangerous narcotic drugs seemed strict enough to pre-Sixth plenary meeting <— 30 January 1961 19 vent abuses. It would be unfortunate if a complete prohibition were to prevent doctors from prescribing medicaments which might be effective. If still stricter measures seemed to be necessary, that was a matter for States to decide. In any case, such a prohibition could not abolish the illicit traffic, which was the real enemy. The Netherlands Government was in favour of a recommendation accompanied by information on the dangers of the substances concerned and on the most suitable ways to ensure the strictest control of them. Commenting on article 2, paragraph 1 (a), he recalled that the 1931 Convention classified substances which were not narcotic drugs but were convertible into narcotic drugs in a special sub-group 1(6); codeine and ethylmorphine made up group II, since they were very widely used substances to which less strict rules had to be applied. Later, since both substances had slight addictive properties, group II had been amended to include those substances whose addictive properties did not exceed those of codeine. For the purposes of the Single Convention, however, it would be better to revert to the original idea of putting convertible substances into a special group. Paragraph 1 (a) did not provide for that. Only paragraph 3 could be considered to refer to such substance, but the proposed measures of supervision fell far short of the measures of control applicable under the 1931 Convention and the 1948 Protocol. The Netherlands delegation therefore proposed that there should be a special category for substances easily convertible into any of the narcotic drugs listed in schedules I and II. Proceeding, he compared the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1 (d) (paragraph reference 38) with those of paragraph reference 417, both of which concerned the preparations listed in schedule III. Since the words "international control" in paragraph reference 417 might be confusing, that paragraph should repeat the words "exempt from the provisions of this convention" used in article 2. Throughout the Convention, the English word "drugs" had been translated into French as stupefiants. He understood that the word stupefiants had a more limited meaning than drogues and corresponded rather to the English term "narcotic drugs", which was also more limited than "drugs". The Netherlands delegation proposed that the word stupefiants in the French version of the draft Convention should be replaced by drogues, and that it should be pointed out to the Drafting Committee that the word "drugs" had been translated by stupefiants, although in the 1925 and 1931 Conventions and the 1948 Protocol the French word had been drogues. It would be dangerous to introduce a new term into one of the official versions of the Single Convention for an idea which traditionally covered a larger group of substances. The Yugoslav representative had referred to "poppy paste". The use of that substance seemed to be growing fairly rapidly and deserved attention. Its inclusion in schedule I, together with opium, might be considered, since it was a derivative of the opium poppy and contained all the main alkaloids of opium. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) objected to the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1 (e). It was possible that Denmark might find it necessary to prohibit the substances concerned; Danish law already provided for the control of certain substances which were not internationally controlled. The Convention should establish minimum requirements only, and should not preclude any party from taking stricter measures if a party deems it feasible. He agreed with the representative of the USSR that the provisions of article 2 were not clear and that its wording should be completely revised. Mr. MENEMENCIOGLU (Turkey) hoped that the ad hoc committee on definitions would be set up as soon as possible. The exact signifiance of article 2 could not be judged until the precise meaning of several terms used in it was known. The CHAIRMAN thought that the ad hoc committee which was to deal with articles 2 and 3 might consider also the definitions of the terms used in those articles. He asked the Conference whether that procedure was acceptable. Mr. MENEMENCIOGLU (Turkey) said that he found it acceptable on condition that the definitions were available to the Conference when it considered articles 2 and 3. The CHAIRMAN said that the ad hoc committee could report on the definitions and on the provisions of the two articles at one and the same time. Mr. LIANG (China) said that his government had particular respect for recommendations on narcotic drugs made by international bodies, especially WHO. Since the 1931 Convention had recommended that the use of heroin for medical purposes should cease, China had prohibited its use as far back as 1932. Yet he agreed with the representatives of Canada and the United Kingdom that article 2, paragraph 1(e), should be in the form of a simple recommendation and that Governments should be left to take any decisions they thought fit The meeting rose at 4.45 p.m. SIXTH PLENARY MEETING Monday, 30 January 1961, at 10.35 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.l and 2) (continued) Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil), speaking on a point of order, said that item (m) of document E/CONF.34/ C.l/L.l did not deal in a very precise way with the question of the preamble. The preamble of any treaty 20 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs or convention was an important part of it and in the case of the Single Convention still more so, because it was going to consolidate and bring up to date the provisions of nine existing multilateral instruments of unquestionable importance, and so he felt that there should be a preamble. A preamble was not a mere formal introduction, but rather dealt with the substance of a treaty; it was a statement of purposes and a justification of the aims of the negotiation; and, because it helped to understand the intentions of negotiators, it had a juridical force for the purposes of interpretation. He proposed that the drafting committee should be instructed to prepare a preamble. The PRESIDENT said that he was under the impression that the Secretariat intended to submit a draft preamble in due course, but he could see no objection to the drafting committee's being asked to prepare one. A decision on the subject would be taken later; in the meantime, he suggested that the consideration of articles 2 and 3 should be continued. Article 2 (Substances under control) Article 3 (Changes in the scope of control) U Ba SEIN (Burma), referring to article 2, paragraph 1 (e), said that in his country cannabis continued to be used for medical purposes. It was, for example, administered to elephants used for the transport of timber. The prohibition of cannabis in Burma would be a severe blow to the timber industry. He considered that paragraph 1(e) should take the form of a recommendation which would allow governments complete freedom of action. His delegation shared the view that the provisions of the sub-paragraph in question should be amended if they were to be generally accepted. Mr. AZARAKSH (Iran) said that in his country there was no manufacture of narcotic drugs. The import and distribution of such drugs were a monopoly of the Department of Health, which decided, in consultation with the technical committees, what narcotic drugs should be used for exclusively medical purposes. No cases of addiction due to synthetic drugs had been reported in Iran. The use of heroin and ketobemidone, even for medical purposes, was prohibited. Article 2, paragraph 1 (e), and article 3 would have to be amended, but in any case complete prohibition would benefit world health. In the past, opium had been recommended as a universal panacea, but it had since been realized that opium would not cure every malady. Unhappily, all countries were not at the same level medically and scientifically speaking. Furthermore, the pharmaceutical industry was not unaffected by profit motives. It was fortunate that the manufacturing countries possessed all the necessary legislative, medical and social means to protect the health of their people, but those means were lacking in many consuming countries. Accordingly, he thought that an international body should be empowered, in the name of humanity, to prohibit foreign trade in the dangerous substances listed in schedule IV and in that way protect the countries which did not possess research centres. WHO should be entitled to prohibit the export of narcotic drugs and, through the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, to draw up recommendations concerning the trade in and the use of harmful substances. One or the other of the paragraphs in question should be amended, but WHO should be consulted first, as the question was a medical one. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece), referring to article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, said that in his opinion schedule IV, which included narcotic drugs such as heroin and ketobemidone, should be retained. The use of those two substances should be prohibited, but governments should merely be recommended to do so. Experience had shown that governments did pay attention to the provisions of international instruments. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that he was in general agreement with articles 2 and 3. He saw no objection to the lists in schedules I, II, III and IV. Strict measures of control should undoubtedly be taken in order to prevent those dangerous substances from going into the channels of illicit traffic. With regard to article 2, paragraph 1 (e), he said his government proposed an addendum limiting the scope of the phrase "small amounts for medical and scientific research, including controlled experiments". The special national administration recommended in article 25 should be empowered to control even the small amounts required for such purposes. That would accomplish a double purpose: (1) ensure that the necessary quantities for medical and scientific research would be adequately provided to permit and encourage clinical experiments; and (2) prevent the risk that quantities of such substances might be diverted to the illicit traffic. For the purpose of the amendment of the future schedules I, II, III and IV, which were to form an integral part of the Convention, it would be better that a more flexible wording for paragraph 5 be found in order to avoid difficulties with the legislative bodies of the parties that would have to ratify the said amendments. Mr. CERNIK (Czechoslovakia) considered that article 3, paragraph 3, should be amended. The Commission was not sufficiently qualified to amend the schedules; only physicians, specifically WHO, could decide whether the ill-effects of dangerous substances were offset by their therapeutic advantages. Hence, article 3 should speak of "decision" of WHO rather than of "consultations". Moreover, the position of Governments should be taken into consideration. The Czechoslovak delegation, like others, thought that the Convention should not preclude countries from introducing such control measures as they considered necessary at the national level. For example, psychotomimetics and sulphates of amphetamine were subject to control in Czechoslovakia although they were not included in any of the schedules in the draft Convention. Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) said that the words "synthetic and other" in article 2, para-Sixth plenary meeting — 30 January 1961 21 graph 3, were superfluous, since the term "drugs" covered synthetic substances. As far as schedule IV was concerned, he said the use of heroin and ketobemidone was prohibited in the United States, except for medical and scientific purposes, and was under government control. While he considered that the use of the substances included in schedule IV should be prohibited, he would, in a spirit of co-operation, vote in favour of a recommendation, as that would induce more countries to sign the Convention. Although ketobemidone was prohibited, it was used and manufactured in some countries. In Europe, there had been many recorded cases of addiction to ketobemidone, because the countries in question had not carried out the recommendations of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Mr. KROOK (Sweden) said that there was nothing new in the idea of prohibiting the use of dangerous drugs, for it had been broached at The Hague in 1912. Since then, various recommendations had been made. Sweden, for example, had prohibited the importation, use and manufacture of diacetylmorphine in 1952 and had taken similar measures in regard to cannabis and cannabis preparations in 1957. Moreover, diacetylmorphine had been used in only one pharmaceutical preparation, the composition of which had been unlikely to give rise to abuse. There was no heroin addiction in Sweden. The measures which Sweden had taken in that field had been inspired by a spirit of international co-operation. In his opinion, it would be enough, after consultation with the WHO Expert Committee, to make a recommendation in regard to schedule IV. Miss HARELI (Israel) said that although her government would be able to accept the provisions of article 2, the drafting of the article might well be improved. Under paragraph 1(e) very little of positive value could be accomplished by using the substances in question for medical purposes, and to include schedule IV in the Convention would tend to discourage research. The Israel Government would favour one of the following courses: either both paragraph 1(e) and schedule IV should be omitted, or else the prohibition should be in the form of a recommendation and would thus not prevent any government from completely prohibiting some or all of the substances concerned. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) recalled that he had supported the retention of schedule IV. Although, as was generally known, the medical use of heroin and ketobemidone was prohibited in Turkey, he would not, in view of the differences of opinion expressed by delegations, insist that the list should be compulsory. He would, however, urge that schedule IV should be retained, because there should be a list of substances to which international bodies could refer in formulating recommendations for the prohibition of the drugs concerned. On the basis of those recommendations, governments could take action in accordance with their own laws and their obligations to their people. What the Turkish Government wanted was an arrangement whereby both new and old substances which, after sufficient experience, were recognized as harmful could be placed on the prohibited list so that countries less advanced in research might be able to profit by that experience and avoid the danger of drug addiction. Mr. DIAZ LOPEZ (Spain) said that in the Spanish text he would prefer the use of the word estupefaciente, because it was more specific. Spain subscribed to the proposed text for article 2, paragraph \(e). Articles 2 and 3, particularly the former, seemed to be well drafted and represented very marked progress in that the Commission would be able to take measures which would not hamper national control. Although he appreciated the objections of some delegations, he preferred the provisions as drafted. The solution might perhaps be to amend paragraph 1 (e) so as to leave certain States free to pursue their research in the field of narcotic drugs without preventing others from taking the control measures which they thought desirable. The PRESIDENT proposed that, before considering article 3 more particularly, the Conference might vote on the most controversial point affecting article 2, namely, whether the prohibition in paragraph 1 (e) should be compulsory or should take the form of a recommendation. Such a decision would surely expedite the task of the working group to be set up at the conclusion of the Conference's consideration of article 3. Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) regarded that proposal as very propitious. The Conference had already devoted much time to the question, and the moment had come to make the position clear, Mr. CURRAN (Canada) shared that view. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) thought that it might be better to refer the question to a working group, which could make various suggestions to the Conference for its decision before it turned to the consideration of article 3. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) and Mr. CERNIK (Czechoslovakia) supported that view. Mr. BANERJI (India) recalled that, according to the method of work originally agreed^ upon, (E/CONF.34/3), the final decision in all cases where there was a difference of views was to be taken only after a working group had met and had submitted several alternative texts which took into account all the arguments. He wished to know whether, apart from the point at issue, which had already been the subject of long discussions, the Conference intended to depart from that procedure. That was a question of principle which should be settled forthwith because it was bound to recur. He thought that it would be premature to proceed to a vote because some delegations had not yet presented all their arguments, having thought that they would have the opportunity to do so in the working group. Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan), supported by Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and 22 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) thought that the Conference could take a decision of principle at that stage without, however, establishing a precedent. In that way the working group would be given the task of drafting a text, but a mere repetition of the various views would be avoided. Dr. MABILEAU (France) shared that opinion. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) thought that the debate had shown a clear majority in favour of a recommendation. The question was therefore sufficiently clarified to enable the working group to function. A vote should be taken only when the working group had completed its task. Otherwise, it would be advisable to refer the problem direct to the drafting committee, for the working group could perform no useful function if its hands were tied. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) thought, on the contrary, that it would be useful for the working group to know the views of the Conference, because in that way its terms of reference would to some extent be defined. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) shared that view. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that he regarded it as certain that the prohibition would not be compulsory but would be in the form of a mere recommendation. The taking of a vote would not be contrary either to the rules of procedure or to the agreed method of work, because paragraph 14 of document E/CONF.34/3 provided that on a small number of well-defined questions which could be clearly resolved by vote, the plenary could take a vote and then refer the article in question to the drafting committee. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said he had been impressed by the Yugoslav representative's argument. For his part, he thought that if the working group reached unanimity, it could send the question directly to the drafting committee without having to ask for the prior approval of the Conference; the drafting committee and the working group could work along parallel lines. The PRESIDENT stressed that the general committee had intended that any simple decision would be taken by the Conference in plenary meeting. It was only if different positions had to be reconciled that the Conference should refer the question to a working group or an ad hoc committee. Since, however, no agreement had been reached, he invited the Conference to vote on the proposal that an immediate decision should be taken on whether the prohibition provided for in article 2, paragraph 1(e), should be compulsory or not. A vote was taken by show of hands. The proposal was rejected by 27 votes to 25, with 4 abstentions. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) noted that the decision to be taken on article 2, paragraph 1(e), would have some bearing on article 3. However, the main problem raised by article 3 had to do with the future role of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The United Kingdom's objection to the provision in question was similar to its objection with regard to article 2, paragraph 1(e). The problem was even more serious, since the parties would be committed in advance to prohibiting drugs which had not yet even been discovered. Furthermore, the Commission was empowered to act only after consultation with WHO and not necessarily in accordance with the latter's recommendations. But was it desirable to amend the Conventions of 1931 and 1948 in that respect and to entrust responsibility in the matter to the Commission instead of leaving it to WHO? The Commission met only once a year; if a notification was sent to it in June, for example, it could take no decision before the following April. Under the existing system, a notification submitted in June was examined as early as October by the WHO Expert Committee. If, on the other hand, the notification was sent immediately after the session of the Expert Committee, it could be transmitted in April to the Commission, which would take provisional measures. Under the new provision, the time-lag, instead of being six months at the most, could be as much as twelve months. Article 3, paragraph 4, was too vague. The words "the inclusion of an additional substance in the system of control" were not precise. It was only when a new drug had to be subjected to control promptly because of its dangerousness that provisional measures should be taken. The draft, unlike the 1948 Protocol, did not specify that the parties must respect the recommendations concerning such provisional measures; hence it was less effective. The draft did not reflect the decision taken by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 730 D (XXVIII) on the recommendation of the Commission. The resolution provided that when a government had notified the Secretary-General that it considered a drug liable to produce addiction, all other governments should examine the possibility of the immediate and provisional application of control measures to the drug in question, even in advance of a decision by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs or WHO. Such a provision would make it possible to place the drug in question under control promptly. His delegation wished to reserve its position with regard to article 3, paragraph 5, until the Conference had taken a decision on the preceding paragraphs. In conclusion, he expressed his approval of the suggestion that the definition of the word "drug" appearing in article l(k) should be transferred to article 3. WHO had criticized the wording of that sub-paragraph and had proposed an amendment (E/CONF.34/1). As it was to be understood, however, that it would be interpreted in the sense intended by WHO, he did not think it was absolutely necessary to amend the existing text. Mr. YATES (Secretariat) said he would like to explain the position of the Secretariat with regard to article 3, paragraph 3, which provided for the transfer to the United Nations of certain functions exercised in the Sixth plenary meeting — 30 January 1961 23 past by WHO. Under the existing system WHO was responsible for taking technical decisions, while the United Nations Secretariat was responsible for the mechanics of their application. The system operated as well as could be expected and the Secretariat saw no reason why it should not be maintained. On the other hand, there was no doubt that the first stages of control (provisional control) called for some adjustment. Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) thought that the criteria for determining which new drugs should be subjected to control should appear in article 3 rather than in the definitions. Furthermore, either article 3 or the definitions, as the case might be, should include provisions regarding substances which were not actually drugs but which could easily be converted into drugs. Provision should also be made for an appeal from or revision of any decision altering the schedules. A government should be able to have recourse to a group of independent experts if it did not wish to accept a recommendation of which it disapproved or if it wished to correct an error which might be made in good faith by WHO. Finally, the United States agreed with WHO that if a decision concerning amendments to the schedules was taken by the Commission such amendments should be in accordance with the views and the recommendation of WHO, for if the Commission took measures which deviated from the views of WHO, it could not be for medical reasons but only because of the possibility of abuse. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that he, too, thought the Commission was not competent to make changes on its own initiative; it should act in agreement with WHO. The Commission should be able to request, and not simply recommend, that the parties apply the provisions of the Convention to an additional substance, on a provisional basis, on the understanding that such request would be only provisional and would not be made except in case of emergency. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that in principle he could support the idea of an appeals committee, but the details concerning the way in which it would operate should be carefully studied. With regard to article 3, paragraph 1, he said countries should be encouraged to furnish without delay full particulars of new substances which might usefully be added to the schedules and to make any suggestions they saw fit concerning the transfer of a substance from one schedule to another. Any notification received by the Secretary-General should be transmitted immediately to all the parties, together with the relevant documentation, or, if the latter was too bulky, such documents as he considered most important. Article 3 should set forth certain criteria concerning the classification of substances within the different schedules. At the moment, the recommendations of WHO were followed fairly closely and there was no reason to change the practice. But the criteria would be particularly useful for the guidance of countries which had had no experience of the earlier conventions. The words "after consultation with the World Health Organization" in article 3, paragraph 3, were too weak; the Commission should be at liberty to amend the schedules only on the recommendation of WHO. Article 3, paragraph 4, was too vague. Circumstances might be such as to convince the Commission that a substance should be provisionally included in schedule I before WHO had expressed an opinion on the subject. In such a case, and provided that the reasons were stated, it should be able to address to countries not merely a recommendation but an actual request which would be provisionally binding on the parties. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) also thought that article 3 should establish certain criteria for determining how additional substances were to be classified in the schedules. The 1948 Protocol provided that a committee of experts appointed by WHO should decide the category in which such additional substances should be included. That procedure had raised no difficulties and it would probably be useful to retain such a provision in the Single Convention. According to the draft, the Commission would take the final decision. Nor was that in itself objectionable because, while WHO would base its decision essentially on medical criteria, the Commission could apply other criteria, social for example. Nevertheless, the Commission should be empowered to take a final decision only on the recommendation of WHO and not merely after consultation with that agency. The provisions of article 3, paragraph 4, regarding the provisional control of additional substances did not go as far as those of the 1948 Protocol, which had proved very effective. In his view, a mere recommendation was not sufficient. The Commission should have authority to take a decision which would be binding on the parties. As had been said, the parties should be under an obligation to enact control measures upon receipt of the notification. However, for that purpose, they would have to have sufficient information. The Secretariat might summarize the information available and transmit it to the parties. The United States representative had spoken of the need for some appeals machinery. In that respect, the Convention might adopt the provisions of article 3 of the 1948 Protocol. In the opinion of the Netherlands Government, substances convertible into narcotic drugs, which were as dangerous socially as actual drugs, should either be listed in a separate category in schedule I or should be given in a special schedule. Mr. TILAK RAJ (India) said that the provisions of article 3 were based on decisions taken by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs at its twelfth session. The second draft of the Single Convention had provided that the schedules would be amended upon the advice and recommendation of WHO. But at the twelfth session emphasis had been placed on the advisory role of WHO and it had been decided that the Commission should be able to act after consultation with WHO, due account 24 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs being taken of the opinion of the body of experts concerning the therapeutic value and the dangers of the substances in question. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs was the only competent body for shaping the policy regarding the international control of narcotic drugs. As such, it should take the final decisions rather than a technical body like WHO. Otherwise, it might find itself in a difficult position in the event of a difference of opinion with WHO. He shared the view of the United Kingdom representative that a system should be established under which a decision could be taken quickly on substances to be added to or deleted from the schedules. All the schedules should be capable of amendment, but certain guarantees were needed: in his view, such decisions should require a two-thirds majority vote of the Commission. He supported in principle the United States proposal concerning an appeals machinery if such was the desire of the majority. Since he considered it desirable that States not parties to the Convention, or other international organizations, should not be prevented from providing information on narcotic drugs, he proposed that the last sentence of article 3, paragraphs, should be amended to read: "A notification to the same effect may also be made by the World Health Organization or any non-party or international organization." Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) thought that the amendment of the schedules, which formed an integral part of the Convention, would in effect constitute an amendment of the Convention itself. Measures of control or the prohibition of additional substances required a special procedure, for which there was no provision. The Commission could ensure the regulation of known substances, but in the case of new substances, the system might not be effective. Article 29 concerned the limitation of the manufacture and importation of narcotic drugs. In the case of substances whose ill-effects were not very great or whose properties had not been thoroughly studied, the rules established might prove either unduly strict or inadequate. That was serious in view of the penalties laid down in article 22 of the Convention. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that articles 2 and 3 should establish a list of substances which, although not narcotic drugs, could easily be converted into drugs and would be placed under appropriate control. He pointed out that no account had been taken in article 3 of the provisions of Economic and Social Council resolution 730 D (XXVIII). He agreed with the delegations which considered that the word "recommend" in article 3, paragraph 4, was too weak. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) noted that the views of many delegations coincided with the view of the World Health Assembly that the Commission's decision should be in conformity with the recommendations of WHO. As for the question of the provisional control of new drugs, which had been discussed at great length by WHO, the Expert Committee believed that that procedure was necessary in order to bring those substances under immediate control, particularly if they were clearly dangerous. Reverting to article 2, paragraph 1(e), he said that the Expert Committee considered, on medical grounds, that the provision should be in the nature of a recommendation. The appeals machinery contemplated should be carefully examined; the result would depend on how the authority for amending the schedules was apportioned. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany), referring to the remarks of the Peruvian representative, said that in the light of the provisions of article 2, paragraph 5, it was arguable that a modification of the schedule would in effect constitute an amendment of the Convention. If so, the same would apply to the provisional control of new drugs, and the Commission in that case could hardly do more than make a recommendation to the parties as at present provided in article 3, paragraph 4. Dr. MABILEAU (France), referring to article 3, paragraph 3, considered that the advice of WHO, which was that of the most competent medical experts, should have the force of a recommendation on the basis of which the Commission should be able to take a decision. In paragraph 4, the word "recommend" should be replaced by a stronger term in order to ensure control at least as effective as that provided in the 1948 Protocol. Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan) did not agree with the representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany and Peru that, in law, an amendment of the schedules would constitute an amendment of the Convention and require separate ratification. Since the Convention itself provided for the possible modification of the schedules, the Parliament of a State, when ratifying the Convention as a whole, including that provision, would be agreeing in advance that it could be so modified. Mr. KUNTOH (Ghana), reverting to article 2, paragraph 1, said that the provision should have the effect of a mere recommendation and that prohibition as such should be left to the discretion of States. With regard to article 3, paragraph 3, he said the Commission should act not only after consultation with WHO, but in accordance with its recommendations. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) shared the view of the representative of Afghanistan regarding the amendment of the schedules. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), referring to article 3, paragraph 5, doubted whether the Conference had the authority to take a decision limiting the rights of the Economic and Social Council. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs was a functional commission of the Council and, under Article 68 of the Charter and rule 71 of the rules of procedure of the Economic and Social Council, the Council set up its commissions and defined their powers. Seventh plenary meeting — 31 January 1961 25 It might perhaps be better to omit the paragraph. The PRESIDENT suggested that the Conference might establish an ad hoc committee to consider articles 2 and 3 of the Single Convention (third draft), composed of representatives of the following States, which had declared their willingness to serve on it: Afghanistan, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. It was so agreed. The meeting rose at 12.50 p.m. SEVENTH PLENARY MEETING Tuesday, 31 January 1961, at 10.35 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.l and 2) (continued) Article 30 (Medical and scientific purposes) Mr. CURRAN (Canada) thought that the basic provision contained in article 30 should be transferred to chapter III concerning the obligations of parties. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) asked whether, under the article, exporting countries would have to obtain an assurance from importing countries that the drugs they wished to import would be used exclusively for medical or scientific purposes. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) recalled that article 2, paragraph 4, authorized certain industrial uses. Article 30 should therefore refer to that paragraph or alternatively—and more logically—the provisions of article 2, paragraph 4 should be transferred to chapter VIII which dealt with the control of drugs. The ad hoc committee to which articles 2 and 3 had been referred could perhaps consider that point. Mr. KENNEDY (New Zealand) said that in practice medical uses included veterinary uses. Article 30 should state clearly that that generally accepted idea was in fact recognized by the Convention. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary), replying to the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, explained that under the draft Convention an export authorization could be granted only upon the production of an import certificate drawn up in conformity with an international model. The certificate would have to indicate that the importation was for medical or scientific purposes. In reply to the representative of Denmark, he said that the first phrase in article 30 referred to all the exceptions provided for in other articles. Mr. TILAK RAJ (India) asked whether article 30 permitted the use of drugs in indigenous medicine. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that article 39, paragraph 3, permitted the use of cannabis in some systems of indigenous medicine in India and Pakistan. Mr. TILAK RAJ (India) said he was aware of that exception, but pointed out that some preparations were based on opium. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that since the expression "indigenous medicine" was not well defined, it might perhaps be preferable to specify the types of opium preparation the use of which would be permissible under the Convention in an indigenous system of medicine. Mr. TILAK RAJ (India) said that he could agree to that solution. He felt bound to state, however, that if the use of the preparations recognized by the Indian pharmacopoeia was not authorized, India would be obliged to make a reservation. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) endorsed the remarks of the representative of India. The situation in Pakistan was virtually identical. It would be advisable to mention in the definitions that article 30 authorized the use of opium in indigenous medicine. Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) said that the question had never before been raised in connexion with the Single Convention. It would be necessary to have an exact definition of the opium preparations which were used in indigenous medicine. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) thought that an exception should be made for opium similar to that provided for cannabis in article 39. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) explained that the situation was different for cannabis and opium. Cannabis was not normally used in medicine, whereas the therapeutic properties of opium were generally recognized and could be employed in indigenous as in Western medicine. It did not, therefore, seem necessary to provide an exception for opium. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) said that he would not press the point, provided that it was fully understood that the use of those preparations in indigenous medicine in the sense of article 39 was permitted and that the question did not give rise to dispute at a later date. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) observed that the Conference as a whole appeared to have no objection to that interpretation. However, if the representatives of India and Pakistan felt it necessary, the Conference could either adopt a resolution defining the meaning it attached to the expression "medical purposes" or insert an express provision in the Convention. 26 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. BANERJI (India) wished to make it clear that, far from wanting to evade measures of control, his Government was, on the contrary, concerned to ensure that indigenous doctors could continue to prescribe the preparations permitted by the national legislation without contravening the provisions of the Convention. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) said that possibly article 56, paragraph 2(a), would satisfy the representatives of India and Pakistan. Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) thought that the expression "quasi-medical use" should not appear elsewhere than in the article on reservations. The PRESIDENT considered that, so far as the objections of India and Pakistan were concerned, it would be enough if the summary record made it clear that the Conference was agreed on the interpretation of the terms of article 30 as meaning that the use of drugs in indigenous medicine would be treated exactly in the same way as their use in other forms of medicine. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) observed that the summary records would not form an integral part of the Convention. The PRESIDENT said that they would nevertheless serve to make clear the meaning of its provisions. Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) also thought that it would be possible either to adopt a resolution on that point or to introduce a special clause in the draft Convention. There was already such a clause in article 39, for cannabis; there would be no difficulty in inserting a similar clause in article 30 for opium preparations, specifying, as in article 39, the medicines which used them. That would prevent any dispute arising in the future. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) was of the same view as the representative of WHO: a special provision for cannabis had been introduced into article 39 because the therapeutic properties of that substance were not recognized in Western medicine. Without that special stipulation, therefore, it would not have been possible for cannabis to be used in indigenous medicine. Moreover, the use of cannabis would be prohibited in the new Convention. The position was different in the case of opium. The Conference might, therefore, as the President had suggested, simply make it clear in the record that the medical purposes referred to in article 30 covered the use of opium in indigenous medicine in India and Pakistan. Article 40 (Manufacture) Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) said that the words "in each of their establishments", in article 40, paragraph 2 (c), were superfluous. It would be enough to allot a quota to each manufacturer, without sub-dividing it by establishments. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that practice was, in fact, to allot quotas to manufacturers. An amendment of paragraph 2 (c) to that effect would therefore be advisable. With regard to paragraph 1, he said that in many countries the commonest system was manufacture under licence and not by state enterprise. The paragraph could therefore be amended to place the two systems on an equal footing. He thought that the definition of "manufacture" in sub-paragraph (q) of article 1 should cover the manufacture of preparations. He understood that, for the purposes of the Convention, the term "licence" could be interpreted broadly so that it would, for instance, cover the general authorization granted to pharmacists in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Government could not accept the provision if the term were given any narrower interpretation. The reference to article 4, paragraph 2(e), which appeared in article 40, paragraph 4, was not appropriate; article 40 should rather be mentioned in article 4, paragraph 2 (e). Lastly, the expression "shall consider sympathetically", in paragraph 4, was not very satisfactory. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) associated himself with the United Kingdom representative's comments on paragraph 1 and witn the United States representative's remark concerning paragraph 2 (c). If preparations were exempted from international control, as provided in paragraph 2(c), it should be made very clear that the absence of international regulations would not prevent countries from adopting any national control measure they saw fit. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany), commenting on the expression "periodical permits" in paragraph 2 (c), said that the permits issued in his country were not limited as to time. The government could cancel the licences if the licensees stopped complying with the regulations. However, quite a large plant was required for the manufacture of narcotic drugs and the manufacturers might hesitate to make the financial commitments required if they had doubts about the renewal of their permits. For that reason, he proposed that the word "periodical" should be deleted in the provision in question. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) also thought that paragraph 1 was not very clear. It could, for instance, be interpreted to mean that a licence was not required for the manufacture of preparations. The first draft had provided for the control of preparations, and the third should do the same. The system of periodical permits had existed under the 1925 Convention, but it had never been applied in the Netherlands. The manufacturers did not produce more than they could sell, and consequently the government did not have to intervene. There was no reason why the word "periodical" should not be retained, however, if such a provision could be of use to some countries. Mr. BANERJI (India) considered that paragraph 2 (a) should be amended, for the control of persons might prove difficult in practice. In paragraph 2(c), it seemed unnecessary to stress the periodical nature of the permits, or a system of quotas for each establishment. On the other hand, Seventh plenary meeting — 31 January 1961 27 the preparations containing narcotic drugs should be subject to the same control as narcotic drugs themselves. The proviso in paragraph 2 (c) should therefore be deleted. In paragraph 3, the term "accumulation" should be clearly defined in order to prevent disputes and misunderstandings. If, for instance, State enterprises were allowed a two-year accumulation of stocks, private enterprises should be allowed only a one-year accumulation, because there was more risk of abuse in a private enterprise. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that the word "permits" in paragraph 2 (c) did not apply to licences to manufacture, which were mentioned in paragraph 1. Paragraph 2(c) provided for periodical permits specifying the amounts of drugs which the licensees would be entitled to manufacture. Those provisions were essential if a system of quantitative limitation was to be maintained. For countries to keep within their estimates, the amounts should be distributed among the different licensees to enable each to manufacture his allotted quota. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) thought that paragraph 1 should apply to preparations also. That paragraph should also include provisions for provisional control, as in the case of new drugs recommended to be placed under provisional control under Economic and Social Council resolution 730 D (XXVIII). Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that he had no objection to the redrafting of paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 (c) would be acceptable if permits to manufacture were issued to each firm; but he was against the idea of issuing permits to the same manufacturer for each of his establishments. The word "periodical" should be retained. As periodical renewal was the very basis of a permit system, the article would be meaningless if the word "periodical" was deleted. He proposed that the WHO specifications and standards should be indicated in paragraph 4; in particular, those of the international pharmacopoeia, the monographs of which on a large number of narcotic drugs would be a useful reference. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) withdrew his proposal for the deletion of the word "periodical". Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) thought that his remarks concerning preparations had been misunderstood by the Indian representative. He had been referring to paragraph 1. With regard to paragraph 2(c) , he did not see any necessity to specify the amounts of preparations which each manufacturer would be entitled to produce. Mr. BANERJI (India) thanked the United Kingdom representative for his explanation. He agreed that there was no need to amend paragraph 2(c). However, he did not entirely share the views of the United Kingdom representative regarding preparations containing narcotic drugs. They should be subject to a certain measure of control. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) concurred in the United Kingdom representative's view that it was not necessary to control preparations by means of periodical permits. There was no danger to public health, as preparations could not be manufactured except under control, and the system of control was satisfactory. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) said that the Indian representative's point could be considered in connexion with article 41. For his part, he thought that preparations should be under control. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that he wished to make his position clear. When he had supported the idea of control for preparations, he had been thinking of paragraph 1. Mr. BANERJI (India) thanked the Netherlands representative for his comments. He would not oppose the deletion of paragraph 2 (c). Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the last part of paragraph 2 (c) was ambiguous. The proviso applied only to periodical permits; but from the legal and technical point of view, it might be taken to apply to the whole sentence. The drafting committee should clarify the wording. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that the meaning of the word "preparations" should be defined. If the prescriptions made up by pharmacists were meant, there was no need to mention them, as they were already covered by the national control system. However, if manufactured pharmaceutical products were meant, it was essential that they should be controlled up to the marketing stage. The Secretariat should make the point clear. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) read out the definition of "preparation" in article 1 (reference paragraph 28). Preparations were not covered by paragraph 2 (c) because that clause provided for the limitation of the amount of narcotic drugs manufactured in a country, whether as narcotic drugs proper or in preparations. As the narcotic drugs contained in the preparations were included in the estimate, it was not necessary for the manufacturers of preparations containing narcotic drugs to have the permits referred to. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) asked what was meant by the expression "raw materials". Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that that was a pertinent question. "Raw materials" meant dangerous substances such as opium, and non-dangerous substances used in synthetic drugs. The expression had been used in the 1931 Convention: at that time, all raw materials had been considered to be dangerous, being themselves generally narcotic drugs. Mr. CHA (China), referring to paragraph 3, said that it was unlikely that any State enterprise would be guilty of malpractices. Control was therefore unnecessary and the paragraph should not be included in the Convention. 28 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) recalled that there had been a similar provision in the Convention of 1931. It had been decided that the stocks of raw opium would only be constituted for a period of six months. That provision had been scrupulously applied and it was therefore desirable to retain it. Mr. BANERJI (India) thought that the restrictive measures should apply not only to State enterprises but also to private enterprises. He agreed with the representative of China that there was less risk of malpractices in State enterprises and that private ones should be subject to even stricter control. It was also necessary to define what was meant by accumulation; that matter might be studied by a working group. Mr. WARREN (Australia) said that he did not think that the provisions of article 40, paragraph 3, affected those of article 27, paragraph 3, or article 28, paragraph 1(e) in any way. Those provisions made a distinction between stocks intended for government purposes and those field by the government for other needs. He therefore approved article 40, paragraph 3, as drafted. Article 41 (Trade and distribution) Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) approved of the proposal regarding the issue of counterfoil books (article 41, paragraph 2 (b)), but thought it should be in the nature of a recommendation. The system of counterfoil books complicated the administrative work and did not prevent doctors from acquiring unlimited quantities of narcotic drugs. The provisions in article 41, paragraph 3, should also be worded as a mere recommendation. Paragraph 5 was not justified. He saw no need for a double red band on a package containing a drug, as any such consignment was in any case accompanied by an import licence. Mr. KENNEDY (New Zealand) said he saw no point in a compulsory system of counterfoil books. In New Zealand, medical prescriptions were entirely hand-written by doctors, whose signature could be easily recognized. As to paragraph 5, he agreed with the United States representative's objection to the double red band; such a label would merely attract attention to packages containing drugs. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) pointed out that the counterfoil system could not be applied in Canada; it would raise constitutional problems, since medical matters were within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, not of the central Government. He also thought that it would be difficult to control persons; it would be sufficient to control the distribution of drugs, which implied the control of persons. Mr. ARVESEN (Norway) endorsed the views which had been expressed on article 41, paragraph 2 (b). Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) agreed with the views of the United States representative. Governments should be left free to decide whether or not to require counterfoil books. He also thought there was no point in a double red band. His government did not think it right that a patient should know that an addiction-producing substance had been prescribed for him. Mr. GRINBERG (Bulgaria) said that the provisions of paragraph 2 (b) seemed unnecessary, as they would simply complicate the administrative work. Moreover, it was undesirable for patients to know that a medicament possessed addiction-producing properties. The control of drugs was satisfactory in Bulgaria, and he considered that each party should be free to establihs the system of control best suited to its requirements. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that Brazilian law provided for a system similar to that of counterfoil books. However, he fully endorsed paragraph 2 (b) and paragraph 3 and suggested the addition of the words "by medical prescription or special counterfoil books" at the end of paragraph 2 (b). Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) endorsed paragraphs 2 (b), 3 and 5. He thought that many doctors were unaware of the addiction-producing properties of certain medicaments, for the same substance might appear under many different names. The Netherlands was therefore in favour of using international non-proprietary names. The system of special prescriptions had been accepted in the Netherlands, as it had in Brazil. In order to avoid the risk of addiction, it was better that the patient should know that the medicine with which he was being treated contained a drug than to continue the usual method of prescribing with a greater risk of addiction. The system of the double red band was desirable, since patients should be alerted to the danger inherent in the medicaments prescribed for them. Regarding paragraph 1 (b) (i) of article 41, he thought the control measures should also apply to persons who held narcotic drugs. As to paragraph 1 (c), he said that doctors should not be exempt from control, for they could themselves become addicts. Mr. ISMAIL (United Arab Republic) said that it had been realized in his country that drug addicts stole prescription forms in order to obtain drugs. Legislation had therefore been introduced some years earlier under which doctors had to write prescriptions for narcotic drugs on counterfoil books stamped by the Minister of Public Health and with numbered pages. In order to obtain a new counterfoil book, the doctor had to send back the counterfoils back to the Ministry of Health. That procedure had had the effect of limiting the administration of narcotic drugs and of controlling addiction more strictly. He therefore considered it desirable to retain paragraph 2 (b). With regard to paragraph 5, he recalled that, when the Commission had dealt with the problem the competent technical sub-committee had thought that the provision would be useful for synthetic drugs and for preparations made from those drugs, which were continually increasing in number. Some products such as pethidine or methadone were sold under more than ten different trade names, and the laboratories were continually perfecting new products. Customs officials Seventh plenary meeting 31 January 1961 29 were not technical experts or pharmaceutical chemists. The double red band would make their task easier, and he therefore thought that the provision in question should be retained. Mr. WARREN (Australia) said that prescriptions for narcotic drugs were under very strict control in his country, but that the States of the Commonwealth of Australia were free to fix the modalities. It would be better not to force States to alter national practice in that connexion; he accordingly favoured the deletion of the clause requiring counterfoil books. With regard to the provision concerning a double red band, he thought it would simply make control more of a burden. The system of export and import permits instituted under the Convention of 1925 was working quite satisfactorily. Moreover, the measure in question would be even more difficult to justify in domestic trade. Mr. PRAWIROSOEJANTO (Indonesia) said that the trade in narcotic drugs, including retail trade and retail distribution, was very strictly controlled in Indonesia. Paragraph 7 should not discourage governments from taking measures even stricter than those provided by the Convention. Mr. BANERJI (India) thought that control would be more efficient if trade and distribution were reserved so far as possible to state enterprises, at least at the wholesale stage, and particularly with regard to foreign trade where such a precaution would appreciably reduce the possibility of leakages. While it was true that the illicit use of narcotic drugs varied in extent from one country to another, it was in the interests of all to see that the measures for strengthening control should be as strict as possible. The drafting committee or the working group would have to give attention to the problem which might arise in connexion with paragraph 1 (b) (i), and also article 40, paragraph 2 (a). It might prove difficult in practice to control all persons engaged in the trade in or distribution of drugs. In its comments, India had suggested that the exemption laid down for preparations in paragraph 1 (b) (ii) should be deleted, but the explanations given by the Secretariat on article 40, paragraph 2(c), satisfied the Indian delegation and he would therefore withdraw the suggestion. In India, control and licensing regulations applied equally to persons performing therapeutical or scientific functions. The object should be to protect individuals, and the persons in question were even more exposed to danger than the rest of the community. It was therefore undesirable that they should be excluded from the control system, as article 41, paragraph 1 (c) provided. In paragraph 2 (a) the word "accumulation" should be more clearly defined, as also in article 40, paragraph 3, since it was necessary to know at what point "accumulation" began. State enterprises and private undertakings should be treated on an equal footing, but state enterprises could be authorized to keep stocks. The provisions regarding counterfoil books should be retained, but the Indian representative would not be against a recommendation on that point. On the other hand, paragraph 3 of article 41 relating to international non-proprietary names should be retained as it stood, at least so far as international trade was concerned. If the provision was made a simple recommendation, some countries might fail to comply with it, and problems would arise in their trade with countries accepting the clause. It was also clear that if a distinction was made between foreign and domestic trade, there was a danger of hindering the smooth flow of drugs necessary for medical purposes. Although the provision concerning the double red band seemed to present problems, such a label would have advantages, in the case of international trade at any rate, because that would ensure that practices were uniform. The French representative's suggestions were interesting and should be considered by the drafting committee. Mr. JOACHIMOGLU (Drug Supervisory Body), emphasized the very great importance of the clause regarding international non-proprietary names. A single substance might be commercially known under many different names, and new appellations were added to the list every day. Doctors could not be expected to know them all, and it would therefore be very difficult for them to be sure that they were not giving their patients an addiction-producing drug if the non-proprietary name was not indicated. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia), referring to paragraph 2 (b), said that it would be preferable to leave to each State the responsibility of deciding upon the modalities of control. In any case, it would be as easy for addicts to steal counterfoil books as ordinary prescription forms. The provision regarding the double red band was worth retaining, as there were already so many synthetic drugs—and their number was continually increasing—that it was impossible for customs officials, and sometimes even for doctors, to recognize them. A case had arisen where a package containing drugs had not been stopped by the customs owing to the absence of any means of identification. Finally, it was not clear why paragraph 1 (b) (ii) laid down an exemption for preparations. Mr. CHIKARAISHI (Japan) said that under Japanese law the purchase and sale of drugs had to be recorded in special registers. He could not accept a mandatory provision regarding counterfoil books, for the system in force in Japan worked satisfactorily and there was no reason to introduce a new procedure the advantages of which would not justify the resulting expenditure and administrative complications. A double red band could be made compulsory for drugs carried by trains, ships and aircraft for first-aid purposes. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that a double red band would clearly serve no purpose in combating the illicit traffic or in the control of legitimate international trade for which certificates were required. But it might 30 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drags prove useful in dealing with frontier traffic and in postal control, for the PCOB had found that packages containing drugs were not necessarily stopped at the frontiers of some countries. It had been said that it was preferable that a patient should not know that he was being given narcotic drugs. In reality, doctors would naturally take psychological considerations into account and it might sometimes be thought necessary to seek a patient's co-operation; if he knew that he was taking a dangerous substance, he would scrupulously respect the instructions laid down. Counterfoil books had been used in France for a considerable time. They had facilitated regional inquiries and made it easier to supervise the use and curb the abuse of drugs. But other methods might be equally effective, for example, special numbered prescription forms printed on paper similar to that used for bank notes. To indicate a measure which had proved its worth would certainly facilitate the task of countries undergoing administrative reorganization, but it would be best to word the provision as a recommendation. The need for international non-proprietary names was becoming daily more urgent in view of the multiplicity of designations used for any one substance. The provision must, however, be so worded that it would not interfere, by its mandatory character, with the established proprietary rights of manufacturers. In France, any international non-proprietary name was immediately submitted to the pharmacopoeia commission, and manufacturers were required by law to display it alongside the trade name. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) said that in his country special numbered prescription forms had been in use for some time. That system had not given rise to any administrative difficulty and had produced excellent results. Paragraph 2(b) should therefore be kept as drafted. The same was true of paragraph 3, for reasons which had been explained by other representatives. Nor should paragraph 5 be amended. Traffickers would try to operate in any event, while on the other hand it might be desirable to draw the attention of other persons to the contents of such packages. Moreover, the paragraph explicitly laid down that the double band was not to appear on the exterior wrapping of the package. Mr. BERTSCHINGER (Switzerland) said that the provisions regarding counterfoil books could not be implemented in his country, particularly in mountain regions, where the doctors themselves acted as chemists and dispensed their own medicaments without having to write prescriptions. The use of counterfoil books had no major advantages and would considerably complicate control. As to paragraph 5, he thought the fears which had been expressed were exaggerated. A similar system had been working satisfactorily in Switzerland since 1952. Patients were not in a position to know that they were receiving narcotic drugs, since the label was removed by the chemist. Nor did experience show that thefts were any more frequent. In any case, traffickers were more interested in pure substances than in patent medicines. He would not, however, object to the provision appearing as a recommen?dation. Mr. HOLZ (Venezuela) suggested that paragraph 3 should be retained; in view of the particularly serious risks of confusion created by the variety of names covering a single substance, it should be applied both in the home trade and in the international trade. Again, the system of counterfoil books was compulsory m Venezuela and had given very good results. He, too, would agree to the provision taking the form of a simple recommendation. The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m. EIGHTH PLENARY MEETING Tuesday, 31 January 1961, at 3.5 p.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.l and 2) (continued) Article 41 (Trade and distribution) (continued) Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that his delegation had hoped that the Convention would set minimum requirements for control, rather than limit the amount of control that a party could exercise. Consequently, he had been distressed to find, in article 41, paragraph 7, the statement that the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 5 "shall not apply" to the retail trade in or retail distribution of drugs listed in schedule II. That statement literally interpreted with other exempting provisions might be construed to mean that governments could not apply national controls at the retail level to the drugs listed in schedule II as well as preparations in schedule III. Paragraph 7 was therefore unacceptable as drafted, for such drugs were liable to abuse and to conversion into more dangerous drugs. The provision should be made explicitly subject to the overriding right of the parties to put such drugs under severe national control if they so wished. He also supported the United States in objecting to official prescription forms, double red bands and the use of international non-proprietary names. The PRESIDENT thought that the drafters had not intended to prevent any country from applying controls to drugs in schedule II, but had wished merely to indicate that the application of controls should not be obligatory. Mr. ACBA (Turkey), referring to paragraph 2(b), said that counterfoil books had been used in his country with excellent results. He favoured the adoption of counterfoil prescription forms by all countries, as an added protection against the illicit trade. The existence of many narcotics and the discovery and marketing of growing numbers of synthetics, the properties of which were sometimes not known even Eighth plenary meeting — 31 January 1961 31 to physicians, made it essential to require some indication of whether or not a particular substance was a narcotic drug. And since drug manufacturers would not be prevented from using their own trade name as well, he saw no reason why the international nonproprietary name should not be required to appear on the wrappings; such a requirement would facilitate control and serve as a warning to medical practitioners and patients against addiction-inducing drugs. His delegation also favoured the requirement for a double red band, in paragraph 5, but would not press for its adoption. The Commission had decided to use the word "package" rather than packing-case, because the provision was intended to enable the customs officials responsible for narcotics control and the consumers to determine immediately that a package contained narcotic drugs. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that he did not share the view, expressed by the Indian representative at the seventh plenary meeting, that State enterprises for trade in and distribution of drugs should be given a preferential status. He therefore suggested an amendment to paragraph 1 (a), similar to that which he had proposed at the seventh meeting with regard to article 40, paragraph 1, namely, that in accordance with existing practice, the provision should refer first to the licensing of enterprises engaged in trade and distribution, and secondly to State enterprises, which were not so common. He agreed that a provision regarding the authorization of possession of narcotic drugs, similar to article 7 of the 1925 Convention, should be inserted in the clause in question. As to paragraph 1 (c), he thought that the expression "while performing therapeutic or scientific functions" was intended to cover the dispensing of narcotic drugs; he would, however, like to be reassured on that point. Turning to the requirement for the use of official prescription forms in paragraph 2(b), he said it was his government's view that the use of those forms would not be justified in the United Kingdom. The introduction of the forms would entail a good deal of extra work, and there was no evidence that there would be any corresponding reward. Furthermore, the government was aware that the use of counterfoil forms was not acceptable to the medical profession. His delegation had no objection, however, to the requirement being restated in the form of a recommendation. While it was desirable to adopt, wherever possible, the international non-proprietary names communicated by WHO, he said that in some instances it had not been possible to register the name suggested by WHO in the United Kingdom because other similar names had been registered earlier under national law. And although his government hoped that such cases would not recur, it could not bind itself to adopt names not yet formulated and would prefer to see the paragraph redrafted as a recommendation. He did not think that the double red band, proposed in paragraph 5, would serve any worth-while purpose. As the French representative had suggested, the marking would be helpful only when an attempt was made to smuggle small quantities of drugs across borders or when small quantities were sent through the post. Such shipments were rarely made, and would hardly justify the imposition of the red band requirement. The curious case of the shipment by a member of the DSB, mentioned at the preceding meeting, proved nothing, since it had not involved either a licit shipment of narcotics or an illicit narcotics transaction. He did not share the alarm expressed by the Canadian representative with respect to paragraph 7. Existing conventions had for a long time not required control of the drugs listed in schedule II at the retail level. In the United Kingdom, there was no control of such drugs at the retail level as narcotics although they were controlled as poisons, and he did not think that there would have been any serious addiction problem if they had not been so controlled. However, his delegation had an open mind on the matter. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) thought it should be made clear that the first sentence of paragraph 2 (b) applied only to drugs used for medical purposes. He understood that, under that clause, safeguards concerning the distribution of drugs by scientific institutions would be left to governments, but that fact was not clearly stated. His government considered that the matters dealt with in the remaining paragraphs of article 41 should be left to the discretion of governments or should at least be put in the form of recommendations. The deletion of those paragraphs might even diminish the need for two separate schedules. While he did not deny that every means should be used to fight the illicit traffic and addiction, he thought that the matters dealt with in the remaining paragraphs should not be decided at the international level because they touched on the principles underlying the distribution and dispensing of medicine in each country. Should the Conference decide, however, to maintain those paragraphs either in the mandatory form or as recommendations, paragraphs 5 and 6 should be amended to indicate that they applied only to retail trade and distribution. Lastly, in paragraph 5, the double red band was required to appear on "any package containing a drug.. . but not on the exterior wrapping in which such package is consigned", a phrase which might lead to misunderstandings if the package was sold in only one wrapping. Mrs. CAMPOMANES (Philippines) said that her government believed that the use of counterfoil books should be recommended rather than required. It was giving serious study to the use of official forms, since false prescriptions were one source of leakage, Mr. CHA (China) said that his delegation attached great importance to the use of prescription forms which would not permit persons engaged in the illicit traffic or trade to furnish drugs to addicts. Official prescription forms would serve that purpose. If insistence on a mandatory requirement should prevent some governments from agreeing to paragraph 2 (b), his delegation would agree to a recommendation instead. With respect to paragraph 3, he thought that WHO 32 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drags had done useful work in establishing international non-proprietary names and should be asked to render services of that kind to the Commission and interested governments id the future. Even where advertisements and other literature had been printed, the international non-proprietary names should be applied by rubber stamp, or the literature destroyed. However, since some delegations had difficulty in accepting paragraph 3 as a mandatory requirement, his delegation was prepared to have the paragraph redrafted in the form of a recommendation. He shared the apprehension voiced by the Canadian representative with regard to paragraph 7. Mr. ASIAM (Pakistan), while recognizing that the compulsory use of counterfoil prescription forms could prove extremely useful, thought that it might not be easy to achieve, especially as many countries had no experience with such forms. Consequently, he agreed that paragraph 2 (b) should be redrafted in the form of a recommendation. On the other hand, his delegation firmly believed that paragraph 3 should remain in its mandatory form. It also could see no objection to retaining the compulsory requirement of a double red band in paragraph 5, since the marking would serve as further protection. Mr. DE BAGGIO (United States of America), replying to statements made in support of the double red band requirement, said that a physician should know whether or not he was dispensing narcotic drugs without the aid of such markings, and since, in the United States at least, drugs were seldom if ever sold to patients in the original manufacturer's package, patients would not benefit from the requirement. He shared the Canadian representative's concern about the apparent meaning of paragraph 7. His government would not like to be required to give up the controls it exercised over drugs fisted in schedule II. Mr. BUKOWSKI (Poland) said that each country had its particular experience and views regarding prescription forms. In Poland a physician was entitled to prescribe any drug and to use any kind of form. He was only required to state his name and that of his patient, and the prescriptions were retained by pharmacies and inspected by government agencies, when necessary. The system had been in use for thirtyfive years and had proved entirely satisfactory. Consequently, he saw no need for introducing a new system with all its inherent difficulties. In his view, therefore, paragraph 2 (b) should be restated as a recommendation. However, his government approved the requirement in paragraph 3, and had already taken steps to comply with it. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) noted that the United Kingdom representative, in opposing the double red band requirement, had cited the French representative's comment that there was very little illicit frontier traffic. The requirement of the red band, however, had not been proposed for the benefit of smugglers, but rather to facilitate the work of customs officials and doctois. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) recalled that, in his general statement at the third meeting, he had urged that, while all governments should maintain strict controls, the Single Convention should not lay down detailed requirements regarding the internal measures to be taken by them. In his country prescriptions were written on special numbered forms. That system worked satisfactorily, and his delegation would therefore be able to accept paragraph 2 (b) without difficulty. But many delegations had asked that the provision be redrafted in the form of a recommendation, and his delegation thought that that should be done, in the interests of mutual co-operation, for it considered that the Convention would be an effective means of fighting the narcotics evil only if it was acceptable to all governments. The red band requirement in paragraph 5 applied to international rather than to domestic controls. His country would have no difficulty in accepting that provision, since it always complied with the regulations of the countries importing its products. However, many countries had requested that the requirement be replaced by a recommendation, and his delegation was prepared to agree. Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) formally proposed, as a drafting amendment that the reference to "therapeutic or scientific functions" in paragraph 1(c) and the reference to information "of a scientific or technical nature" in article II, paragraph (f), should be co-ordinated. In his country, the word "scientific" referred to theory and research, whereas "therapeutic" referred to the application of theory in medicine and other fields. The terms "Government purposes" and "Government stocks" were differently used in article 1 (m) and (n) and in articles 20, paragraph 4, and 21, paragraph 4. What did those terms mean in relation to the licensing provisions of article 41? Again, in view of the restrictive wording of article 41, paragraph 2 (a), it was not clear whether drugs could be accumulated by State enterprises for the purpose of scientific research. Those points should be clarified, so as to assist States in fulfilling their obligation to provide information under article 4, paragraph 2 (b). Miss HARELI (Israel) said her delegation shared the view expressed by other delegations that paragraph 1 (b) (i) was too vague. She had listened attentively to the arguments in favour of using counterfoil prescription forms, but still thought that other methods might be equally effective. In Israel, the dispensers of drugs kept ledgers, and the system was perfectly satisfactory. Accordingly, the provisions concerning counterfoil prescriptions in paragraph 2 (b) should be redrafted as a recommendation. Nor was Israel in a position to accept the mandatory requirement in paragraph 3. Further, it was not clear whether paragraph 5 applied to international transit only, or to retail trade. Her delegation doubted that the red band would have a psychological effect on patients, since drugs were often dispensed by doctors, nurses and others, in which case the red band would not be seen by the patient. Pending Eighth plenary meeting — 31 January 1961 33 clarification her delegation therefore had to reserve its position on paragraph 5. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) said that he agreed with the United Kingdom representative's criticisms of paragraph 1 (a). As the provision stood, the implication seemed to be that the only or normal means of keeping control over drugs was the establishment of a state monopoly. Such a system was alien to many States; and his delegation thought that the basic means of control should be a licensing system, without prejudice to the right of countries which so wished to use the state enterprise system. With regard to paragraph 2 (a), he endorsed the comment made by India (E/CONF.34/1) that, if any limitation on the accumulation of drugs was required, the Convention should provide more explicit criteria for deciding what amounts were to be considered excessive. His delegation had no difficulties with regard to paragraph 2 (b); his country used a system of official counterfoil books for prescription forms and was able thereby to maintain very efficient control. Like the United Kingdom delegation, his delegation was concerned that the provisions of paragraph 3 should not interfere with the rights of manufacturers to use trade names/However, paragraph 4 seemed to make it clear that the international non-proprietary name was to be used in addition to, rather than in place of, the trade name; if that was the case, paragraphs 3 and 4 were acceptable. Paragraph 5 was open to one practical objection: a clearly visible double band indicating that a package contained drugs would facilitate theft. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization), referring to paragraph 2(b), said that in 1956 WHO had conducted a survey on the question in a few countries and had found that the results obtained from the use of official prescription forms seemed to justify the use of such a system. As to paragraph 3, he drew attention to a point which had been raised by several governments in their written comments, as well as in a footnote to the draft, regarding the final words "or, failing such communication, by the Commission". He felt that the words were unnecessary and in any case the sentence was badly drafted, since the question was not which body should communicate the name, but which body should decide what the name was to be. With regard to the written comment by WHO on paragraph 7 (E/CONF.34/1), he said the reason for the suggestion that some of the provisions of the article should apply to drugs listed in schedule II was that the number of substances to be included therein seemed likely to grow; as more drugs were developed, the possibilities of abuse, and therefore the need for control, would increase. Dr. MABILEAU (France) agreed that the words "or, failing such communication, by the Commission", in paragraph 3, should be deleted. The phrase had perhaps originally been included because delegations had been afraid that there would be some delay in the authorization of international names by WHO; since that time, however, WHO had been able to speed up the process. The generalization of the use of agreed names was certainly desirable. The PRESIDENT said that the discussion had shown that a working group would be needed to consider article 41. Article 42 (International trade) Mr. DE BAGGIO (United States of America) said that under United States law any consignment of drugs had to be accompanied by a duly authorized import certificate from the importing country, in addition to the export authorization; a requirement to that effect might perhaps be included in paragraph 11 of the article. Mr. ATZENWILER (Permanent Central Opium Board) explained the Board's relevant suggestion in document E/CONF.34/1. The suggestion had been made because a case had arisen where a government had put forward the view that the absence of an estimate for a drug meant the absence of a limit. Mr. TILAK RAJ (India) supported the suggestion made by the United States delegation regarding paragraph 11. He would welcome some elucidation regarding the implication of the word "knowingly", in paragraph 1; that word was not used elsewhere in the draft Convention. He recalled that article 32 stipulated that the parties should not permit the import of opium or poppy straw from a country not a party to the Convention. No similar restriction was to be found in article 42, and the question of including one should be considered. Mr. WARREN (Australia) said that his delegation accepted the provisions of article 42 in principle. However, the requirement in paragraph 11 that transit countries should demand to see export authorizations seemed impracticable so far as Australia was concerned. No reporting of cargoes in transit was required there, and the customs authorities would have no way of knowing whether a consignment of drugs was included. He thought it was the responsibility of the importing country to exercise control over such consignments. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) asked whether the provision contained in paragraph 1 (b) was not ;a new one. There was a provision in the 1931 Convention that the imports of drugs into a country should not exceed the total of the estimates in any one year, but the limitation in the paragraph under discussion was "the total of the estimates for that country or territory". As it stood, the provision would rule out the possibility of importing amounts in excess of the total estimate even though the excess would be equalized during the year by the export of a corresponding amount of drugs. That common practice should be allowed for, and the provision should require that the total of the estimates was not exceeded over the year. He recalled what he had said in his general statement at the second plenary meeting in connexion with the Benelux Customs Union; the absence of customs con-34 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs trol amongst the three countries concerned would mean that the application of the provisions of the present article would not always be possible. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) repeated the suggestion made in his general statement at the third plenary meeting that a provision should be included preventing the parties from importing drugs from countries not participating in the Convention, as was already the case for opium under article 32. Mr. ATZENWILER (Permanent Central Opium Board) pointed out, in connexion with the Netherlands representative's statement on paragraph 1 (b), that the 1931 Convention had required only the importing countries themselves to ensure that their estimates were not exceeded. Paragraph 1 of article 42 introduced for the first time an obligation on exporting countries not to permit the export of drugs to a country in excess of that country's estimates; however, if an importing country obtained drugs from a number of countries, it might be impossible for an exporting country to be sure that the limitation was being observed, and that was why the word "knowingly" had been included. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that the alternatives in paragraph 3 (a) should be placed in reverse order, as he had suggested in the case of the opening paragraphs of articles 40 and 41. He found it hard to see the purpose of the United States suggestion that consignments should at all times be accompanied by import certificates; surely, an export certificate would not have been issued without the existence of an import certificate. With regard to the Indian suggestion, supported by the Yugoslav representative, that trade should be restricted to countries which were parties to the Convention, as under article 32, he thought there was a difference between the two cases. The Convention contained special provisions regarding trade in opium which did not apply to manufactured drugs, and the proposed limitation on all trade in drugs seemed to him unjustified. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that his delegation was in favour of the article as a whole. With regard to paragraph 5, he said there should be clear provisions regarding the form to be used for import certificates, in order to prevent future doubts regarding the authenticity of documents. The intention of paragraph 10 was good, but he wondered whether it would be enforceable in practice, particularly if the requirement that drugs be marked by a double red band (article 41, paragraph 5) was rejected. Mr. ATZENWILER (Permanent Central Opium Board) agreed with the United Kingdom representative that paragraph 4 (a) might need to be reworded; he drew attention to the apparent contradiction with paragraph 4 (d). Paragraph 5 provided that the form of import certificates should be approved both by the Board and by the Commission; he thought that the word "and" in the last sentence should be replaced by the word "or", since the matter could be dealt with by one body. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) reiterated his government's suggestion (E/CONF.34/1) regarding paragraph 10; that suggestion would provide for the possibility that an export authorization might be lost or destroyed by accident. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that he could not follow the United Kingdom representative's argument that the restriction found in article 32 was justified, while a similar provision in article 42 would not be. He did not see why countries not parties to the Convention should have general freedom to export or import drugs. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) asked the representative of the PCOB whether the quantity of drugs exported to a country must always remain within the limits of the total estimates. Was a country permitted to sell to another country a quantity of a particular drug in excess of the relevant estimate, provided that the total imports did not exceed the total estimates for the year, taken as a whole? Mr. ATZENWILER (Permanent Central Opium Board) explained that, already, under the 1931 Convention, an importing country was not permitted to order an amount exceeding its estimate for a particular drug. The new provision, as he had explained, laid an obligation on exporting countries. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) explained that under the existing system (article 12, paragraph 2, of the 1931 Convention), countries were not permitted to import more than was allowed to them in accordance with their estimates. It was doubtful whether there was a corresponding obligation on the exporting countries to respect the import maximum. It was in order to remove that doubt and to fill the gaps that paragraph 1 (b) of article 42 had been introduced. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) expressed some doubt concerning the interpretation of paragraph 1 (b). Article 12, paragraph 2, of the 1931 Convention stated clearly that the imports into any country should not exceed the estimates and the amount exported during the year, less the amount manufactured during the year. Under the proposed new provision, it was difficult to see how a country could import more than its estimates with the intention of re-exporting part of the amount imported, although that was normal current practice. Agreeing with the Deputy Executive Secretary, he said it would be wise to include a reference to article 29, paragraph 1, in paragraph 1 (b), thus making it clear that it related to the amounts for a whole year. Otherwise, a country wishing to buy large quantities of drugs for re-export to another country would be obliged to increase its estimates by that amount, which would be a misuse of the estimate system. The estimates were meant to represent only the expected consumption during the year. Eighth plenary meeting — 31 January 35 Mr. ATZENWILER (Permanent Central Opium Board) explained that under the existing system, the amounts a country wished to re-export were added to its estimates, so that there was no real difficulty. The suggestion that a reference to article 29 should be introduced to establish the desirable limits for imports under article 42, paragraph 1 (b), appeared to be an ideal solution; unfortunately, it was impracticable because the amounts were calculated on the basis of a number of factors, some of which were not known before the end of the year. Mrs. CAMPOMANES (Philippines) pointed out that the quantities of drugs to be re-exported were taken into account when the estimates were being prepared. If a country required more of certain drugs than it had estimated, it could submit a supplementary estimate, as the Philippines had done on various occasions. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) asked whether paragraph 1(b) would be applicable to all countries or only to parties to the Convention. As his delegation had stressed on a previous occasion, the Convention should be open to accession by all countries, and the fact that paragraph 1 (b) referred only to parties to the Convention might prove an obstacle to the subsequent accession of certain countries. Article 42 bis (Special provisions concerning the carriage of drugs in first-aid kits of railway trains, ships or aircraft engaged in international flight) Article 43 (Measures of supervision and inspection) Mr. ISMAIL (United Arab Republic), referring to article 43, paragraph 1 (b), said that it was not clear when the two-year period referred to in the second and third sentences would start. In the interests of accuracy and to facilitate supervision, he suggested that the words "starting from the last date of issue" might be added at the end of both sentences. Mr. ARVESEN (Norway) said that he was in general agreement with the aims of article 42 bis, but he thought that the amounts of drugs to be carried by trains, ships or aircraft under paragraph 1 might be restricted to the amounts permissible under the laws of the country where the means of transport was registered. The provisions of article 42 bis should apply to ready-made first-aid kits for delivery to ships being built in countries other than those in which they were registered. It should also apply to first-aid kits on board the fully equipped life boats and life rafts imported by certain countries. Mr. CHIKARAISHI (Japan) drew attention to the footnote to article 42 bis. He agreed with the United States that it was premature to deal with the matter and that, therefore, the article should not be included in the Convention for the time being. Mr. DE BAGGIO (United States of America) said that the views of the United States Government had changed and it was willing to agree to the inclusion of the article if the Conference so wished. Mr. GRIGORIADES (Greece) said that the words "in emergency cases", in square brackets in article 42 bis, paragraph 1, should be retained, as they provided an additional safeguard against the diversion of narcotics to the illicit traffic at the terminals or during the transit of trains, ships and aircraft. Turning to article 43, paragraph 1 (b), he said that records should be preserved for five years rather than for only two. It was easier to observe the trends of the illicit traffic over a longer period and thus take appropriate measures to control it. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) thought that a twoyear period was sufficient, but nothing prevented governments from prescribing a longer period than that laid down in the Convention. Referring to article 42 bis, he supported the inclusion of the words "in emergency cases" in paragraph 1. The expression "for first-aid purposes" would apply mainly to trains and aircraft, whereas emergency medical treatment would be given mainly on ships. In paragraph 2, he preferred the expression "improper use" to the word "abuse" and the word "agreement" to "consultation". The International Labour Organisation should be included among the organizations with which the Commission was to agree on safeguards. The words "without prejudice, however, to the right of the competent local authorities to carry out checks", in the first sentence of paragraph 3, might give the impression that the right referred to was new, which was not the case. He suggested that, to make the point clear, the first "the" should be replaced by the word "any". Dr. MABILEAU (France) recalled that the question of the carriage of narcotic drugs in first-aid kits of aircraft engaged in international flight had been discussed by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs at its fifteenth session and that the Economic and Social Council had endorsed its recommendations in resolution 770 E (XXX). He asked whether article 42 bis had been brought into line with that resolution. The word "scientists" might be dropped from article 43, paragraph 1 (b). First, genuine men of science did not like to be designated in that way and, secondly, records would normally be kept by institutions and hospitals, rather than by individuals. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that, before replying to the French representative, the Secretariat would like to study again Economic and Social Council resolution 770 E (XXX). Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) said that the Board favoured a simple and general wording for article 42 bis. A very detailed list of safeguards was to be found in Economic and Social Council resolution 770 E (XXX), and it had been suggested that a large number of different organizations should be consulted under paragraph 2 of the article. He thought that the redrafting would be better dealt with by the technical committee or a working group. 36 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) considered that narcotic drugs carried for first-aid purposes should be used in emergencies only, and therefore favoured the retention of the words "in emergency cases" in article 42 bis, paragraph 1. He also favoured the retention of the words "by country of register", and the alternatives "improper use" and "consultation", in paragraph 2. Mr. CHIKARAISHI (Japan) said that the list of persons and institutions required to keep records under article 43, paragraph 1 (b), was incomplete and should be redrafted to include the persons mentioned in article 40, paragraph 3, and article 41, paragraph 2 (a). As it stood, the paragraph did not cover, for instance, medical practitioners in Japan. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) asked what was meant by the words "adequate qualifications" in article 43, paragraph 1 (a). Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that the aim of that provision was not only to ensure proper control, but to protect the public. The expression "adequate qualifications" had been used in order to cover not only technical but moral qualifications. The standards were different in different countries, and it was therefore impossible to specify the qualifications themselves. The expression was somewhat vague but the international control organs would be able to judge whether the qualifications were satisfactory under the particular conditions of a particular country. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the provision had been framed to meet two requirements: first, to ensure that the licensees had the requisite qualifications to ensure effective implementation and, secondly, with a view to its application in a State enterprise system. As it stood, it might be interpreted to mean that only the supervisory personnel of such enterprises were required to have adequate qualifications, which was obviously not the intention. It should be redrafted to make it more realistic. Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) felt that the word "adequate" in the expression "adequate qualifications" in article 43, paragraph 1 (a), might be replaced by the word "necessary". That would meet the Ghanaian representative's point. He was not happy about the expression "effective and faithful implementation", which combined two different ideas. He suggested that it might be replaced by the expression "strict implementation". Mr. CHA (China) asked for clarification regarding the last sentence of article 42 bis, paragraph 3. It seemed to conflict with article 41, paragraph 2 (b). Was it really the intention to allow members of the crews of ships and aircraft to administer narcotic drugs without prescription? Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that there could be emergency cases in aircraft and small boats when no doctor was available. There was a conflict then between the needs of the international control of narcotic drugs and the need to alleviate pain. The provision was designed to allow the administration of narcotics by persons with no medical qualifications when necessary in an emergency. The requirement of "proper safeguards", in paragraph 2, should be borne in mind; the safeguards to be recommended might require, for example, that some member of the crew must have training in the emergency administration of drugs, that only certain drugs could be administered, and so forth. Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) said that the Conference would be well advised to consult the records of the discussion on the carriage of drugs in first-aid kits of aircraft which had taken place at the fifteenth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs before going any farther with its consideration of article 42 bis.. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) agreed. The safeguards which the Commission on Narcotic Drugs had decided to recommend provided a very full answer to the Chinese representative's question. Mr. JOHNSON (Liberia) pointed out, in connexion with the "proper safeguards" mentioned in article 42 bis, paragraph 2, that there might be difficulty in implementing the regulations because the country of registry was not necessarily the country in which the ship was owned. Article 25 (Special administration) Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that in many countries several different authorities were responsible for controlling the traffic in and use of narcotic drugs. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect those countries to create a special administration, as prescribed in article 25. If the existing arrangements ensured adequate control, there was no need to change them. Each country should decide for itself what steps were necessary to enable it to meet its obligations under the Convention; the creation of a special administration might not be necessary. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that the expression "special administration" did not necessarily mean a special organ, but that at least some means of co-ordinating the government authorities responsible for narcotics control should be established. The expression was used in article 15 of the 1931 Convention, and the League of Nations commentary on that Convention stated categorically that it did not mean a single authority (League of Nations document C.191.M.136. 1937.XLp.162). The Model Code drawn up by the League of Nations Opium Advisory Committee stated that a special administration did not need to be a single authority for the purposes of that article. However, recommendation I of the Conference which had adopted the 1931 Convention stated that in countries whose administrative structure allowed of such a procedure, the supervision of the trade in narcotics as a whole should be in the hands of a single authority. Without co-ordination at the national level, governments would be unable to fulfil, for example, their reporting obligations, and the international control organs often would Ninth plenary meeting — 1 February 1961 37 not reach the competent national department. Without such co-ordination at the national level, the international control of narcotics would be extremely difficult. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) thanked the Deputy Executive Secretary for his explanation, which had made the situation perfectly clear. He regretted, however, that the Russian and French translations failed to reflect the point with equal clarity. Mr. CHA (China) said that he had no objection to the principle of article 25, but the wording was unsatisfactory because the expression "special administration'* was not self-explanatory. The Single Convention was intended to supersede the 1931 Convention, among others, and should not depend for its interpretation on explanations given in or in connexion with that Convention. The article should be redrafted to make the point clear to persons not conversant with the instruments that were to be superseded. Mr. DE BAGGIO (United States of America) pointed out that it was clear from article 44, paragraph 2, that a special administration was not necessarily a single administration. Possibly the provision in that paragraph 2 might be placed in article 25. Dr. MABILEAU (France) thought that article 25 could more conveniently be discussed in connexion with articles 44 to 46. He therefore proposed that its consideration should be deferred until the Conference took up those articles. Mr. TALIK RAJ (India) supported that proposal. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that his country made a clear distinction between the administration referred to in article 25 and that covered by article 44. The latter article was concerned with the police aspects of international co-operation, whereas article 25 dealt with national co-ordination. It was unlikely that the same authority would be dealing with both matters in most countries, but he had no objection to discussing the two matters together if the Conference so wished. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Conference should defer its consideration of article 25, as proposed by the French representative. It was so agreed. The PRESIDENT suggested that the ad hoc committee to which articles 30 and 40 to 43 were to be referred should be composed of the representatives of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville), Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Liberia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Venezuela. It was so agreed. The meeting rose at 5.55 p.m. NINTH PLENARY MEETING Wednesday, 1 February 1961, at 10.35 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.l and 2; E/CONF.34/L.2) (continued) Article 31 (National opium agencies) Article 32 (Restrictions on international trade in opium and poppy straw) Article 33 (Limitation of stocks) Article 34 (Disposal of confiscated opium and poppy straw) Mr. VERTES (Hungary), commenting on the provisions concerning the opium poppy and poppy straw, said that it was surprising that the draft Convention included provisions relating to poppy straw, which could not be regarded as a narcotic. As was generally known, only during the past thirty years had poppy straw been used for the manufacture of alkaloids. Not until 1955 had proposals been made to place poppy straw under control. It was important to note that poppies were cultivated to obtain opium or seeds and never to obtain poppy straw alone. The primary purpose of the Convention was to prevent possible abuses, and there had been no abuses in connexion with the use of poppy straw in Hungary. No cases of addiction due to poppy straw had been reported in Hungary or in the other countries where the poppy was cultivated for food purposes. Morphine addicts living in areas where the poppy was cultivated for food purposes never went so far as to consume poppy straw or concoctions made from it, since the morphine content of the straw was very small. Poppy heads were therefore innocuous from the point of view of addiction. To the question whether there could be internal illicit traffic in poppy straw and whether it could be illicitly exported or imported, he would answer that any internal illicit traffic in poppy straw was unthinkable, for the straw was not used as a narcotic, and secondly it was too bulky to be smuggled across frontiers. Could the straw be used for the illicit manufacture of alkaloids in clandestine factories or laboratories? His answer was that very large quantities of raw material would be required for the purpose and extensive storage facilities would be necessary. Very expensive equipment would also be needed. For example, using the Kabay process, which was one of the simplest, 700 to 800 kg of poppy heads would be needed to produce one kilogramme of morphine and the laboratory would ;cost between $100,000 and $1 million. The clandestine manufacturer could obtain a kilogramme of morphine much more 38 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drags easily and at less cost by processing 9 kg. of opium. The illicit manufacture of alkaloids from poppy straw was thus practically ruled out. In that connexion he recalled the conclusions reached by the League of Nations Opium Section in 1934. The implementation of certain provisions of the draft Convention would create difficulties for countries where the poppy was cultivated primarily for food or industrial purposes. In some European countries tens of thousands of hectares were used for poppy growing. In Hungary the annual consumption of poppy seeds was 5,000 tons, or one pound per head of the population. Under the control system proposed, the countries concerned would have to mobilize a large number of vehicles to carry the entire poppy straw crop to a single factory for processing. Huge storage facilities would be required. The consequence of the control measures affecting growers and of the difficulties to which he had referred in connexion with the manufacture of alkaloids would inevitably be the reduction or complete disappearance of poppy growing. Unnecessary restrictions, involving a costly control system, could not be allowed to endanger the almost traditional use of the poppy for food purposes and to cause financial harm to the growers. It was essential that poppy growing should be continued both for food purposes and for the manufacture of alkaloids. Poppy straw had great advantages when compared with opium; there had never been an illicit traffic in poppy straw, whereas substantial amounts of clandestine opium were confiscated every year. For some years the world opium production had been insufficient to satisfy demand for alkaloids for medical and scientific purposes. Without the manufacture of alkaloids from poppy straw, it would have been impossible to fill the world's needs particularly for morphine and codeine. The productive capacity of countries which manufactured alkaloids from poppy straw should therefore be maintained; since the demand was rising steadily, despite the introduction of many synthetic narcotics. The alternative might well be a considerable rise in the price of alkaloids. He emphasized that in the case of poppy straw control was unnecessary until the factory stage, where alkaloids were manufactured, and that it was therefore less expensive. It might be said that if that manufacturing process did not exist it would have to be invented. In that connexion he referred to the comments of the United Kingdom with regard to the manufacture of alkaloids from poppy straw and also the opinions expressed by the Permanent Central Opium Board and the Drug Supervisory Body (E/CONF.34/1). The Hungarian delegation could not agree to the provisions relating to poppy straw. The Convention would be exceeding its objectives if it set up a control system for a plant which involved no danger of addiction. His delegation considered that the unnecessary provisions should be deleted or that some of them should be amended. It maintained all the reservations that its government had made with regard to the provisions relating to poppy straw. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) recalled that at the 1953 Conference the provisions relating to poppy straw had been adopted by a majority of only one vote. Poppy straw was not used by addicts in Yugoslavia and, for the reasons stated by the Hungarian representative, it would be impracticable to use it for the illicit manufacture of morphine. The provisions of article 31 could not be applied and should be deleted. Provision might be made for strict control over exports and imports. On the other hand, the production of "poppy paste" should be subject to control. The ad hoc committee might consider provisions to that effect. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) thought that the list of States in article 32, paragraph 1 (a), should be deleted. Opium production should be very strictly controlled within the countries; it might be entrusted to a state enterprise, but should not become a monopoly. It was inadmissible that only certain privileged countries should be allowed to produce opium. After the list of countries had been deleted, sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) might be combined. Lastly, he thought the ad hoc committee might consider the possibility of including a provision in article 32 relating to price control. Mr. CERNIK (Czechoslovakia) agreed with the Hungarian representative that it would be impossible to apply the provisions of article 31 relating to the designation by government agencies of areas in which cultivation of the poppy would be permitted. Poppies were grown in Czechoslovakia solely for the seeds, which were used for food purposes and for the extraction of oil. There had been no cases of the illicit production of poppy straw for many years and the processes used to produce opium from the straw were complicated and expensive. Further, as poppies were usually grown by farm co-operatives, which were state enterprises, control presented no difficulty. In any case, the toxic content of the poppy straw produced in Czechoslovakia was low. The conditions under which poppy straw was grown and the purposes differed from country to country. The provisions of article 31 would not per se eradicate the illicit traffic; that could be achieved only by strict control within each country. The Convention should not contain provisions unacceptable to many countries. Such provisions would be the subject of reservations and would hamper rather than promote international co-operation in the matter of narcotics control. For those reasons article 31 should be deleted. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that in the Netherlands, as in Czechoslovakia, poppies were grown for seeds and for oil. It was virtually impossible to determine the area used for poppy growing, and the provisions of article 31 would therefore be difficult to apply. The provisions were in any case unjustified, since there was no illicit traffic in poppy straw. He recalled the control measures for poppy straw provided for in the 1953 Protocol. There was certainly no need to go any further in the matter. Provision might be made for import and export licences, as in the case of other raw materials. Control was necessary at the selling stage, as technical advances had to be taken into Ninth plenary meeting — 1 February 1961 39 account. Only about 25 per cent of the current authorized production of morphine was based on poppy straw, but if simpler processes of extraction were developed the percentage might increase. He agreed with the Yugoslav representative that the ad hoc committee might consider provisions for the control of "poppy paste". It was not desirable to limit the number of countries producing opium and poppy straw. In that connexion he drew attention to the comments submitted by his Government (E/CONF.34/1). The Single Convention would remain in force for a long time, and opium requirements would increase with the progress of medicine throughout the world. Provision should therefore be made for amending the list of producing countries if the need arose. Countries which had been exporting poppy capsules for many years should not be prevented from continuing to do so. Mr. GRINBERG (Bulgaria) said that the situation in his country was similar to that in Hungary. The poppy straw grown in Bulgaria had only a small opium alkaloid content and it would not be economic to process it industrially. The straw was destroyed by the growers as waste. In the light of those facts he believed that the provisions of chapter VIII and of the other articles of the Convention relating to poppy straw should be amended. U TIN MAUNG (Burma) said that the poppy was still being grown temporarily on the frontiers of Burma, but that the Government intended to prohibit poppy cultivation completely. Meanwhile it would make a reservation under article 56, paragraph 2 (e). The poppy straw was not used for the manufacture of drugs. It was regarded as waste and destroyed by the growers. Poppy straw itself was not addiction producing. If it had to be delivered, as provided for in article 31, to a national agency, the transport difficulties and costs would be out of all proportion to the advantages to be gained. The provisions of article 31 should be deleted. With regard to article 32, he said his Government could not accept the restrictive list of producers appearing in paragraph 1. As his Government had stated in its comments, considerable quantities of opium resulting from illicit traffic had been seized in Burma and the Government wished to sell the opium seized to importing countries for exclusively medical and scientific purposes. It hoped accordingly that article 32, paragraph 1 (a) would be amended and that Burma would be included in the list of exporting countries. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) considered that the control of poppy straw should begin only at the manufacturing stage where alkaloids were extracted. For technical reasons there could not be any illicit traffic in poppy straw. Most growers used the straw for quite different purposes. He therefore suggested that the Conference should only consider international control of substances extracted from poppy straw. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) referring to his government's comments on the provisions concerning poppy straw, said that the provisions would be impracticable and unduly expensive to apply. With regard to article 32 he said that the United Kingdom had always believed that there was no reason to place certain countries in a privileged position in the matter of opium production; the entire article should be dropped. Its provisions were based on those of the 1953 Protocol which had been adopted as a means of curbing overproduction, in view of the impossibility of establishing an opium monopoly. That risk no longer existed, and importing countries like the United Kingdom were justifiably concerned at the prospect of a system which might endanger their supplies. It had been said that it would be dangerous to delete article 32, because then any country would be able to produce and export opium. That risk seemed hypothetical. There was nothing to prevent any country from producing and exporting opium. In fact the States mentioned in article 32, paragraph 1 (a) were practically, the only opium producers and only Turkey and India were large-scale exporters. There was no evidence of any change in that situation, particularly in view of the increasingly common use of synthetic drugs, and it was unlikely that a country which did not produce opium for its own requirements would wish to produce it for export. With regard to Burma, which, although not a producing country, had large stocks of seized opium, he said that any fears that, if article 32 was deleted the 'governments of countries where control of the illicit traffic was difficult might seize large quantities of opium and re-sell them at a profit, were groundless. Increased technical assistance was planned to facilitate control of the illicit traffic, and the control measures would undoubtedly be steadily improved. On the whole, therefore, it would seem that article 32 could be deleted without difficulty, Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said he had always thought that poppy straw should be placed under control just like any other raw material. Poppy straw was not as yet traded in the illicit traffic, but there was no evidence that it never would be. Some day very simple methods of manufacturing morphine within the capacity of traffickers might be developed; the danger would then arise and the Convention should make provision for it. The Hungarian representative had said that world demand for morphine was growing constantly and that before long morphine would have to be made from poppy straw. In reality, the opium-producing countries had voluntarily reduced their productive capacity by half with the object of avoiding abuses. If scientific and medical needs increased, they would be able to step up their output greatly. With regard to article 32, he recalled that the essential purpose of the Single Convention was to combat the illicit traffic and drug addiction. For that purpose the best means was to prevent over-production through an efficient control system. That could not be done without limiting the areas cultivated. Paragraph 1 (a) was the cornerstone of the Convention. The countries enumerated in that paragraph were those which had always produced opium and poppy straw and were the best equipped to do so with proper controls. The fears expressed concerning a possible monopoly in opium production 40 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs were without foundation. No such monopoly had ever existed and none could materialize in the future. However, as further proof of the goodwill and the spirit of conciliation which had always guided his country, he was proposing an amendment to paragraph 1 (a) of article 32 (E/CONF.34/L.2). The first part would permit countries which, like Afghanistan and Iran, had voluntarily ceased to produce opium to resume production automatically at their mere request. The second part provided for machinery which would forestall any risk of a monopoly or any shortage in the raw materials used for the licit world production of narcotic drugs. Mr. SHADOURSKY (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that a clear distinction should be drawn between the opium poppy and the oil poppy, which was widely used in his country both for the preparation of certain food products and for the extraction of oil. No alkaloids were extracted from the poppy straw, which was either burned or used for animal litter. Moreover, the type of installation necessary for the process, if it existed at all, would necessarily be in the hands of the State. If control were as strict for poppy straw as for opium itself, some countries would hardly be able to ratify the Convention. His own delegation could not agree to such control; its objection extended to all cases in which a strict control of poppy straw was proposed. In Byelorussia, the control of opium and its alkaloids was sufficiently strict to prevent any illicit traffic in that substance. Any attempt to control the cultivation of the poppy would meet with virtually insurmountable difficulties and the cost of producing poppy seeds and poppy oil would rise very considerably. Surely, it was not necessary to create a problem where none existed. It was essential that the Convention should be acceptable to all countries. It would therefore be better to omit the provisions relating to poppy straw, which would deter some countries from acceding, just as in the case of the 1953 Protocol, where the question had been raised for the first time. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) fully shared the Hungarian representative's views on poppy straw and agreed that the provisions of articles 31 to 33 could not be applied to it. Besides, the control system governing the production of alkaloids from poppy straw had been proved to be sufficiently effective to combat its illicit use. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) also thought that the control measures governing the production of opium should not be extended to poppy straw and hence that all mention of that substance should be deleted from articles 31 and 32. With regard more particularly to article 31, paragraph 2 (d), he said it might be difficult, if not physically impossible, for the government agencies to stock large quantities of straw. As far as article 32, paragraph 1 (a), jwas concerned, the Soviet Union had already emphasized, in its comments and elsewhere, that that provision conflicted with the principle of the equality and sovereignty of States. It violated General Assembly resolution 626 (VII), which recognized that right and recommended all Member States to refrain from acts designed to impede the exercise of the sovereignty of any State over its natural resources. That right had been reaffirmed by the General Assembly at its fifteenth session in the declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples (resolution 1514 (XV). The provision in question might be justified if it had any bearing on the fight against the illicit traffic. But in practice, the opium which entered the illicit traffic was either cultivated in remote regions or supplied by growers who possessed a licence but diverted a part of their crop to illicit channels. If all States could apply truly effective control measures, the problem would be solved much more surely than by limiting the number of producing countries. Moreover, the Convention in no way prohibited the parties from producing opium for their own needs. It could even be said that any country with a suitable soil and climate could theoretically cultivate opium whether or not it was included in the list. The essential need, therefore, was for effective national control. Secondly, article 32, paragraph 1 (b), might have the effect of depriving the signatory countries of the opium they needed for medical and scientific purposes. If it acceded to the Convention, the USSR, which with the knowledge of the international control organs concerned has imported raw opium since 1957, would have to discontinue its imports from certain countries if the Convention did not apply to them. To sum up, the provisions of articles 31 and 32 would do much to harm international co-operation in the matter of narcotic drugs, because they would prevent certain countries from acceding to the Convention, which would thus lose a great deal of its efficacy and its universality. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) said that his country produced a small quantity of opium — not enough to cover even its own domestic needs. But if necessary, production could certainly be expanded and could provide a margin for export. It was not clear, therefore, why the right to export opium should be limited to a specified number of countries. The reason why over-production of opium had ceased was not, as the representative of Turkey had said, that countries had been moved by a spirit of goodwill, but rather that they were bound by international agreements which limited exportable quantities and specified their purposes. Furthermore, opium tended more and more to be replaced by synthetic ;drugs and it was becoming less and less profitable for countries to expand their opium output. The representative of the Soviet Union had said quite rightly that if each country took stricter control measures the risk of illicit traffic would be considerably reduced. It was questionable how the limitation of exports alone would reduce that risk, or for that matter the danger of over-production, if countries could still produce opium for their own needs. He would .submit amendments in the ad hoc committee and would even agree with the United Kingdom representative that the provisions in question should be deleted altogether. Mr. DE BAGGIO (United States of America) said there appeared to be considerable misgivings with regard to Tenth plenary meeting — 2 February 1961 41 the provisions concerning poppy straw, since opinions differed as to the stage at which control should be imposed In his view, the definition of the substance in question was not entirely satisfactory. The United States government took the view that the provisions in question should all be maintained. Nevertheless, as it appeared impossible to reach agreement on the subject, his delegation would be willing to agree to certain amendments, as for example a stipulation that control should apply to poppy paste. On the other hand, it was desirable to draft provisions covering the international trade in poppy straw, for the only purpose for which a country could conceivably want to import poppy straw was to extract the morphine. Secondly, one of the best means of ensuring control was undoubtedly to enforce very strict curbs or even to prohibit a substance entirely. Perhaps a basic provision should be added in article 31 recommending that any country which thought it advisable to prohibit the production of poppy straw should do so. His own government would like to be able to promulgate such a ban, but to do so would raise a constitutional problem if there was no international agreement on which such action could be based. The suggested clause could be worded in the same way as article 35, paragraph 1, governing the cultivation of the coca bush. Finally, with regard to the provisions of article 31 he said that his government would prefer that countries should have the choice between the agency system and the "designated licensee" system, which was the usual procedure in the United States. Mr. TILAK RAJ (India) said he did not understand the trend towards a weakening of control in the case of poppy straw, which was unquestionably a dangerous substance. Although the control did not necessarily have to be so strict as in the case of opium, it should nevertheless be maintained for all types of opium poppy, regardless of the purpose for which it was cultivated. After all, poppy straw was the base of 20 to 25 per cent of the licit morphine production, and opium alkaloids could also be illicitly extracted from the straw. Similarly, if opium paste was obtained from poppy straw for licit purposes it could likewise be extracted for illicit purposes. The object of the Convention was to reduce addiction and the illicit traffic as much as possible; it was hardly logical, therefore, to oppose a fairly strict control over poppy straw, since to be effective control should be imposed on all harmful substances. India went to great expense to control vast areas planted with poppies. Poppy straw should be treated in exactly the same way as the cannabis plant and the coca bush, for it was just as dangerous. In India it had even been found that the empty capsules were used by addicts and for that reason the capsules were subject to the same control as opium itself. The limitation on the number of countries producing for export would certainly be in the general interest of all the countries. The fewer producing countries there were, the less would be the risk of contraband. It took a producing country many years to set up the necessary control system, and the risks of evasion and diversion were greatest in the initial stages of production. Discounting Afghanistan and Iran, six countries were still producing for export. The supply was surely sufficient to meet medical and scientific requirements, and their production could of course be expanded if necessary. That had been done by India. The right of every State freely to exploit its natural resources was very important, but a product as dangerous as opium could hardly be regarded as an ordinary commodity. As far as the risk of monopoly was concerned, he said that what mattered above all was effective control, and there was strong evidence that the countries authorized to produce opium for export would not abuse that privilege. He would study carefully the amendment submitted by the representative of Turkey. He noted that when at the tenth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs the representative of India had supported the inclusion of Afghanistan in the list, the representative of the United Kingdom had expressed opposition, but he appeared to have changed his views in the meantime. Furthermore, the Convention did not affect the position of countries which produced opium for their own use. Finally, as his delegation had pointed out in the earlier debate on article 42, it was to be regretted that article 42 did not include a provision similar to that in article 18 of the 1925 Convention or to article 32, paragraph 1(b), of the Single Convention. That provision was essential and should be maintained. The meeting rose at 1 p.m. TENTH PLENARY MEETING Thursday, 2 February 1961, at 10.40. a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.l and 2; E/CONF.34/L.2) (continued) Article 31 (National opium agencies) Article 32 (Restrictions on international trade in opium and poppy straw) Article 33 (Limitation of stocks) Article 34 (Disposal of confiscated opium and poppy straw) (continued) Mr. DE BAGGIO (United States of America) said that, after reflection and consultations, his delegation withdrew the suggestion it had made at the ninth meeting concerning article 31, paragraph 2. Mr. VERTES (Hungary) said that since the great majority of States were opposed to the control of poppy straw, his delegation formally proposed, in order to facilitate subsequent discussion, that the expression "poppy straw" should be deleted from articles 31 to 34. 42 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Dr. MABILEAU (France) recalled that, in his general statement, he had urged that the Convention should provide for the strict control of raw materials. However, such control should be both capable of being applied and adequate. It was not a question of discriminatory measures; it was simply that different types of risk should be treated in a different manner. Alkaloids could be extracted from poppy straw, from poppy extract or from opium. Hence to determine what quantities of raw material were used, control measures should surely begin at the door of the factory where the alkaloids were extracted. International trade should also be controlled and made subject to declarations. Poppy straw, oil poppy straw in particular, had the great advantage of not being in itself a narcotic drug nor easily convertible into one by traffickers or addicts, and for that reason did not constitute a social danger. The extraction of phenanthrenic alkaloids from opium was a convenient process for the manufacturers, but obsolete and dangerous. The process was used only because there were still countries with a low standard of living, or because sufficient progress had not yet been made to enable them to extract alkaloids directly from the plant. Once they were able to do so, all the opium produced might be suspected of being put to illicit use. Moreover, poppy straw extract might some day take the place of opium and therefore required to be very strictly controlled. However, it had the advantage of being an industrial product and could therefore be controlled much more easily. Rapid progress was being made towards the utilization of that raw material; several countries were working together to develop a type of plant which would be as satisfactory as possible from every point of view. With regard to article 32, he said the situation had changed greatly in the last ten years. At one time it would have been desirable to limit severely the number of producing countries; in modern times virtually only two countries remained that produced for export. Several delegations had suggested that the provisions of paragraph 1 should be deleted. However, respect for the right of each State to export and produce opium freely should not mean going from one extreme to another. He suggested it might be stipulated that, if a State wished to produce opium for export, it should transmit a declaration to that effect to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and the declaration would be duly registered and published. The closed list would then become an open list, and if a country decided to produce opium it would be accepting its responsibility openly. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that provisions which were burdensome without serving any very useful purpose should not be imposed on countries. He tended to favour the proposal made by the United States representative that control should be exercised over poppy straw actually converted into a narcotic drug, in other words poppy paste. He also shared the view expressed by the United States representative concerning the control of opium poppy cultivation. Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan) approved without reservation the provisions of article 31; experience in his country had demonstrated how useful such a government agency could be. In fact, before poppy cultivation had been prohibited in Afghanistan, a model law had been adopted, the enforcement of which had been entrusted to a department of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The government agency was a monopoly and its functions corresponded exactly to those laid down in article 31. He also approved the provisions of article 32. In Afghanistan, traditionally an opium-producing country, the cultivation and exportation of opium had been prohibited since 1957. Although there had been no question of reversing that decision, his country wished to maintain its international rights as a traditional opium-producing country. That had been emphasized at the thirteenth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and in the Comments. The Afghan law prohibiting the cultivation of opium should be regarded as an internal decision, and Afghanistan's international rights should be recognized by the Convention. His delegation supported the Turkish delegation's amendment to article 32, paragraph 1 (a), as it would eliminate the risk of one or two countries having a quasi-monopoly of opium production. With regard to articles 33 and 34, he said the ad hoc committee and the Drafting Committee should endeavour to eliminate all ambiguities from those important provisions. Mr. CERNIK (Czechoslovakia) said that the provisions of article 32, paragraph 1 (a) and (6), were not in keeping with the principle of the sovereign equality of States and did not respect their right freely to exploit their natural resources and to participate as they saw fit in international trade. Those provisions should therefore be deleted; there was no justification for the restrictions which they imposed. If all the proposed controls were actually applied, there would be no danger of illicit traffic or abuse in the opium and poppy straw trade. Article 33 should be deleted. It would not be practical to restrict stocks by reference to a certain period, and inaccuracies might arise, as the volume of consumption and exports depended on factors which could not be foreseen. Furthermore, the provision was no substitute for effective controls in ehminating the danger of illicit traffic. It impaired the right of every State to build up stocks according to its needs. In any case, the proposed period of two years was too short. His delegation agreed with the Hungarian representative that all references to poppy straw should be omitted from articles 31 to 34. That was the best method of improving the text and forestalling many objections. Mr. AZARAKHSH (Iran) said that since the nineteenth century his country had been a large-scale producer of opium for the international market; it had been one of the thirteen countries on the Shanghai Commission. Opium had been an important source of foreign exchange for Iran and many of its inhabitants had been engaged in cultivating or trading in opium. A state monopoly had existed for thirty years, and poppy cultivation had been restricted, being authorized only under government licence, but it had not ceased to be important. Tenth plenary meeting — 2 February 1961 43 Nevertheless, opium had always been regarded in Iran as a danger to public health. Hence the Iranian Government had decided to forgo the advantages it could derive from opium and to root out the evil. A first law had been enacted in 1955, and since 1956 the lawful trade in opium of Iranian origin had ceased on the world market. The consequential loss of income suffered by Iran had been estimated by FAO at $30 million per year, exclusive of the sums needed for the enforcement of the law and policing as well as large amounts paid to informers or persons discovering illicit opium. But that loss was negligible when compared with the advantages for the health and prosperity of the population. A second law enacted in 1959 provided very severe penalties against smugglers, with fines up to $4,000 per kilogramme of heroin seized. In addition, special hospitals had been established for drug addicts. In six years, more than 165,000 addicts had been treated and more than 25,000 offenders had appeared before the courts. The struggle was a truly heroic one, and Iran needed the co-operation of all the other countries in order to succeed in its crusade against opium. Those who argued in favour of deleting article 32 had cited certain universally accepted principles such as that of the equality of States. But the real issue was the cultivation of a dangerous poison which was a great evil for mankind. There should be equality first and foremost in physical and moral health and happiness. To ensure that equality, very strict measures were needed. Moreover, any country which voluntarily accepted the provisions of an international convention was acting in the exercise of its sovereignty. The danger of over-production had been recognized as early as the 1931 Conference. The current opium production was quite adequate to satisfy medical needs and even those of millions of addicts. The position would be serious if still more countries could produce opium, and the aim of the Conference was precisely to reduce production so as to help the campaign against addiction. At the thirteenth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the Government of Afghanistan had stated, through its observer, that it did not think it necessary for the moment that Afghanistan should be listed as one of the States producing opium for export. That problem, which had been of great concern to Iran, had thus been settled in 1958. But the question had been reopened, and the Iranian delegation was reluctantly compelled to request that the name of Afghanistan be deleted from article 32. Actually, the position of Iran was very different from Afghanistan's. Iran had always been a large-scale producer and exporter of opium, and Afghanistan had not. Moreover, the aim of the Convention was to unify, codify and simplify the existing instruments, and the name of Afghanistan did not appear in the 1953 Protocol. Afghanistan itself had waived the inclusion of its name in the list. Lastly, Afghan law prohibited the export of opium, whereas Iranian law prohibited the cultivation, import, purchase and possession of opium. In the general interest, Iran was making great sacrifices in the campaign against opium, and the campaign was particularly difficult on the frontiers. If Afghanistan was once again considered as an exporting country, Iran's task would become still more difficult, if not impossible. The representative of Afghanistan had said that his Government's action in the field of narcotic drugs had always been inspired by humanitarian motives. The Iranian delegation hoped therefore that, in conformity with what it had stated at the thirteenth session of the Commission, Afghanistan would ask for its name to be deleted from article 32. Mr. LIANG (China), referring to article 31, said that China was one of the countries where drug addiction caused the greatest havoc. Severe laws prohibited the cultivation of the opium poppy, whether for its capsules or for poppy straw or poppy paste, and even all uses of the opium poppy. Not unnaturally, his delegation accordingly supported the draft provisions concerning poppy straw. He thought that poppy straw was an important source of morphine. What needed to be controlled was the manufacture of opium alkaloids. Apparently, certain delegations were not very serious about filling the gaps in the control of narcotic drugs by placing poppy straw under control. He had been most interested to hear the suggestion, made at the ninth meeting by the United States representative, that at the national level poppy paste should be controlled rather than poppy straw. Only the international trade in poppy straw would be controlled. That might indeed be a solution, because if the provisions were so amended, no party would be prevented from applying stricter measures to poppy straw. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece), referring to article 32, paragraph 1 (a), said that strict control measures were desirable and that the provision should therefore be retained. Some delegations had thought that the paragraph, at least as drafted, meant that countries not mentioned on the list would be debarred from exporting opium or poppy straw. But the draft amendment submitted by Turkey should dispel any such fears; its adoption would enable other countries to be added to the list. Since so many restrictions were already imposed on the countries which exported opium or poppy straw, it would be only natural to show equal caution in the addition of further countries to the list of exporters. The cultivation of the opium poppy, particularly for export, should not be regarded as the exploitation of natural resources. It was an extremely dangerous substance which needed to be controlled in the general interest. * With regard to article 34, paragraph 5 (a), he thought that the opium or poppy straw confiscated by the competent national authorities should be destroyed. That was the practice in Greece. The reason why he was proposing an amendment to paragraph 5 (a) was that the opium or poppy straw confiscated came as a rule from the illicit traffic and was in excess of the quota allocated to the country, and consequently of the international quota which was being controlled. Mr. ISMAIL (United Arab Republic) agreed with the views expressed by the representatives of the United 44 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs States, India and China. The United Arab Republic, as one of the countries plagued by the opium evil, was in favour of some kind of control of poppy straw and poppy paste as possible sources of morphine and other alkaloids. It was also necessary to prevent all illicit traffic in opium. That was a matter which could be studied by the ad hoc committee or the drafting committee. Mr. GRINBERG (Bulgaria) said that Bulgaria was mentioned in the list in article 32, paragraph 1 (a). But the countries listed should not be in a privileged position, for that would be in conflict with the principle of the equal rights of States. Furthermore, the provisions of paragraph 1 (a) would certainly create difficulties, first because some countries would not be parties to the Convention and secondly because others might cease to produce opium and poppy straw, with the result that a monopoly would be formed which would affect prices. It would be better to provide for strict control at the national level than to reduce the number of producing countries. Bulgaria was opposed to the provisions of article 32, paragraph 1 (b), because they would introduce discrimination between countries and would prevent some countries from acceding to the Convention. Moreover, the parties would no longer be able to maintain normal trade relations with other countries. The clause in question should therefore be amended. Article 33 was unnecessary. A control system which would be more than adequate to combat the illicit traffic and abuses was laid down by other provisions of the draft Convention. There was no sound reason for stipulating a limitation of stocks of opium. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said he would argue neither for nor against article 32. In 1953, a similar conference had been held under the auspices of the United Nations and had adopted a Protocol providing for the limitation of opium production. In 1961, the majority of delegations wished to undo what they had done in 1953. At that time the Yugoslav delegation had been convinced that to limit the number of importing and producing countries would be a constructive step and would help to reduce the international illicit traffic. So far as the limitation of manufacture was concerned, the 1953 Protocol corresponded to the 1931 Convention. According to the United Kingdom representative, it had been logical to introduce measures of control in 1953 because at that time opium production had been excessive. According to that argument, since currently there was a shortage of opium, there was no reason for notsetting aside the 1953 Protocol, there being no longer any surplus. In fact, however, the ideas of over-production or shortages of opium were very elastic. From his personal experience of the proceedings at the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs, he could say that whenever opium traffic was discussed, it was attributed to over-production. Actually, opium cultivation was an uncertain business and it was impossible to judge from one year's harvest whether there was a shortage or over-production. Yugoslav production varied considerably. From an area of about 4,000 hectares the average yearly production was 20 tons. But in 1949 it had been only about 500 kg and in 1960 about 40 tons. If opium production were used as a basis for deciding what controls there should be, it would be impossible to reach any conclusions. Some delegations had spoken of "privilege" in connexion with article 32, which reproduced the provisions of article 6 of the 1953 Protocol. Yugoslavia did not consider itself to be privileged, since it exported only very small quantities. His delegation had agreed to article 6 of the 1953 Protocol in the belief that it was a constructive and humanitarian step and had never regarded its country as privileged. The amendment submitted by the Turkish delegation should dispel the apprehensions expressed with regard to monopolies. The Yugoslav delegation was prepared to accept the decision of the majority. Mr. BERTSCHINGER (Switzerland), referring to article 31, said that in his country excess poppy straw was burned or used as litter for cattle. There was no traffic in it. Since it contained only 0.16 per cent of alkaloids, 100 kilogrammes would be required to manufacture 160 grammes of alkaloids. From a psychological point of view the effect of the provisions of article 31 would be deplorable. If strict control measures were applied to poppy straw, many farmers would gain the impression that it contained valuable substances from which they could make an additional profit. The result would be to encourage illicit traffic. Either the provisions relating to poppy straw should be deleted, as proposed by the Hungarian representative, or a provision corresponding to article 4 (a) of the 1953 Protocol should be inserted, or else there should be international control over poppy straw and paste, as proposed by the United States representative. With regard to article 32, paragraph 1(b) and paragraph 2, he said that purchases of morphine and codeine were on the increase in some countries, despite the appearance of synthetic drugs. In recent years there had been bad harvests in two of the main exporting countries. If the number of exporting countries was limited it would no longer be possible to meet the needs for codeine. Furthermore, according to the statistics of the Permanent Central Opium Board, the limitation of the number of exporting countries would not be an adequate safeguard against illicit traffic. On the contrary, there was the danger that a country which was not authorized to export opium might seek illicit outlets. It could therefore be said that the 1953 Protocol was outdated. The solution might perhaps lie in a compromise between the extreme course suggested by the United Kingdom delegation at the ninth meeting and the Turkish amendment. U KYIN (Burma) thought that article 34, paragraph 1, should be amended. Confiscated opium should be allowed to be exported for medical and scientific purposes. According to paragraph 2, the parties could not use confiscated opium for the manufacture of drugs listed Tenth plenary meeting — 2 February 1961 45 in schedule I, but only for the manufacture of those listed in schedule II. In that connexion he observed that in his country there was a modern factory manufacturing pharmaceutical products from the narcotic drugs listed in schedules I and II. The parties should be allowed the right to manufacture the drugs listed in schedule I. Para*** 0 1 should therefore be amended. >eria) associated himself with opposed to article 32, para>operation was undoubtedly in question were an infringeiltates and implied a monosqually to article 32, para-ambodia), referring to of opium were authorized rposes only. It was the vernment to help drug to eliminate addiction, that severe restrictions opium were necessary. \ list in paragraph 1 (a) dered that article 32, enough. Its amend>mplicated procedure \pler procedure for ild be worked out. srning confiscated < -\Q 34, paragraph 2, v m e provisions should b „a to allow the manufacture of the di ^ *ucruded in schedule I, with the exception of those which appeared also in schedule IV. Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) said that it had proved impossible to include provisions regarding poppy straw in the 1953 Protocol. Why, then, had such provisions reappeared in the third draft? Surely, by reason of its nature and bulk, poppy straw was not likely to enter the illicit traffic. It would, however, be useful if WHO could do some research to determine once and for all the true nature of poppy straw and especially its alkaloid content. Because poppy straw was, of course, a recognized source of alkaloids, it was impossible to leave it uncontrolled under the Convention, whose object was to establish control over all sources of narcotic drugs. The exercise of sovereign rights should be free from the influence of private interests. Each State should be prepared to surrender a part of its sovereignty for the sake of international control. International legislation should be as complete as possible, for national legislation would be modelled upon it, and laws against poppy straw could not be enacted if the international instrument was silent on the subject. The solution might be, as the United States representative had proposed, to establish international control over poppy paste and not over poppy straw. His delegation accordingly considered that the provisions regarding poppy straw could not simply be deleted without any provisions concerning future production being adopted. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary), referring to a problem raised by the representative of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic at the ninth meeting, said that according to the information available to the secretariat the varieties of poppy cultivated in Europe for seed and oil were of the species papaver somniferum L. All varieties of papaver somniferum L. yielded opium, though in different amounts, and their alkaloid content, including morphine, also varied. According to a work on the poppy published in the USSR by the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the distinction made between "opium" and "oil" varieties was erroneous. The secretariat was of the opinion that under the terms of the draft Convention poppies not cultivated for opium or for poppy straw to be used for the extraction of alkaloids would not have to be controlled. Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan) said that the reason his country's name did not appear in article 6 of the 1953 Protocol, as pointed out by the Iranian representative, was simply that Afghanistan had not been represented at the 1953 Conference. When at the eleventh session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs Afghanistan had announced that it would not press for its name to appear in the Protocol, the reason had been that the Protocol had not entered into force and it did not seem necessary at that stage to invoke the highly complex procedure for its amendment. Subsequently, however, it had clearly indicated its desire to appear among the list of producing States in the Single Convention, as could be seen from footnotes 31 and 50 in the third draft. He did not think that his country should be penalized simply because it had not been present at the 1953 Conference. Afghanistan had never, as the representative of Iran had stated, waived the inclusion of its name in the list. Afghanistan's law prohibited the export of opium, while Iranian law prohibited only the cultivation, import, purchase, and holding of opium: that was no more than logical, because Afghanistan could not think of exporting a commodity the production of which had been banned. Afghanistan had long experience both as a producer and an exporter of opium; the product was, moreover, of exceptional quality, with a morphine content of 18 to 19 per cent. It had always welcomed the support it had received from all United Nations bodies. When the Commission on Narcotic Drugs had invited Afghanistan to accede to the 1925 Convention, his country had done its best to comply with the requirements of the international legislation. In 1956, while still an exporter of opium, Afghanistan had enacted a law covering all the provisions of the 1925 Convention. At the twelfth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, when the question of including Afghanistan in the list of producing countries had come up, Iran, which had at that time halted its opium production, had objected. However, Afghanistan, on its own initiative, had indicated its desire for co-operation with neighbouring countries, and had banned the production of 46 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs opium. The Commission had shown its appreciation, and Afghanistan had accepted the Commission's suggestion that it should ask for technical assistance under the auspices of the United Nations. That had been a very bold step for a country as poor as Afghanistan, which bad as a result deprived an entire province of its only source of income. He was convinced, however, that, thanks to international co-operation and to his Government's policy of diversification of crops, his country would be able to restore prosperity to the people of those areas. The Government of Afghanistan did not contemplate the repeal of the law banning opium cultivation. When the Middle East Narcotics Survey Mission had visited Afghanistan, the Government had told it that it would spare no effort to control illicit traffic. Nevertheless, if Iran opposed the inclusion of Afghanistan in the list of producing countries because it feared possible contraband, Afghanistan would have very good reason to adopt the same attitude with regard to Iran. Unlike Afghanistan, Iran had always been a large producer of opium, and consequently the danger of contraband, if production were resumed, would be even greater for Afghanistan, the more so since the Iranian provinces where opium was cultivated were very close to the Afghan border. The fears of Iran should in no way logically be concentrated on one of its frontiers. It was rather surprising that, for example, although Turkey, a very large producer, was also a neighbour of Iran, he did not think that the Iranian representative was thinking of asking to have Turkey's name crossed off the list. The international control of narcotic drugs depended upon good faith and mutual co-operation, for without that no international convention could be properly applied. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) objected to the provisions of article 33 on the grounds that the limitation of stocks was a matter strictly for national legislation. Furthermore, articles 40, paragraph 3, and 41, paragraph 2(a), if adopted, would suffice to prevent the accumulation of stocks. He was also opposed to the provision concerning the destruction of confiscated substances. Such products could be used for legitimate purposes and should not be wasted. The Yugoslav representative had said that he could not see in what way the countries listed in article 32, paragraph 1 (a), were privileged. Article 34, paragraph 3, very clearly favoured them, since under that provision they alone were authorized to use the opium or poppy straw confiscated in their territory. There was no justification for such a preferential arrangement and he urged that that provision should be deleted. Mr. LIANG (China) supported the Turkish amendment to article 31, paragraph 1 (a). With regard to article 34, paragraph 2, he thought that it would be illogical for a country to destroy stocks of opium and later, to import opium from abroad for the manufacture, for lawful purposes, of the drugs listed in schedule I. Moreover, paragraph 5 authorized the parties to export confiscated opium in exchange for products some of which were listed in schedule I. It would be unfair if confiscated opium could be exported in exchange for products fisted in schedule I but not used locally for similar purposes. He therefore proposed that paragraph 5 should be replaced by a general clause providing that confiscated opium and poppy straw could be used for the manufacture of drugs, the actual drugs not being specified. Since the drugs would be manufactured under government control, there was no danger of malpractice and consequently no reason to exclude the drugs listed in schedule I. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) said that he did not doubt the good faith of the producing countries, but he had been expecting to hear convincing arguments which would dispel the fears expressed on the subject of the creation of a monopoly of opium exports. Ghana was neither a producer nor a major importer, but there was no reason why it should not one day manufacture narcotic drugs or cultivate the poppy, either for domestic needs or for export. The Convention should include safeguards whereby Ghana and other countries would not necessarily always remain dependent for their supplies on the countries listed in article 32, paragraph 1. He still thought that the list should be deleted. With regard to the Turkish amendment, he said the implication of the second sentence was that no new country could be added to the list as long as at least two countries were on it. When the Convention had been drafted, the evolution of Africa had not been taken into account. The Turkish amendment was not realistic. If its purpose was indeed to keep the number of producers within reasonable limits, the election of new States by a two-thirds majority should constitute an adequate safeguard. He hoped that the drafting committee would reconsider the amendment in the light of what he had just said. If it was not altered, he would be forced to vote against it. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that the sole purpose of the Turkish amendment was to remove all fear of the possibility of an international monopoly of opium export. The discussion on articles 31 to 34 had left him with the painful impression that arguments such as the danger of a shortage of raw materials or the right of peoples to dispose of their natural resources were being used in an effort to remove all obstacles in the way of the production, international traffic and manufacture of opium and poppy straw by every country. Apparently, only national control mattered. If that was the majority view, the task of the Conference would be greatly facilitated and the Convention could be limited to a few articles. It would mean renouncing what had always been the underlying principles of international legislation against addiction and illicit traffic—and they were the only effective principles—and starting upon a new road which would be based mainly on national control. He felt it his duty to say that, in that case, he doubted whether the Convention would lead to any progress whatever in the fight against the abuse of narcotic drugs. Eleventh plenary meeting — 6 February 1961 47 Mr. BANERJI (India) said that he fully shared the views expressed by the Turkish representative. The discussion seemed to reflect an intention of nullifying all that had been done during the past half-century. Even in the matter of the control of natural substances, the Conference was contemplating a retrograde step, whereas the time had surely come for controlling the synthetic drugs. Suggestions had been made for easing the control of the production of opium and objections had been raised to the control of poppy straw. With reference to the latter substance, he pointed out that, according to statistics compiled by the United Nations and by the PCOB, about 20 per cent of the morphine and other alkaloids manufactured in the world were extracted from poppy straw. As the representative of Turkey had said, it would be impossible to achieve the social aims of the Conference if there was no control whatsoever over the cultivation of poppy straw. India had no desire to prevent the use of poppy straw and its conversion into morphine or other alkaloids, but the substance should be subjected to both international and national control. What he had in mind was not necessarily total control, beginning with the cultivation stage, but full control of poppy paste and of the international traffic in poppy straw and sufficient control over cultivation to prevent abuse. He had also noted with consternation that some delegations had challenged the validity of article 32, paragraph 1 (b). Yet it was vitally important that countries which did not accept any of the international control measures in force should not be free to deal in such dangerous substances as they saw fit and to make whatever use they wished of them. The Indian delegation was not asking that the production of opium and of poppy straw should be restricted exclusively to certain States. The producing countries had, however, learned by bitter experience to appreciate the dangers of opium; the fact that Afghanistan and Iran had ceased production testified to that. It was necessary that the number of countries authorized to produce opium should be as small as possible. The control machinery was very difficult to set up, and he failed to see how new producers could set up a satisfactory system, at least at the outset. Moreover, the larger the areas sown to the crop, the greater the danger of leakage. The producing countries should not of course abuse their position and the Convention should provide all the necessary safeguards for that purpose. If, however, according to the principle of the sovereignty over natural resources, every State was authorized to produce opium, the world would be back where it had started before 1909. In connexion with article 33, the representative of Pakistan had expressed opposition to the limitation of stocks. Yet that, too, was a fundamental principle. There could be disagreement over the authorized amounts, but not over the principle itself. To authorize the holding of unlimited stocks would be a retrograde step. He appreciated the concern expressed by the Japanese Government. The way to avoid any danger of monopoly was to render the provisions of article 32, paragraph 1, sufficiently flexible and to provide for the addition of new countries to the list. The fact that India had supported Afghanistan's application demonstrated that it had no intention of setting up a nearmonopoly. The important points on which India insisted were the limitation of stocks and the restriction of poppy growing to the traditional producing areas, where the controlling authorities were experienced. The meeting rose at 1.10 p.m. ELEVENTH PLENARY MEETING Monday, 6 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. President : Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Appointment of technical committee The PRESIDENT suggested that the technical committee referred to in the notes concerning the organization of work (E/CONF.34/3, para. 6, E/CONF.34/C.1/ L.l , para. 3;) should be composed of the representatives of Australia, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, China, the Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville), France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, Iran, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Arab Republic, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Venezuela. It was so agreed. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that his delegation did not include a qualified doctor or pharmacist and hence had not asked to be represented on the technical committee, but it hoped to have an opportunity of expressing its views when points of special interest to India were discussed. With reference to the definitions (article 1) which the technical committee was to study from the scientific point of view, he suggested that the Conference should have an opportunity to consider the drafting of the definitions in plenary; an ad hoc committee might even be appointed to deal with that most important question. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drags (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.1; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.1 to 3; E/CONF. 34/L.2) ( continued) Article 31 (National opium agencies) Article 32 (Restrictions on international trade in opium and poppy straw) Article 33 (Limitation of stocks) Article 34 (Disposal of confiscated opium and poppy straw) (continued). Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that he wished to make a general statement which would at the same time relate 48 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to the articles under discussion. His delegation had already expressed the hope that no country would take up a position implying a retreat from the position it had adopted in ratifying the existing Conventions. The Conference was not only to codify those earlier instruments, but also to consider the 1953 Protocol and certain new suggestions which sometimes went beyond the terms of that instrument. Somewhat surprisingly, some of the delegations which were ardently defending the provisions of the Protocol were not, in fact, from among the thirty-eight ratifying countries. It should be possible to decide on the basis not of theory, but of experience, which of the provisions of the 1953 Protocol could be usefully retained. The active part played by France in drawing up and in urging the ratification of the Protocol should make it obvious that the reason why his delegation no longer insisted on certain of the provisions of the agreement was not that it had changed its attitude, but that it wished to remove obstacles to the general ratification of the Single Convention. A realistic approach of that kind was indispensable; unjustified complications should be avoided in order to achieve maximum acceptability, and at the same time the Convention should not be weakened. For example, there were four possible courses with regard to countries which produced or exported opium: they could be mentioned in a closed list, as the draft proposed; the list could be a partially open one, as was proposed in the Turkish amendment (E/CONF.34/L.2); there could be complete freedom of trade in opium, with no guarantee against over-production; or, fourthly, as a compromise, a list in the Convention could be dispensed with, and an arrangement devised for a list to be kept of countries entitled either to grow and sell opium, or, in some cases, to sell only the opium confiscated in their territory. There was no need to demand the systematic destruction of seized opium; however, instead of being sold directly, such opium might be exchanged for medicaments or medical supplies. As a second example, there were three possible positions on the question of poppy straw: the absence of any control, as suggested by Hungary; control as strict as that over opium; or a realistic compromise allowing for a degree of control. Some supervision was necessary over a raw material which was the source of 20 to 25 per cent of the morphine produced in the world. His delegation therefore proposed the adoption of the main provisions of article 4 of the 1953 Protocol, which controlled manufacture from and foreign trade in poppy straw. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that his country, which was not a producer of opium and hence was not directly involved, had ratified the 1953 Protocol in order to help limit narcotic substances to medical and scientific uses. His delegation accepted the principle that a country should be free to market its products, but an exception was required in the case of a convention which attempted to restrict the use of a substance to certain purposes. The over-production which could result from the absence of restrictions would lead to dangerous competition in the disposal of the products concerned when the amount legitimately required was only 800 to 900 tons; the principle of a list of countries was therefore sound, provided that it was a realistic list, and that there was a simple formula for adding countries to the list in the light of new conditions. With regard to the proposal contained in the Turkish amendment, he considered that the selection of new producing countries should be by a twothirds vote in the General Assembly or in the Economic and Social Council, rather than in the Commission or* Narcotic Drugs, which would be too limited a forum for the purpose, for it had a membership of only fifteen. As he understood it, there was nothing to stop any country from producing opium for its own needs and then manufacturing alkaloids of opium for export. That seemed an illogical situation, for it was precisely the alkaloids which represented the real danger. Another important question was what was to be done with opium confiscated in non-exporting countries. He did not think that the arrangement enabling countries not manufacturing alkaloids to exchange some seized opium for alkaloids was satisfactory, and suggested that the ad hoc committee be asked to look into the problem. On the question of poppy straw, his delegation supported France's proposal. Some simple control mechanism was necessary which would leave poppy straw free from controls that served no useful purpose. He also drew attention to an unnecessary duplication in articles 34 and 36, which could be combined without any sacrifice in effectiveness. Mr. BUVAILIKA (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) expressed agreement with the delegations which had argued that it was unreasonable to include provisions such as those in article 33 limiting the right of a State to keep stocks of opium or poppy straw for its own needs; such a measure might lead to difficulties in both the economic and the medical field. The supply of drugs and raw materials depended on the climatic conditions during a particular year, and it would be difficult to determine the amount of raw materials needed without knowing how good the next two years' harvests would be. The stocks of raw materials might also be affected by epidemics such as colds and influenza, which brought an increased demand for codeine. The intention of the measure was apparently to reduce leakages into the illicit traffic; such leakages, however, did not depend on the quantity of stocks, but on the effectiveness of measures taken to protect those stocks. The provisions of the draft Convention for state supervision of stocks and of their use were sufficient. Mr. VERTES (Hungary) said that his delegation opposed article 32, paragraph 1, as incompatible with the principle of the sovereign equality of States. Full cooperation would be impossible if some countries were authorized to monopolize the production and export of certain narcotic substances. He could not accept the argument that effective control was possible in some countries and not in others, and that the right to export opium should be restricted to the former. Another objection to the paragraph in question, as to any such provision, Eleventh plenary meeting — 6 February 1961 49 was that it would become obsolete as countries developed their economies and became able to control trade in drugs effectively. Basic principles of justice demanded that States should be free to dispose of their natural wealth, subject, of course, to any necessary control. Moreover, because the parties would be pledging themselves to import narcotics from other parties only, a shortage of important drugs might occur, not to mention the dangers of a monopoly. The provisions in question had the effect of dividing States into four groups. The first was composed of the eight countries which would be placed in a privileged position once they acceded to the Convention; secondly there were the remaining parties to the Convention; thirdly, there were countries which would be prevented by constitutional factors from becoming parties immediately, and those which would not accede because they found certain provisions unacceptable; fourthly, there were the countries which were absent from the Conference. Under article 48, the last group of countries could be prevented from becoming parties to the Convention and would suffer the consequent disadvantages. Again, what would happen if several of the eight countries listed did not ratify the Convention for a time after its entry into force? Importing countries could then have to rely on a smaller number of exporting States, which might be unable to provide a sufficient supply. His delegation therefore maintained its objection to article 32, paragraphs 1(a) and (b) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9, footnote 30), as well as its reservation with regard to article 33. With regard to the question of poppy straw, the Hungarian delegation had made it clear, during the general debate, that it believed in the necessity of a suitable international convention for preventing the abuse of drugs, without hindering their medical application, and that it was in favour of an adequate system of control. However, his delegation had proved conclusively that control over poppy straw was unnecessary until it was used in the manufacture of alkaloids. At the ninth plenary meeting he had given detailed evidence to show that cases of abuse were unknown and practically inconceivable, and that strict control over such a widely cultivated crop was impossible. Such provisions were particularly unacceptable to countries in which the poppy was grown for food. Some delegations had spoken in favour of the provisions without producing any scientific evidence of the need of control measures before the extraction of alkaloids began. It was impossible to prepare drugs from poppy straw clandestinely outside factories, because of the large quantities which would be required. He hoped that the Conference would accept the views of his delegation and would find a satisfactory solution to the problem, which was of great significance to many countries since it concerned an important consumption crop. If those principles were accepted, his delegation would be able to recommend to the Hungarian Government that it accede to the Single Convention. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) referred to the Deputy Executive Secretary's statement at the 9th meeting, which implied that under article 31, paragraph 1, the opium poppy would have to be controlled only if it was cultivated for the sake of the straw. In the Netherlands, for example, many farmers cultivated the poppy for its seeds, but manufacturers could use the straw for making morphine and could approach farmers in order to buy their straw; the provisions could then be so interpreted that the poppy would be considered as being cultivated for the production of poppy straw, even though the latter was only a by-product. With regard to article 33, paragraph 1, he said the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) would normally prove satisfactory, as the stock would be unlikely to exceed two years' requirements. However, it would not always be possible to implement the provisions of paragraph 4 (a), since it would be hard to know what a manufacturer would require in two years' time. He thought it was hardly necessary to lay down such a strict requirement for the control of stocks; control should be made the responsibility of the government, and the Board should supervise the application of the provisions only indirectly. In commenting on article 34, he was assuming that its provisions would not apply to poppy straw. He did not regard the present wording of paragraph 2 of that article as logical. It provided that a party might authorize the conversion of opium or poppy straw into drugs listed in schedule II ; but in fact, before making codeine, which was in schedule II, a manufacturer would first have to make morphine, which was in schedule I. He therefore considered that it was confusing to restrict manufacture to drugs listed in schedule II and suggested that the words "listed in schedule II " should be deleted. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that article 33 should be deleted altogether: it was more important to control the use of stocks than to limit their level; furthermore, the provisions of article 33 were impractical and were also ineffective, since they were drafted in such a way that the limit imposed had no practical value. With respect to article 34, his delegation supported in principle the right of any country to export seized opium. It saw no good reason for discriminating in that respect against countries not on the list of authorized producers. The argument that permitting the use or export of confiscated opium would increase the illicit trade could not directly apply to the large quantities of opium seized in Singapore and Hong Kong, since the opium poppy was not cultivated in those territories. At the 9th meeting, the Indian representative had said that, at the tenth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the United Kingdom had opposed the inclusion of Afghanistan in the fist of opium-producing countries. That was not the case. The United Kingdom had considered the proposal for the inclusion of Afghanistan inopportune, since Afghanistan's neighbour Iran had just decided to ban opium production; it had therefore favoured postponement of the matter, but it had never opposed placing Afghanistan on the list. On the question of poppy straw, his delegation welcomed the French suggestion for a return to article 4 of the 1953 Protocol. As to article 32, he thought that the proponents of 50 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs that article had exaggerated the dangers that its deletion might bring. The point at issue was whether to adopt a provision at present found only in the 1953 Protocol or to enact something more practical. The provision in question was one of the main reasons why the 1953 Protocol had not yet entered into effect, and was certainly the cause of the United Kingdom's unwillingness to ratify the Protocol. It had been suggested that, if paragraph 1 (b) of article 32 were deleted, there would be unrestricted trade in opium. However, most countries were parties to the 1925 and 1931 Conventions, which would remain in force for some time after the Single Convention came into effect; and even if the 1925 and 1931 Conventions should lapse, he hardly thought that governments would discard the controls they had applied for many years over the opium trade. The suggestion had also been made that the opium trade might be started in countries lacking the resources to control it. That argument, however, was beside the point, since there was nothing in the draft Convention to stop a party from producing opium or, as the Canadian representative had pointed out, from manufacturing opium alkaloids for export. His delegation therefore favoured the deletion of article 32, but thought that consideration should be given to the French proposals for substitute provisions. Mr. KALINKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that the representatives who had supported article 32 had dealt in generalities and had not demonstrated how that provision would ensure an uninterrupted supply of opium to countries for their lawful needs or would combat the illicit traffic. He had noted that the principal advocates of article 32 were the representatives of countries listed in paragraph 1 (a). Those countries apparently were interested in artificially limiting the number of opium-producing countries and in securing freedom from competition. The fact that opium was an addictionproducing drug was not an adequate reason for denying the right of other countries, particularly under-developed countries which had recently attained independence, to use their natural wealth and resources to build up independent economies. In that connexion, his delegation shared the view of the Ghanian representative that Ghana was entitled to become an opium producer. Any country that wanted to produce opium for export could certainly ensure the strictest control of production at every stage and thus prevent leakage into the illicit traffic. The countries on the list of authorized producers had introduced control measures only after the illicit traffic and drug addiction had reached substantial proportions, whereas the countries producing opium for the first time would institute control systems immediately. The proponents of article 32 had also argued that permitting countries, other than those listed in paragraph 1 (a), to produce opium for export would create a serious risk of over-production. However, it was impossible to predict what the production of opium would be in a given year, because the level of production in each country depended largely on climatic conditions, particularly rainfall. Statistics showed a sharp fluctuation in production figures from year to year: for example, India had produced 629 tons of opium in 1953, 362 tons in 1955 and 657 tons in 1958; Turkey had produced 321 tons in 1953, 70 tons in 1954, 277 tons in 1956 and 45 tons in 1957; and the USSR had produced 147 tons in 1957 and 93 tons in 1958. If only a limited number of countries were permitted to produce opium for export and if droughts occurred in Turkey and India, other States might find it impossible to satisfy their opium demand for medical and other lawful purposes. In support of that view, he cited the Indian representative's statement in 1957 that he favoured the inclusion of Afghanistan among the opium-producing countries because he doubted whether opium stocks were sufficient (E/3010/Rev.l, paragraph 265). The Indian representative had thought at the time that the world demand would not be met because of the drought in Turkey and India, and that it would therefore be proper to encourage poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. The demand for opium for medical purposes had almost doubled between 1948 and 1958 (E/OB/15, page ix). In its 1958 report, the PCOB had concluded that the figures of opium production and utilization showed that production had fallen short of demand after 1953 (E/OB/14, page 10). And in the following year, the PCOB had reported that the figures for production and use of opium had shown a shortfall in production since 1954, and that in consequence, stocks had fallen by the end of 1958 to about nine months' requirements (E/OB/15, page ix). Accordingly, since even at the moment, without restrictions on the number of opium exporting countries, importing countries might have difficulty in procuring adequate supplies of opium for medical purposes, the normal supply of opium would surely be endangered if the Single Convention were to legalize the monopolistic position of certain opium-producing countries in the world market. In that connexion, he shared the apprehension of the United Kingdom representative that the restrictions in article 32 might indeed establish a monopoly, with all its unfortunate effects; furthermore, the States listed in paragraph 1 (a) might at any time prohibit opium production for internal reasons. The supporters of article 32 had also argued that an exclusive list of countries producing opium for export was the foundation of the international narcotics control system and of the fight against the illicit traffic. In his delegation's view, the restriction of the number of opium producers was certainly not a proper measure for combating the illicit traffic. He cited passages from recent reports of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (E/3133, paragraph 207; E/3254, paragraph 137; E/3385, paragraphs 103 and 104) indicating that in the Near and Middle East the opium seized in the illicit traffic had generally come from countries situated within the region, and that the seizures reported by Turkey had been of opium diverted from lawful cultivation. A special narcotics survey mission had been sent to the Middle East because of the heavy illicit traffic in that region. He therefore asked the representatives of countries in that area to explain how a closed list of opium producers would improve the narcotics situation in the Near and Middle East. In his delegation's view, any improvement in that situation would depend mainly on the effectiveness of the control exercised by governments and on the efficient application of the provisions of international narco-Eleventh plenary meeting — 6 February 1961 51 tics conventions and of the decisions of international control organs, and in no way on the limitation of the number of countries producing opium for export. As the Indian representative to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs had said (E/3010/REV.1, paragraph 264), the selection of countries authorized to produce opium for export and the problem of the illicit traffic in that drug were two quite distinct questions. And the Turkish representative to the Commission had listed eleven measures which the countries of the Middle East should adopt to fight the illicit traffic, other than the limitation of the number of exporting States (E/3385, paragraph 106). The Turkish amendment (E/CONF.34/L.2) was apparently intended to give the States already listed as producers a permanent right to remain on the list. Under the terms of that amendment there would be no opportunity for additions to the list of countries, for the number of producing countries would obviously never be less than two. Article 32 also affected the rights of States which had been deprived of the right to participate in the Conference and which, under the terms of article 48 as drafted, would be prevented from becoming parties to the Convention. Parties would not be permitted to import opium from such countries as the Democratic Republic of VietNam, which regularly exported large quantities of opium to the USSR for medical uses. The inclusion of article 32 would therefore be tantamount to an attempt to throttle the economy of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. In those circumstances, if the present text of article 32 was retained, the USSR would be compelled to adopt the same attitude towards the Single Convention that it had taken towards the 1953 Protocol. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) supported the French proposal concerning poppy straw. As he had stated, before, his delegation was unable to accept the draft provisions of article 32 relating to poppy straw, but it was perfectly willing to agree to the control, of imports and exports of such straw. The French proposal was therefore a welcome solution. If the Convention was to be concise, reasonable and effective, article 33 could well be dropped. Stocks were controlled by the State anyway and consequently a provision for their limitation was unnecessary in the Convention. Furthermore, under the provisions of the 1953 Protocol the stocks would be so large that, from an economic point of view, no country would wish to maintain them at that level. In any event the Yugoslav delegation did not adopt a strong position on article 33. Although he found article 34 acceptable in principle, he sympathized with those delegations which had argued that a country should have the right to export its confiscated opium instead of destroying it. The text should be improved and that point should be made clear. Mr. FERRARI (Brazil) said that the provisions concerning opium and poppy straw were, on the whole, acceptable to his government, but he thought that the objections raised by some delegations should be borne in mind. In particular, he agreed that article 32, paragraph 1, might result in a monopoly of production for certain countries, which would be prejudicial to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products containing opium and might also encourage the illicit traffic. He favoured strict control and the restriction of opium to medical and scientific uses, but the danger of creating a monopoly should be avoided Article 33 was, in general, satisfactory, but paragraph 6 (a) did not provide for scientific requirements or for exceptional circumstances, such as a great natural catastrophe, in which the PCOB might exempt the party from the conditions stipulated in paragraph 1 for reasons other than those of public health. The point would be met by inserting the words "or other reasons" after the words "public health". Mr. WIECZOREK (Poland) said that he shared the Hungarian representative's views regarding the control of poppy straw. However, he understood the position of delegations which had expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the controls proposed to be laid down in the Convention. Without wishing to weaken the text, he thought it could be adapted to specify that controls should be imposed where necessary. In view of the differing climatic conditions in different countries and the different strains of poppy cultivated, some of which contained very little addiction-producing substance, the Convention should not establish one hard and fast rule but fairly flexible standards which could be applied in the fight of local conditions. Special attention should be paid to that point in the ad hoc committee. Poland had no economic interests influencing its attitude to article 32 but it opposed the article, particularly paragraph 1, for reasons of principle. He welcomed the fact that other delegations, including those of some of the newly independent African States, opposed it for the same reasons, namely, that it infringed the sovereignty of States over their natural resources. His reason for opposing a restricted list of countries entitled to produce opium was not that he thought the number of producers should be increased; that would not be the best method to achieve a limitation of production. It would be far better to appeal to States to limit their production of opium voluntarily if the amount on the international market exceeded world needs for medical and scientific purposes. There was a further and very grave objection to paragraph 1 (6). Because it prohibited the import of opium or poppy straw from any country or territory to which the Convention did not apply, certain countries would be excluded from trading with the parties to the Convention without having been consulted. Those countries, furthermore, were the very ones that had not been invited to the Conference and had therefore had no opportunity to make their voices heard. The text would have to be altered so fundamentally to make it generally acceptable that it would be preferable to delete the provision. Mr. CERNIK (Czechoslovakia) expressed the view that article 34 should apply to confiscated opium but not to confiscated poppy straw. Mr. POSAYANANDA (Thailand) said that the disposal of confiscated opium was of serious concern to his country, as its geographical position placed it on one 52 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of the main routes for the illicit opium traffic. Before opium smoking had been banned in Thailand, the confiscated opium had been sold for home consumption and had brought in about 6 million dollars a year in revenue. Since the ban had come into force, the Government had had sizeable amounts of opium on its hands, for only small amounts could be used for medical or scientific purposes. That opium should not be destroyed, as provided in article 34, but exported, so that his government could cover, to some extent, its loss of revenue. If article 34 was modified along the lines he had suggested and article 32 was deleted, the Convention would be much more widely acceptable. U TIN MAUNG (Burma) welcomed the point made by the previous speaker. As he had pointed out in his statement at the third plenary meeting, Burma was in a similar position and, therefore, the mandatory provision contained in article 34, paragraph 1, was quite unacceptable to his delegation. Large quantities of opium were confiscated every year by the Government of the Union of Burma thanks to the vigilance and courage of the men who tracked down the illicit drug traffickers. Their work was difficult and dangerous and it seemed logical that they should receive substantial rewards for it. Furthermore, there were many other expenditures involved in the control of the illicit traffic. It did not seem unreasonable that his Government should be authorized to sell the confiscated opium to other countries for medical and scientific purposes, thus covering some of its enormous outlay. In Burma, poppy straw was destroyed by the cultivators and none had found its way into the illicit traffic in the past. Paragraph 3 of article 34, which restricted the right to use or export confiscated opium to the producing countries listed in article 32, paragraph 1(a), was obviously unjust and conflicted with the principle of equal rights of States. Those countries would have not only a monopoly of production, but also preferential treatment with regard to the disposal of confiscated opium and poppy straw. Another provision which conflicted with the same principle was that contained in paragraph 5(a). Under that paragraph, Burma, as a country which permitted neither the production of opium or poppy straw nor the manufacture of opium alkaloids, was obliged to obtain the authorization of the Board if it wished to export any confiscated opium, even to a party which manufactured opium alkaloids and with a view to obtaining alkaloids, salts or preparations of opium in exchange, whereas the countries listed as producers in article 32, paragraph 1 (a), required no such authorization. That was an infringement of the State's sovereignty over its natural resources. The paragraph should be redrafted in terms allowing non-producing countries to decide how much of their confiscated opium they would export and to which countries. Mr. CHA (China) strongly advocated the retention of paragraph 1 (a) in article 32. The countries mentioned in the proposed list of producers had a well-known record of continuous effort in the field of narcotics control; although the list was not large, it could not be taken as creating a monopoly for those countries, but purely as a recognition that they had been engaged for many years in narcotics control. It had been argued that the number of producing countries should not be restricted because under-developed countries might need to produce opium in the interest of their economic development and that to prevent them from so doing was an interference with their sovereign rights. With all due respect, he ventured to submit that the field of narcotics control was not one in which the arguments of sovereign rights or the danger of creating a monopoly held good. The fact that there were few countries on the list of producers was an argument in favour of the list, for that would facilitate the control of the illicit traffic. China, which had been for many years a large producer of opium, had agreed not to be included in that list, at considerable cost to itself, because it knew that its struggle to put down the opium traffic had been far from successful and it had to sacrifice some of its rights to the common good. Other countries, such as Afghanistan, Iran and Thailand, to name only a few, had taken similar decisions, for the same reason, thereby incurring substantial financial losses. The public would find it difficult to understand why Governments participating in a Conference which intended to reduce the illicit traffic should be demanding the right to produce unlimited quantities of opium. The Conference should not lose sight of the fact that it had met to achieve a noble purpose, the adoption of a Single Convention which would help to banish the narcotics evil from the world. Individual interests must take second place if that purpose was to be achieved. He appealed to all delegations to unite in a common effort for the benefit of mankind. He understood the objections made by some countries to the provision (article 34, paragraph 1) that all confiscated opium or poppy straw should be destroyed. That paragraph was, perhaps, rather strongly worded and could be made more flexible, but, if the illicit traffic was really to be reduced and finally eliminated, confiscated opium and poppy straw should be destroyed. He would not exclude the possibility of its being put to good use in the country itself or exported for medical and scientific use elsewhere, but the stress should be on its being made unavailable to the illicit traffic. And the safest way to do so was to destroy it. Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) welcomed the statement made by the previous speaker. It was somewhat discouraging to hear delegations calling for the deletion of articles 32 and 34. If those provisions were deleted from the Single Convention, narcotics control would be put back fifty years and international measures would comprise nothing more than a general agreement to limit the needs for narcotic drugs, as decided at the Shanghai Conference in 1909, and the set of general principles included in the Hague Convention of 1912. The 1953 Protocol had represented a real step forward, for it had included a provision limiting stocks. It was to be hoped that such a provision would not be deleted from the Single Convention. Mr. BANERJI (India) felt that article 34 went too far in providing for the destruction of confiscated opium and poppy straw, even if a good use could be found for Twelfth plenary meeting — 7 February 1961 53 it. A more flexible text along the lines proposed by France would be more acceptable. The Canadian representative had pointed out an important lacuna in article 34. It should include a provision relating to opium alkaloids. Article 32, paragraph 1 (b), was fundamental and could not be omitted. It was impossible to allow a country which was not a party to the Convention and consequently not bound to impose internal controls, to trade freely with a party to the Convention, which was so bound. The argument that that provision infringed the sovereignty of States was untenable. As had been pointed out by the two previous speakers, unrestricted sovereignty and international control were incompatible. India did not consider that the list of producing countries in paragraph 1 (a) created a monopoly. It had, for instance, supported the inclusion of Afghanistan, which had not been on the original list. The aim of such a list was that the production of opium should be in the hands of a certain number of countries which had shown by their past record that they took narcotics control seriously. No restriction was placed on the production of opium for domestic consumption, and consequently no country should feel deprived; the important thing was to control exports and imports so that drugs did not find their way into the illicit traffic. That could not be done without some surrender of sovereignty, but if a country was represented at the Conference it had presumably accepted such a surrender in principle. Referring to the question of stocks of opium, he thought the USSR representative's fears were not well founded. He had admitted that stocks for eight to nine months were already on hand, which was no small amount. He had not allowed for the variations in national production. In India, production fluctuated widely with the rise and fall in demand. However, India's aim was to limit the acreage under opium poppy as much as possible, so as to reduce the risk of leakages of drugs to the illicit traffic. It could not accept the idea that there should be unlimited production of and trade in opium, in any event. If that was the aim, the Conference would have been unnecessary. He welcomed the French proposal regarding poppy straw, to which he would give very careful consideration. Some delegations thought that it was not necessary for every country to impose a full system of domestic controls of opium production unless there were grounds for believing that large quantities were finding their way into the illicit traffic. Some had maintained that poppy straw was too bulky for the illicit trade, and that consequently very strict control was unnecessary. However, he felt that having regard to its importance as an alternative raw material for production of alkaloids, poppy straw from the opium poppy should be subject to similar domestic controls whether intended for extraction of opium or for use as poppy straw. Lastly, he wished to apologize to the United Kingdom representative in having unintentionally misrepresented that country's position regarding the recognition of Afghanistan as an opium-producting country. The PRESIDENT suggested that the ad hoc committee to which articles 31 to 34 were to be referred should be composed of Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Burma, China, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Hungary, India, Iran, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland, Switzerland, Turkey, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Yugoslavia. It was so agreed. The meeting rose at 1.15 p.m. TWELFTH PLENARY MEETING Tuesday, 7 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Appointment of drafting committee The PRESIDENT suggested that the drafting committee should be composed of the representatives of Afghanistan, Brazil, Canada, China, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Mexico, Poland, Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Yugoslavia. // was so decided. Mr, CURRAN (Canada) hoped that the Danish representative would also be appointed to the committee. The PRESIDENT said he would willingly ask the Danish representative to serve on that body. In reply to a question from Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands), the PRESIDENT said that other representatives could join the committee thereafter, if they wished. However, the committee could work more effectively if it was not too large a body. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.l to 3) Article 35 (Restrictions on the cultivation or growth of the coca bush) Article 36 (National coca leaf agencies) Article 37 (Restrictions on the international trade in coca leaves and crude cocaine) Article 38 (Special provisions relating to coca leaves in general) Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) said the provisions of article 36 concerning the establishment of national coca leaf agencies and the licensing 54 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of cultivators of the coca bush were rather unwieldy and more appropriate to opium control than to control of the coca leaf. He would therefore propose, if the Governments of Bolivia, Indonesia and Peru approved, that article 36 should be simplified and that the United Nations General Assembly should adopt regulations for control of coca bush cultivation. He also noted that, under the terms of article 37, if the Governments of Bolivia, Indonesia and Peru failed to ratify the Single Convention immediately it came into force, all trade in coca leaves and crude cocaine would be prohibited. To avert that eventuality, he suggested that the words "or to the Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs, signed at Geneva on 13 July 1931" should be inserted after the word "Convention" in paragraph 1(a) of article 37. With respect to the special provisions in article 38 relating to the use of coca leaves for the preparation of flavouring agents, he proposed that paragraph 2 should be amended so that statistical information and estimates would not have to be given twice for the same coca leaves, should they be used both for the preparation of a flavouring agent and for the extraction of medicinal alkaloids. The United States had for many years imported coca leaves from Peru for use in the preparation of flavouring agents; the residue containing alkaloids had been incinerated under Government inspection, and statistical information concerning the coca leaves had been furnished to the international control organs. There had never been any diversion into the illicit traffic. His delegation would submit an amendment to articles 36 and 37. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that the comments which his delegation had made concerning the closed list of opium producers were equally applicable to article 37. While the USSR was neither a producer nor an importer of coca leaves and crude cocaine, it considered, as a matter of principle, that the closed list in article 37 was contrary to the accepted notion of the equality of States and violated the right of every State freely to dispose of its natural wealth and resources. If some Latin American States wished to limit the number of countries producing coca leaves and crude cocaine because they thought that such a limitation would restrain the chewing of coca leaves and the illicit traffic in crude cocaine, they should do so by agreement among the countries directly concerned. But such arrangements should not be included in the Single Convention, which had to be acceptable to all States to be effective. Dr. CURRAN (Canada) said that, while cocaine did not present a large illicit traffic problem in Canada, his delegation wanted to give its full support to any measures that would prevent it from becoming a major plague. Accordingly, the Canadian delegation wished to associate itself with the proposals put forward by the United States representative. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that France also had no special problems with cocaine. However, coca leaf chewing was a harmful habit, and the illicit traffic in cocaine, which constituted a world-wide danger, had been on the rise. It was gratifying, therefore, that the first inter-American meeting on the illicit traffic in cocaine and coca leaves, held at Rio de Janeiro in 1960, had been a success. At a recent meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the representative of Peru had indicated that coca leaf chewing was essentially a dietary and a social problem (E/3385, paragraph 205). With reference to paragraph 4 (e) of article 56 of the draft Convention, which provided that coca leaf chewing must cease within twenty-five years from the coming into force of the Convention, he asked the countries directly concerned how many years would in reality be needed to eradicate the habit completely. It seemed to him that a target of twenty-five years had been mentioned year after year. The illicit traffic in cocaine was, after all, a recognized problem; his delegation believed that all means should be used to combat that traffic, and would therefore support the United States and Canadian proposals. As to article 37, his delegation took the same position as it had adopted with respect to article 32. While a closed list of coca leaf and crude cocaine producers presented fewer problems than a closed list of opium producers, it was not a satisfactory solution. His delegation preferred the establishment of an open list. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that his delegation would support the United States proposals. While all countries had an interest in ensuring that coca leaves and crude cocaine were not used, the majority, including the United Kingdom, had no difficulties with those products in the daily administration of their narcotics laws. He therefore agreed with the United States representative that article 36 should be simplified and that regulations should be formulated by the General Assembly rather than by the Convention. On the other hand, the closed list in article 37 was objectionable in principle. Although the United States proposal that a reference to the 1931 Convention be inserted in paragraph 1 (e) of article 37 was acceptable to his delegation, he hoped that, in order to ensure uniformity, a decision thereon would be postponed until it was seen whether a solution could be found to the problem raised by article 32. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that his country had very little direct interest in the matter under discussion, since it did not cultivate the coca bush and imported only small quantities of crude cocaine for medical and scientific purposes. However, his delegation considered that, in principle, the pattern of control over the coca bush, cannabis plant and opium poppy including poppy straw should be much the same, since the three natural plants had similar properties. In that connexion, it noted that article 35 covering the coca bush did not require the uprooting of the plants which grew wild or the destruction of plants illegally cultivated, as article 39 did for cannabis. With respect to article 36, his delegation considered that the adoption of a closed list of producers was consistent with the objectives of the Convention. It had no objection to the United States amendment to paragraph 1 (e). If the control systems were to be broadly uniform, that clause should also provide, along the lines of article 32, paragraph 3, that a party could declare its decision Twelfth plenary meeting — 7 February 1961 55 to cease production, and article 38 should limit the stocks of coca leaves and crude cocaine in the same way that article 33 limited opium stocks. Mr. CERNIK (Czechoslovakia) opposed the establishment of a closed list of producers of coca leaves and crude cocaine in article 37, just as he had opposed similar provisions in article 32. The illicit use of cocaine would be eliminated only if strict control was exercised at the national and international levels. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) agreed that similar regulations should be applied to coca leaves and crude cocaine, on the one hand, and opium on the other. If it was desirable to establish a limited list of producers of coca leaves and crude cocaine, a procedure should be found whereby the list could be expanded and reduced in the future. Turning to article 38, he suggested that the use of coca leaves for the preparation of flavouring agents was covered to a certain extent by article 2, paragraph 4, since the coca leaves in question could be considered "drugs commonly used in industry for other than medical or scientific purposes". Although coca leaves were used for flavouring only in the United States of America, where control was so strict that no narcotics problem had arisen, article 38 should impose a duty on the party permitting the use of coca leaves for the preparation of a flavouring agent to ensure that the coca leaves so used were not liable to be abused and that the harmful substances could not be recovered, along the lines of article 2, paragraph 4. He also pointed out that article 38, paragraph 2, required the parties to furnish both statistical information and estimates, whereas article 2, paragraph 4 required statistical information only. His delegation had no fixed opinion concerning article 36. If the Governments most concerned preferred simpler provision and to have cultivation of the coca bush regulated through recommendations of the General Assembly, his delegation would not object. Mr. BENYI (Hungary) said that his delegation's position with regard to article 37 was the same as that which it had adopted concerning article 32. In both cases, it was opposed to a closed list of producing countries, which was contrary to the principle of the equal rights of States and also to the law of treaties as defined by the Special Rapporteur on that topic in his report to the eighth session of the International Law Commission. His government's position was clearly stated in footnote 34, relating to article 37. Mr. A. JOHNSON (Liberia) said that he was opposed to a closed list of producers of coca leaf and cocaine for the reasons of principle he had explained at the tenth plenary meeting in connexion with article 32, paragraph 1(a). Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) said that it was the view of his Government that the provisions of the 1931 Convention should apply to coca leaf. It had also decided to limit its stocks to a six months' supply. Some delegations had maintained that every State had a sovereign right to cultivate the coca bush as a means of exploiting its natural resources; the coca bush, however, was not a harmless agricultural crop, but a plant which contained a dangerous narcotic substance. The United States had experimented with the cultivation of the coca bush in depressed areas, but had abandoned the experiment so as not to compete with the three producing countries mentioned in the draft Convention to the detriment of an established economic balance and also so as not to increase the world supply of cocaine and coca leaf. With all due respect to the Netherlands representative, he said the provisions of article 2, paragraph 4, did not apply in the particular case. According to that paragraph, the provisions of the Convention would not apply to drugs commonly used in industry, in other words no import and export certificates would be required for supplies of those drugs. The United States considered that the coca leaf was so dangerous that the same controls should apply to the coca leaves used for the manufacture of flavouring agents as to cocaine. The point was made very clearly in article 38 and experience had shown that such a provision was necessary. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that he wished to clarify his earlier remarks concerning article 38, to which the United States representative had referred. He had not wished to suggest that article 38 should be deleted; he had compared its terms with those of article 2, paragraph 4, in order to stress his support of the view that some supervision was necessary even in the case of coca leaf used for the preparation of flavouring agents. He knew that the preparation of those agents was well controlled in the United States, but thought that the Convention should require careful supervision over such preparation rather than simply state that parties might permit it; he drew attention to his government's comment fE/CONF.34/1, paragraph 268). Mr. WARREN (Australia) said that he had some doubts about the inclusion of a reference to the 1931 Convention in article 37, as proposed by the United States, for that was one of the international treaties which, under article 51, were to be superseded by the Single Convention when the latter came into force. He agreed with the United Kingdom representative that a decision about the closed list of producing countries in article 37 might be deferred pending a decision on the list of opium-producing countries in article 32. Mr. CHA (China) said that his government had not considered promoting the cultivation of the coca bush on Taiwan, although the soil and climate were particularly favourable to such a crop and the export of coca leaves would be an excellent means of obtaining foreign exchange. It had decided not to ask to be placed on the list of producing countries because it considered that supplies should be limited. The smaller the quantity produced, the easier it would be to keep it under strict national and international control. The question of coca leaves and cocaine had been discussed for many years, and it had been generally agreed that a small number of authorized producing countries could maintain an abundant world supply of cocaine and alkaloids. It was difficult to see why certain countries considered that they should be free 56 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drags to produce coca leaf and cocaine, merely in order to exercise their sovereign rights. As he had stated in connexion with article 32, the arguments against a closed list of producers did not hold water. If a country needed to cultivate new crops for the sake of its economic development, there was no reason why the coca bush should be one of them. Nor was it a convincing argument to say that the list would create a monopoly for certain countries. He would like every country represented at the Conference clearly to state its intention of reducing the production of all drugs that might find their way into the illicit traffic, and particularly of cocaine. He expressed the hope that the delegations which were opposed to a closed list of producing countries would reconsider their position in the interest of the common good. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) said that the coca bush was not cultivated in Ghana, and hence his delegation had no objection to article 35, paragraph 1. It was not opposed, in principle, to paragraph 2 of that article, but the wild coca bush, Erythroxylon Gabiensis, was to be found in great profusion and was much favoured by the local witch doctors. Furthermore, it would be a very expensive operation to try to uproot all the wild coca bushes. He therefore felt that paragraph 2 should be deleted, because it was impractical, but if the Conference wished to retain it, he would not press the point. Article 37 was not acceptable to his delegation because it contained a closed list of producing countries and his government was opposed to the creation of a monopoly, which would place other countries in a dependent position. Mr. CHIKARAISHI (Japan) said that cocaine addiction was not a serious problem in Japan, but his delegation supported articles 35, 36 and 38 in general, with the United States amendments. His delegation could not, however, agree to the inclusion of a closed list of producing countries, for the reason given by his delegation in connexion with paragraph 1 (b) of article 32. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) deplored the fact that in recent years Brazil had been one of the primary victims of the increase in the illicit traffic in cocaine and coca leaves from neighbouring countries. His Government had seized not long before cocaine which was being manufactured illicitly even on one of the islands in the bay of Rio de Janeiro. In view of that situation Brazil had resolved to take the initiative in calling the first inter-American meeting on the illicit traffic in cocaine and coca leaves, which had been held at Rio de Janeiro in March 1960. He was in favour of rigid control of both cocaine and coca leaves and welcomed the fact that some of the measures agreed upon at the inter-American meeting were already being put into force. Because his government was in favour of the limitation of production, and trade in coca leaves and crude cocaine, it favoured the designation of a list of producing countries in article 37. Mr. ZOLLNER (Dahomey) endorsed the views expressed by the Chinese representative regarding article 37, but thought that the article should be made more flexible by some drafting changes and by introducing some procedure for amending the list of producing countries. The number of producing countries should, however, remain limited for, however strict the controls imposed, some of the drugs were always diverted to the illicit market. The argument that to prevent a country from producing cocaine or any other drug was an infringement of its sovereignty was inadmissible; personal freedom ended where that of others began and the same principle applied to States as to individuals. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) thought that excessive emphasis on the sovereign rights of States and on the needs of economic development was out of place in the drawing up of a technical Convention, whose purpose was to ensure that narcotics were used only for medical and scientific purposes and to suppress their diversion into illicit traffic. It was certainly important to guarantee an adequate supply to meet legitimate needs, and there should be a simple amendment procedure to ensure that supplies were maintained. His delegation supported the principle of a closed list of exporting countries. Mr. BARONA (Mexico) expressed his delegation's support for the retention of a closed list in article 37, as had been urged by the delegations of the United States, Canada, China and others. The maximum degree of control should be imposed in order to prevent the diversion of the products concerned into the illicit traffic; account should of course be taken of the need for adequate supplies for medical and scientific purposes, but economic competition was out of place. Political and economic considerations should be set aside in favour of the interests of public health and morality; otherwise, the Conference might fail to achieve its fundamental purposes. Mr. MONTERO BUSTAMENTE (Uruguay) said that he was particularly interested in the points made by the Netherlands representative in connexion with articles 2 and 38. It was most important, as the Mexican representative had said, that the question of measures designed to protect society against the scourge of addiction should be considered independently of economic and political considerations. Experience in Latin America had shown the evil consequences of illicit drugs traffic among young people, especially in towns. It was a question of public health and morals, and he supported the representatives of Mexico, the United States and Canada in their arguments in favour of restricting trade in narcotic substances. He hoped that the Conference would succeed in drawing up a code which would avoid all possibilities of misunderstanding and be easily applicable all over the world. Mrs. CAMPOMANES (Philippines) said that the Philippines was a rich agricultural country which would be in a position to profit from the production of opium and coca leaves, but her delegation nevertheless favoured a closed list of producing countries in the general interest. Some two years previously a large firm of drug manufacturers had applied for permission to operate on one of the islands of the Philippines, but that permis-Twelfth plenary meeting — 7 February 1961 57 sion had been refused by the Government on the grounds that world supply was already sufficient. Excessive supply was one of the principal causes of illicit drug traffic. The acceptance of a closed list was not a surrender of sovereign rights, but a contribution to the success of international control measures; however, her delegation would accept an amendment to the article to make it more generally acceptable. Mr. MENDIZABAL (Bolivia) said that delegations would realize that the subject under discussion was of great importance for his country. Coca leaves had presented a huge social problem since the beginning of the Bolivian Republic's existence; more than 80 per cent of the population chewed coca leaves, and the habit dated from before the foundation of the Republic. Progress was being made in solving the problem, and a new generation was growing up aware of its responsibilities. The provisions relating to coca leaves in the draft Convention were already in force in Bolivia. An attempt was being made to eradicate the chewing habit by educating the indigenous population and encouraging farmers to limit the cultivation of the coca bush, and in twenty or thirty years' time it might be possible to restrict cultivation to the acreage needed solely for medical and scientific purposes. His delegation welcomed the support voiced by the representatives of Brazil, China, the United States and other States for the closed list of producing countries in article 37. The indirect encouragement of other countries to produce coca leaves and cocaine would only aggravate the problem. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that his delegation had made clear its position on article 32 and the reasons for its amendment to that article (E/CONF.34/L.2); Turkey was in favour of a similar closed list, also with a procedure for modification in the light of medical and scientific requirements, in the case of coca leaves. He supported the view that excessive insistence on sovereign rights was inappropriate in the present context. Mr. TRAWIROSOEJANTO (Indonesia) said that the chewing of the coca leaf had been internationally recognized as a kind of addiction and needed to be eradicated, and the provisions of the draft Convention were in keeping with that view. With regard to article 37, he said that if the number of countries producing coca leaves for export was increased, the danger of diversion into illicit traffic would also grow. There should be no fears regarding the ability of the three producing countries to meet the legitimate world demand. According to the report of PCOB to the Economic and Social Council in 1959, the three countries had produced a total of 12,930,473 kg of coca leaves in 1957. They had exported only 227,613 kg for the manufacture of cocaine and 159,635 kg for coca leaf chewing. Most of their production had been for chewing in their respective territories. But as that habit was being eradicated, the amount of coca leaves available for export would gradually increase enough to cover any increase in legitimate world demand; on the other hand, if demand did not increase, it would be possible to reduce production. His delegation believed that the three producers mentioned would be in the best position to cope with future circumstances. Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) said that in his country a campaign was proceeding to combat the chewing of coca leaves, and severe control measures had been adopted as recommended by the competent international agencies. His government's policy was to eradicate coca leaf chewing, which was an age-old habit among the indigenous race, by gradual steps. Scientists had reached the conclusion that even though the amount of narcotic substances absorbed was small, it nevertheless had harmful physical effects. His government had introduced legislation to punish dealers in drugs, and there was close co-operation between the courts and the police. The problem had been put before the Economic and Social Council and, there too, it was felt that control measures should be adopted. Technical assistance might be needed to help solve the problem, which was linked with other problems affecting the indigenous population. Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) commended the speech of the Uruguayan representative urging that, in the control of narcotics, the interests of humanity should be paramount. Narcotics had taken more lives than hydrogen bombs would ever do and indeed, as had been stated in the early days of the League of Nations, the problem of the international control of drugs was comparable with and might be related to the question of disarmament. Herbert May, of PCOB, had also compared the disarmament problem with that of narcotics control. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that, during the discussion on article 32, his delegation had explained its position with regard to the principle of a closed list of producing countries. The inclusion of a country in the list should not be regarded as a favour. At the same time, a more flexible provision, such as that suggested in the Turkish amendment to article 32, might well be desirable. His delegation did not have a fixed opinion on the subject; some kind of list would, however, be of great assistance in curbing illicit traffic. The PRESIDENT suggested that the ad hoc committee to consider articles 35 to 38 should be composed of the representatives of Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Indonesia, the Netherlands, Peru, Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America. It was so agreed. The meeting rose at 12.15 p.m. 58 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs THIRTEENTH PLENARY MEETING Wednesday, 8 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) later: Mr. BANERJI (India) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.l to 3; E/CONF.34/5) (continued) Article 39 (Prohibition of cannabis) Mr. FAHMI (United Arab Republic) explained that the Egyptian region of his country, because of its geographical position, was more troubled by the misuse of cannabis than any other area in the Middle East. In certain countries there was large-scale production of cannabis, the greater part of which was smuggled into the Egyptian region. His government had not been able to protect the region from the influx of cannabis, even by the very severe penalties laid down in the Narcotics Act of 1960, careful police supervision of frontier areas, and stringent measures to suppress the illicit traffic. Consequently, his delegation attached great importance to strict control of the cultivation of the cannabis plant and the production of cannabis and cannabis resin, and would support article 39 of the draft Convention. He did not think there was any contradiction between the provisions of article 39 and the right of every State freely to dispose of its natural resources. WHO, having found no justification for the medical use of cannabis preparations, favoured continued prohibition or restriction of such use (E/CONF.34/5, page 3), and he urged countries in which the cannabis plant was cultivated to assume the obligations set forth in article 39. The Single Convention would be effective only if world-wide control was achieved through the co-operation of all States. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that the cannabis plant was cultivated in his country for the sake of its fibre and seed, and there was no danger of its use as a narcotic. He proposed that at the end of paragraph 1 a sentence should be inserted stating that the provisions prohibiting the production of cannabis should not apply to countries where cannabis was produced for industrial purposes only. Mr. BUKOWSKI (Poland) said that the cultivation of the cannabis plant presented no problem in his country. As a paper submitted by his government to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs demonstrated (E/CN.7/372), the varieties of the cannabis plant cultivated in Poland did not contain any active components in quantities sufficient to cause a "narcotic" effect. The manufacture and importation of tinctures of cannabis were prohibited, but Poland could not agree to prohibit the production of cannabis itself. Mr. SAFWAT (Permanent Anti-narcotics Bureau of the League of Arab States) said that he had fresh information about the situation in the Middle East, based on reports submitted to the Bureau by Arab States, the report of the Middle East narcotics survey mission (E/CN.7/ 382) and observations made on his recent tour of the Arab countries. The narcotics problem in the Middle East had gone from bad to worse. The Egyptian region of the United Arab Republic was still the principal victim of the illicit traffic in hashish. Despite the intense efforts of the authorities to combat the use of hashish and the severe penalties imposed by the law, the region had felt the effect of the expanding cultivation of cannabis plants in Lebanon. Hashish was preferred to other narcotics by addicts, and its use was no longer confined to members of the poorer class. Large quantities were being smuggled to the interior of the Egyptian region by several routes; it was heartening to note, however, that in 1960 the authorities in that region had seized twice the amount of hashish confiscated in 1959. One notorious smuggler, who possessed both Jordanian and Lebanese passports, had brought more than seven tons of hashish and opium into the Egyptian region via Israel. The use of hashish was practically unknown in the Syrian region. However, large quantities of the drug were being smuggled through that region on the way from Lebanon to Israel and the Egyptian region. The cultivation of the cannabis plant in Lebanon was spreading. And although the Lebanese authorities made determined efforts to seize prepared hashish, they had not destroyed any cannabis plants during the past three years. Had the Lebanese authorities seriously sought to combat the cultivation of the cannabis plant, the area under cultivation would not have increased from year to year. However, the Prime Minister of Lebanon had assured the Bureau that he would take whatever measures were required. The number of persons using hashish in Lebanon itself was small; most of the drug produced there was smuggled into the Egyptian region of the United Arab Republic. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Sudan did not cultivate the cannabis plant or produce hashish, but provided markets for hashish transported illicitly from Lebanon. Mr. SHADOURSKY (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that in his country the cannabis plant was cultivated only for industrial purposes, to obtain fibre and seed. Cannabis resin was neither produced nor used for medical purposes in the Byelorussian SSR. The cannabis plant cultivated there did not contain narcotic substances, as the active ingredients of the cannabis resin, particularly the tetrahydrocannabinol compounds, were found only in certain varieties of the plant grown in warm and dry climates. His government had no problem with the use of cannabis as a narcotic and would oppose prohibition of the production of cannabis for industrial purposes. He recalled that cannabis preparations were used in indigenous medicine, particularly in South-east Asian countries, for the treatment of various maladies. The medical usefulness of cannabis preparations should therefore be studied primarily in those countries which were directly concerned. Total prohibition of the medical use of such preparations might be premature, particularly Thirteenth plenary meeting — 8 February 1961 59 as some time would be required for certain States to secure substitutes. A final judgement on the antibiotic value of cannabis could not be made at the present time. The data in document E/CONF. 34/5 did not indicate that it was possible to extract from the cannabis plant antibacterial drugs which would be superior to existing antibiotics. And even if narcotic drugs were found to have antibiotic properties, their use for medical purposes could hardly be recommended in view of their negative narcotic properties. In conclusion, his delegation would have no objection to article 39, if a provision was inserted excluding countries where the cannabis plant was produced for industrial purposes. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that there appeared to be some misunderstanding concerning the scope of article 39. Under the terms of the draft Convention, the cultivation of the cannabis plant grown only for industrial purposes would not be controlled. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) said that the medical authorities in his country had concluded that cannabis and cannabis preparations had no therapeutic value. That conclusion was corroborated by the opinion of the WHO Expert Committee on Addiction-producing Drugs, which had found that the medical use of cannabis was practically obsolete and that such use was no longer justified (WHO Techn. Rep. Ser., 1952, 57, p. 11). His government believed that preparations of uncertain medical value containing narcotic drugs should not be put to use. He accordingly proposed the deletion of paragraph 3. Mr. VERTES (Hungary) shared the view of the Yugoslav and Byelorussian delegations that article 39 should contain an explicit statement excepting countries where cannabis was cultivated for industrial purposes from the provisions prohibiting the production of cannabis and cannabis resin. Mr. TILAK RAJ (India) recalled that at the 9th meeting in the discussion on article 31 the United States representative had suggested that a clause worded in the same way as article 35, paragraph 1, governing the cultivation of the coca bush, should be made applicable to poppy straw. His delegation considered that a like provision should be incorporated in article 39 relating to cannabis. Opium, cannabis resin and cocaine should all be subjected to stringent controls, and the less deleterious products—poppy straw, the leaves and even flowering tops of the cannabis plant, and the coca leaf— should be controlled somewhat less strictly. The treatment of the less harmful products should, however, also be uniform; for example, he saw no reason for a mandatory prohibition on the production of cannabis if poppy straw was not going to be put under national control. Moreover, as the cannabis plant grew wild in India, it might not be feasible for his governement, even with considerable expenditure, to enforce prohibition of the production of cannabis. India believed in total prohibition as a matter of national policy, and had already imposed a ban on the production of, trade in, possession and consumption of cannabis resin. While the controls on ganja and bhang were being strengthened from year to year, the smuggling of ganja from neighbouring countries, sharing long land frontiers with India, had increased considerably in recent years. Every effort was being made to check the illicit import of ganja and bhang; India would not be able, however, to enforce prohibitions on the use of those substances, particularly in remote localities where, as inexpensive sedatives, they were used for medical and quasimedical purposes. If prohibition was not going to be mandatory with respect to the drugs in schedule IV, there would be no justification for retaining the mandatory prohibition on the production of cannabis and cannabis resin in article 39. The cannabis drugs, other than cannabis resin, were certainly not as dangerous as some other drugs, such as heroin and ketobemidone, listed in schedule IV. The WHO Expert Committee had indicated that the use of cannabis preparations was obsolete and not dangerous, and had suggested that prohibition or restriction of the medical use of the drugs should continue to be simply recommended. If the mandatory prohibitions relating to cannabis preparations were retained, his delegation would have to reserve the right, under article 56, paragraph 4 (0, to use cannabis for medical and quasi-medical purposes for at least twenty-five years. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) associated himself with the comments made by the Indian representative. Mr. CERNIK (Czechoslovakia) said that, although he was satisfied with the Deputy Executive Secretary's explanation that article 39 did not apply to the production of the cannabis plant for industrial purposes, he thought the point should be spelled out in the text. That was particularly important to his country because Czechoslovakia, like many other central European countries, cultivated the cannabis plant, but it was a variety that did not produce resin. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) said that in his country some preparations containing a low percentage of cannabis were used in homeopathic medicine. The cannabis plant was also cultivated for fibre and seeds. There had been no known cases of abuse, and it seemed unnecessary to prohibit the use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes if all production for such purposes was controlled by a system of licences, as in Germany. He supported the opinion of the WHO Expert Committee on Addiction-producing Drugs that the prohibition or restriction of the medical use of such substances as cannabis should continue to be recommended but should not be mandatory. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that, although the cultivation of maconha (cannabis sativa L.) was forbidden by law in Brazil, it was cultivated fairly extensively in the north-eastern part of the country, and it also grew wild. The agricultural and police authorities had strict instructions to destroy the plant wherever it was discovered, but a considerable amount of cannabis found its way into the illicit traffic. The problem had 60 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs become so serious that a symposium had recently been organized at Sao Paulo to discuss all aspects of the problem. According to Brazilian medical opinion, the cannabis produced in the country was not addiction-producing but merely habit-forming. There was therefore a cannabism, but not a "cannabismania". However, under Brazilian law, all parts of the plant and the resin were treated as narcotic substances and subjected to strict control. His delegation was therefore in full agreement with article 39 as it stood. Its application would help to control the illicit traffic, which had increased enormously in Brazil over the last five years because of the relatively low cost of maconha cigarettes, compared with other narcotics. That traffic was so considerable that at one time ten tons of that plant had been burned in the state of Alagoas; and some cultivators had begun to import cannabis seeds from other countries and attempts were made to cultivate the crop in the southern part of the country. Fortunately, however, the plantations were not yet large and the authorities would be able to deal with the problem in a more effective and radical way. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) said that cannabis, which had no therapeutic use, should be controlled as strictly as opium. Addiction among cannabis users was unlike addiction among the users of morphine or heroin. With morphine or heroin the addict had to have the drug to feel normal, while with cannabis he wished to recapture the pleasurable euphoric state into which the drug lifted him. He lost his balance, and a dull state supervened in which ethereal and intellectual deterioration and apathy were the outstanding factors. The amount consumed by young persons under twenty-one years of age was increasing greatly in Ghana, with the result that juvenile delinquency was also on the increase. His government was determined to stamp out the habit, and was considering imposing heavy penalties for the cultivation and sale of cannabis. However, any steps his government took would be ineffective if there was no control in other countries. Morphine and heroin had harmful effects on the addicts themselves, but cannabis produced antisocial behaviour which was a threat to the whole community. He felt that article 39 should be redrafted so as to stress the social aspect of the question. Mr. Banerji (India) took the Chair. Mrs. JAKOVLEVA (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that cannabis preparations were prohibited in her country, and the plant was cultivated only for its fibre and oil, so that it did not give rise to any problems. She accepted the Deputy Executive Secretary's assurance that the prohibition contained in article 39, paragraph 1, did not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant for industrial uses, but she thought that that should be explicitly stated in the text. A suitable wording might be agreed upon by the technical committee and the ad hoc committee on article 39. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that article 39 was acceptable to his delegation as drafted. The comments of other delegations had drawn his attention to the fact that although cannabis had no therapeutic value — as had been confirmed by the WHO representative at the twelfth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and again in document E/CONF.34/5 — some therapeutic use might possibly be found for it in the future. From the Deputy Executive Secretary's explanation, it was clear that the prohibition in article 39 did not extend to the cultivation of cannabis for industrial purposes; a provision to that effect should be added. Exceptions should be allowed also where the drug was used in indigenous medicine or for veterinary purposes, as in Burma, but it was an addiction-producing drug and every effort should be made to keep it out of the illicit traffic. Mr. Schurmann (Netherlands) resumed the Chair. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that extracts and tinctures of cannabis were used in small quantities for medical purposes in the Netherlands, but there had never been any sign of abuse. He considered, therefore, that it would be going too far to prohibit the medical use of such preparations. Preferably, cannabis should be placed in schedule IV, for in that way governments would be free to accept or reject the recommendation that it should be prohibited. Mr. GRINBERG (Bulgaria) concurred in the view expressed by other delegations that, although the production of cannabis and cannabis resin should be subject to the strictest control, the cultivation of the plant for industrial purposes should be subject to none. The cannabis plant was grown for its fibre and seeds in his country, but it did not contain any addiction-producing substances. Although the Deputy Executive Secretary's explanation had allayed some of the misgivings expressed regarding the scope of article 39, he thought that the article should state expressly that its provisions did not apply to cannabis as an industrial crop. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that article 39 was not of direct concern to his country, where cannabis was not grown and was not used for medical purposes. He had, however, some doubts about paragraph 1, which contained an absolute prohibition, a measure which did not appear in any other article. It would be recommended that the substances in schedule IV should be prohibited, but in the particular case, the prohibition was mandatory and was contained in the text of the Convention, with the consequence that the removal of the prohibition would require an amendment of the Convention itself. That would not be the case if cannabis and cannabis resin were placed in schedule IV. He concurred in the French representative's view that although no new therapeutic uses had been found for cannabis in recent years, it was not impossible that such uses might be found in the future. It would therefore be unwise to preclude such a possibility. If cannabis and cannabis resin were included in schedule IV and the prohibition was deleted from article 39, that difficulty and also many of those raised by the Indian representative would be met. He could not agree with the Indian representative's view that the same control measures should apply to poppy straw, coca leaves and cannabis leaves and tops. Thirteenth plenary meeting — 8 February 1961 61 There was a fundamental difference between poppy straw and the other two: it was easy to use coca leaf and cannabis for chewing or smoking, whereas it was very difficult to extract the narcotic substance from poppy straw. Mr. GIORDANO (United States of America) pointed out that although cannabis might be merely habit-forming instead of addiction-producing, it was very often only a stepping stone to heroin addiction. For that reason, he thought that article 39 should remain as drafted. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that the problem of maconha addiction was both a social and a health problem in Brazil. He agreed with the representative of Ghana that cannabis was not so strongly addiction-producing as heroin and morphine. Over more than forty years of clinical observations, not a single death had been recorded as a result of maconha deprivation, and there was not in any case the classical crisis of withdrawal as in the case of morphine and heroin. U KYIN (Burma) said that the production and use of cannabis were totally prohibited in Burma. There were very few addicts among the Burmese, but some were to be found among the immigrants from India and Pakistan. His government had made strenuous efforts to wipe out the illicit cultivation of the cannabis plant, but had been hampered by the presence of insurgents in the Pegu hills. All cannabis seizures were destroyed except for a small amount, which was used for the treatment of elephants in the timber industry. Such a use was not covered by the present text of article 39. Paragraph 3, which made an exception for the use of cannabis in indigenous medicine, could not be construed to cover its use for elephants. That gap should be filled by a suitably worded text. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the cultivation and use of cannabis were prohibited in Canada, although it had no marijuana problem. He thought that many of the objections to the present text of article 39 were met by the redrafts of articles 2 and 3 (E/CONF.34/C.2/L.7). Under those provisions, it would be perfectly feasible to include cannabis in schedule IV, thus leaving governments free to prohibit the production of cannabis or not, as they saw fit. When the ad hoc committee took up article 39, it should bear articles 2 and 3 in mind. Mr. CHIKARAISHI (Japan) said that in Japan cannabis was grown for fibre and seeds only, but its cultivation was not permitted except under licence. Japan had no cannabis addiction problem. He agreed that the article should expressly exclude the cultivation of cannabis for industrial purposes from its scope. Mr. LIMB (Korea) agreed that article 39 should state clearly that its provisions did not apply to the cultivation of cannabis for industrial purposes, for that would make the Convention more generally acceptable. In Korea, it was not cultivated for any other purpose. Mr. HOLZ (Venezuela) expressed agreement with the delegations which looked upon cannabis as a grave social danger. The problem was not one of great national importance in Venezuela, but the illicit traffic in marihuana had recently increased and even cases of cultivation of the plant had been discovered. The health and police authorities were taking severe measures to curb the illicit traffic. His delegation believed that cannabis had no demonstrable therapeutic effects which could not obtained from less dangerous drugs. He supported the Brazilian representative's suggestion that the control provisions contained in article 39 be retained, if only in the form of a recommendation. Mr. CHA (China) said that in China, marijuana smoking was not a serious problem. His government was, however, interested in the matter, partly because there was no certainty that with the growth of international trade and tourism narcotic derivatives of the cannabis plant would not be smuggled into the country. The cannabis plant had been cultivated in the province of Sinkiang, in western China, in the early 1930s, and cannabis products had been exported from there to India. The Government of India at the time had considered the situation very serious, and League of Nations reports had accused China of supplying large quantities of cannabis to that country. Through the Chinese Government had been unable to cope with the problem, being then engaged in dealing with troubles in Manchuria, it had directed the provincial authorities to put a stop to the cultivation of the cannabis plant. The League of Nations reports in the late 1930s showed that, by that time, very little cannabis was being exported to India. The Chinese Government had acted, not in response to protests or in compliance with treaty obligations, but because it had believed its action to be the right one. He had mentioned the example in order to show that if a course of action was right it should be followed with resolve. The WHO experts had found that cannabis was obsolete as a medicine, and his delegation considered that governments should be urged to prohibit the production of cannabis entirely. However, if a number of governments thought that total prohibition would be difficult, it might be preferable to recommend, rather than require, such prohibition. He nevertheless wished to stress his delegation's earnest hope that total prohibition would become a reality eventually. Mr. BANERJI (India) wished to make it clear that his delegation had no disagreement with article 39 in principle, and to assure the Chinese representative that India's aim and policy were total prohibition; in fact, that principle was embodied in its constitution. The question was what form the article should take; it seemed illogical that the prohibition of the drugs listed in schedule IV, such as heroin and ketobemidone and even cannabis resin, should be merely recommendatory in that context, while cannabis products, which were less noxious, came under a mandatory prohibition. Moreover, as the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany had pointed out, some cannabis products could be of use in homeopathic medicine. According to document E/CN.7/399 (paragraph 28), the illicit traffic in cannabis was largely domestic or between countries with common frontiers; it should there-62 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs fore be left to governments to decide on appropriate measures. India had to administer a frontier of approximately 5,000 miles, and a government in the throes of economic development could not reasonably be asked to deploy all the necessary resources for preventing the inflow of cannabis products or engage in the destruction of wild growth when the expense would be out of all proportion to the good likely to be achieved. Cannabis addiction, like alcoholism, did not constitute a serious social problem in India. Nor did marijuana-smoking lead on to the taking of heroin, since the latter drug was unknown in his country. He fully recognized the difficulties of other countries, but suggested that those could be best dealt with by bilateral or regional agreements. The United Kingdom representative had said that the extraction of morphine from poppy straw required a more elaborate process than the production of cannabis from the cannabis plant; but his delegation could state, on the basis of experience, that a "brew " could be made from poppy capsules in almost the same way as from cannabis. Mr. SGSSA (Panama) was in favour of rigorous controls over the cannabis plant, the sowing and cultivation of which were prohibited in his country; drastic measures were also used to combat illicit traffic. As a result of thorough control, cannabis was not a serious social problem. His delegation therefore had no difficulty in accepting article 39 as drafted. Mr. MONTERO-BUSTAMENTE (Uruguay) said that the view of his delegation regarding the consumption of toxic substances had been made clear at the twelfth plenary meeting. His delegation had studied article 39 with care; he realized the need for flexibility in its provisions, and, for example, the importance of cannabis in the systems of Ayurvedic, Unani and Tibbi medicine. There was also the question of the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of fibre and of oils. While his delegation would like cannabis to disappear entirely, justifiable interests should be respected. In view of the secretariat's assurances on that last point, however, he did not consider that the wording of the article could be improved. Mr. GIORDANO (United States of America) asked if the Deputy Executive Secretary would elaborate his earlier statement that the cultivation of the cannabis plant for commercial use was not covered by the article, in view of the fact that some delegations were still concerned about the matter. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said he thought that misunderstanding on the point had arisen from the fact that the terminology used in the article was that of the relevant treaty language and did not coincide with common usage. For example," production " as defined in article 1 meant the separation of a narcotic substance from the plant from which it was obtained, and " cannabis " meant the drug and not the cannabis plant. It would be found, if the article was read with that understanding, that there was no reference to the cultivation of the cannabis plant except in paragraph 4, in connexion with illicit traffic, and that cultivation for industrial purposes was not controlled. Mr. A. JOHNSON (Liberia) said that cannabis addiction was not a major problem in his country at present, although there was some evidence that it might be in an incipient stage. He therefore welcomed the provisions of article 39, in so far as they were designed to restrict the use of cannabis to medical and scientific purposes, and was in favour of paragraph 3 permitting its use in indigenous medicine. He would support the principle of the article, but reserved the right to put forward suggestions for stricter control, similar to that provided in article 31, when the matter was discussed in the a.d hoc committee. Mr. MABILEAU (France) said he wished to comment on the statement of some delegations that, owing to climatic conditions in their countries, the cannabis plants cultivated there did not yield an addiction-producing resin. It should be remembered that traffickers might import from another country a variety of the plant which had an addiction-producing resin and would be able to cultivate plants which would yield such a resin for two or three years. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) suggested that the Conference should take a vote on the question whether cannabis production should be completely prohibited or not; the work of the ad hoc committee would then be simplified. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia), supported by Mr. BOGOMOLETS (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), opposed the suggestion, preferring that the ad hoc committee should consider the various alternative proposals and then refer the matter to the plenary for final decision. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) withdrew his suggestion. The PRESIDENT suggested that the ad hoc committee to consider article 39 should be composed of the representatives of Brazil, Burma, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, China, the Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville), Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, France, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Italy, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Senegal, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Arab Republic, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Yugoslavia. It was so agreed. The meeting rose at 12.40 p.m. Fourteenth plenary meeting — 14 February 1961 63 FOURTEENTH PLENARY MEETING Tuesday, 14 February 1961, at 2.50 p.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.1-3) (continued) The PRESIDENT drew attention to the report of the ad hoc committee appointed to deal with articles 2 and 3 of the third draft (E/CONF. 34/C.2/L.7). Mr. GURINOVICH (Byelarussian Soviet Socialist Republic) pointed out that the ad hoc committee had decided to defer consideration of article 3, paragraph 8, which would, therefore, presumably not be put to the vote immediately. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), agreeing, drew attention to the fact that deferment of discussion had also been suggested in the case of article 2, paragraph 9. He suggested that the Conference could approve the report as a whole without going into details, and ask the drafting committee to bear in mind the various points mentioned in footnotes. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) thought that there had been no particular difficulties with the wording of article 2, paragraph 9, and suggested that the Conference could adopt the proposed articles in their entirety and leave to the drafting committee the deletion of any provision which later proved to be unnecessary. Dr. MABILEAU (France), referring to article 3, paragraph 7, said that the views of the committee with regard to the body of experts which might be set up to review decisions of the Commission were not sufficiently clear for the matter to be left to the drafting committee. He considered that the opinion of WHO on the medical aspects of the question should be final, although a party would be entitled to ask for reconsideration in the light of new documentary evidence. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) suggested that that question should be deferred temporarily, and the Conference confine its discussion for the moment to article 2 as drafted by the ad hoc committee. It was so agreed. Article 2 (Substances under control) (resumed from the 6th plenary meeting) Mr. BANERJI (India), referring to paragraph 9 of article 2 as drafted by the ad hoc committee, supported the suggestion of the USSR representative that the committee should adopt the draft contained in the report and at the same time approve the suggestion in the footnote to that paragraph. If, on the other hand, an immediate decision was to be taken, his delegation would vote against the deletion of the paragraph, as it considered some such provision necessary. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) suggested that in paragraph 5 (b) the words "in its opinion" should be inserted before the words "the most appropriate means", in order to make it clear that the decision whether or not to prohibit a drug was one for the government concerned to take. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the matter could be left to the drafting committee. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) drew attention to the footnote to paragraph 8. When the Commission on Narcotic Drugs had drafted the paragraph in question, after discussions which had continued over several years, its intention had been primarily to cover raw materials used in the manufacture of synthetic drugs. The ad hoc committee, however, had decided by a vote to delete the words "synthetic and other" which occurred in the third draft. He proposed that the Conference should restore the words "synthetic and other". Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom), supported by Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America), considered that the words were redundant. The expression "synthetic and other drugs" meant no more than the expression "drugs"; if it had intended that the provision should apply only to synthetic drugs, the Commission would have said so clearly. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that in the first draft of the Convention (E/CN.7/AC. 3/3), the expression used in that paragraph had been "synthetic drugs"; the words "and other" had been added later, and he agreed that that addition rendered an originally explicit reference to synthetic drugs meaningless. However, since the intention had in fact been, as the Yugoslav representative had said, that there should be such a specific reference, he submitted an amendment to the Yugoslav proposal, to the effect that the single word "synthetic" should be inserted before the word "drugs". Dr. MABILEAU (France) supported the Turkish amendment. It was traditional to make a distinction between natural and synthetic drugs; natural drugs were well known, and amply covered by the provisions of the draft Convention, but the Convention contained hardly any explicit reference to synthetic drugs. Such drugs presented a very serious and growing peril, and doctors were often less conscious of their dangerous qualities than of those of natural drugs. The Turkish amendment might make the paragraph less comprehensive in its application, but at least it would draw clear attention to the problem of synthetic drugs. He suggested that a roll-call vote be taken on the question so that it could be placed on record which countries were opposed to a reference to synthetic drugs. Mr. BANERJI (India) supported the two previous speakers. He recognized the cogency of the United Kingdom representative's argument; however, if the Convention was to gain popular support, it should be made clear that it applied equally to synthetic drugs, which were coming more and more into circulation. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) said that in the first draft of the Convention the Commission had intended to cover only synthetic drugs; its attention 64 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs had been drawn, however, to chemical compounds like acetic anhydride which could be used in the conversion of morphine into heroin, and it had added the words "and other" to include natural drugs as well. That was how the phrase "synthetic and other" had come to be used. The word "drugs" clearly covered both synthetic and natural substances. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) agreed with the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany that the Commission had not intended to restrict the paragraph to materials for the manufacture of synthetic drugs. While it was true that synthetic drugs could be dangerous, he saw no reason for inserting a special reference to them, as the provisions of the Convention referred to all drugs, synthetic and natural alike. Moreover, the reference would be particularly inappropriate in paragraph 8, which dealt with illicit manufacture, since the report of the PCOB and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs indicated that there was practically no such manufacture of synthetic substances. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that the history of the paragraph had been correctly described by the Turkish representative. The paragraph had been initially designed to deal with synthetic drugs. When the Convention had been re-drafted a year later, some delegations had asked for the addition of the words "and other" so that the provision would be extended to natuial drugs, and now the same delegations were using the addition of those words as an argument for the deletion of the word "synthetic". He associated his delegation with the proposal of the Turkish delegation, and would press for a vote on his own amendment only if the Turkish amendment failed. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that the Netherlands, as a narcotics manufacturing country, did not believe that a distinction could be made between natural and synthetic drugs: both were dangerous to public health and both had to be placed under control. Paragraph 8 could usefully be applied to synthetic and natural substances alike, and the Turkish amendment restricting the scope of paragraph 8 to synthetic drugs would merely weaken its effectiveness. All references to "drugs" in the Convention meant both natural and synthetic drugs. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) pointed out that the word "drug" as defined in the draft Convention undoubtedly covered both natural and synthetic drugs. But if the word "synthetic" were used in paragraph 8, the word "drug" in other paragraphs might be interpreted as not intended to include synthetic as well as natural drugs. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) could not agree that synthetic and natural drugs were treated equally in the draft Convention. Paragraph 7 of article 2 declared that the opium poppy, the coca bush, and the cannabis plant, which were all raw materials of natural narcotic drugs, were subject to specified control measures. It was logical, therefore, that the next paragraph should deal with the raw materials of synthetic drugs. If paragraph 8 as drafted by the ad hoc committee were adopted, the Convention, which had so many clauses dealing specifically with the raw materials of natural drugs, would not contain a single reference to the raw materials of synthetic drugs. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the Convention if approved could be expected to remain in force for a long time. In the future, synthetic drugs would undoubtedly assume more importance than natural drugs. It was also true that the draft Convention emphasized the natural drugs. But the insertion of the word "synthetic" in one paragraph was either too much or too little. Since a drug was not prohibited or controlled unless it was listed in the appropriate schedule, the insertion of the word "synthetic" had no great significance. In fact, it was the word "drug" that should be stressed. He pointed out that both natural and synthetic drugs were listed in the various schedules. The PRESIDENT said that, under rule 43 of the rules of procedure, the Turkish amendment adding the word "synthetic" before the word "drugs" in paragraph 8 would be voted on first. At the request of the Turkish representative, a vote was taken by roll-call. Italy, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to vote first. In favour: Mexico, Morocco, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, Congo (capital: Leopoldville), Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, France, Hungary, India. Against: Japan, Republic of Korea, Liberia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Den mark, Dominican Republic, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Greece, Holy See, Indonesia, Iran, Israel. Abstaining: Peru. The result of the vote was 33 against and 20 in favour, with 1 abstention. The Turkish amendment was rejected. The PRESIDENT put to the vote the Yugoslav amendment adding the words "synthetic and other" before the word "drugs" in paragraph 8. The Yugoslav amendment to paragraph 8 was rejected by 26 votes to 25, with 2 abstentions. Mr. GRINBERG (Bulgaria) suggested that paragraph 2 (i) would become meaningless if the Conference should endorse the decision of the appropriate ad hoc committee on article 41, paragraph 2(6) (E/CONF. 34/9). Furthermore, the reference to "destruction" in paragraph 1 (v) should be deleted. The PRESIDENT thought that those points might be left to the drafting committee. Fifteenth plenary meeting — 15 February 1961 65 Mr. DIORONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that in voting for article 2 as a whole, his delegation would not be approving the other articles mentioned in article 2 which had not yet been considered by the ad hoc committees. The PRESIDENT assured the representative of the USSR that the vote on article 2 as a whole would relate only to the general sense of that article, and not to specific wording. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that, in a spirit of compromise, he would not ask for a vote to be taken on the question of providing for the mandatory prohibition of schedule IV drugs in paragraph 5, but would like to draw the attention of the Conference to his delegation's view, as recorded in footnote 2 of the ad hoc committee's report (E/CONF.34/C.2/L.7). Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) asked whether under the "except" clause in paragraph 5 (b) the drugs in question could be used in medical treatment. The PRESIDENT said that the question would be considered in due course by the drafting committee. Mr. BANERJI (India), referring to paragraph 6, said that the drafting committee should note that the appropriate ad hoc committee had decided to delete article 34 (E/CONF.34/13). Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) suggested that, in keeping with the footnote to article 2, paragraph 9, that paragraph should be excepted from the vote on article 2 as a whole. It was so agreed. Article 2 as a whole, with the exception of paragraph 9, was adopted by 53 votes to none, with 1 abstention. The meeting rose at 4.20 p.m. FIFTEENTH PLENARY MEETING Wednesday, 15 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l ; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.1-3) (continued) Article 3 (Changes in the scope of control) (resumed from the 6th plenary meeting) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to consider the ad hoc committee's report on article 3 of the draft Convention (E/CONF.34/C.2/L.7). Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) said he was not happy about the use of the words "medical and scientific evidence" in paragraph 7 (a), which outlined an appeals procedure. The implication appeared to be that the proposed review body would be empowered to reconsider decisions of the Commission on medical and scientific grounds. That would in effect mean reviewing, and possibly reversing, the recommendations of WHO's Expert Committee on Addiction-producing Drugs. But the World Health Organization was the agency responsible, within the United Nations network, for the medical and scientific aspects of narcotics control. That function could hardly be taken over by some body outside WHO, and accordingly he hoped that the words in question would be deleted; the drafting committee might perhaps deal with the matter. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that his delegation was prepared to support article 3 as a whole, but thought that paragraph 8 should be held in abeyance pending a final decision on article 10. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the drafting committee had already given some thought to the matter of paragraph 7 (a), and a revision of the phrase to which the representative of WHO objected was under consideration. Mr. AZARAKHSH (Iran) thought that the proposal to appoint an independent body of experts to review decisions arrived at after dual consideration implied a lack of confidence in WHO. The United Nations should have absolute confidence in its own technical organs. In any case, the procedure proposed would, he thought, be invoked only if a manufacturing country was dissatisfied with a decision of WHO by reason of commercial considerations, whereas WHO's decision would have been reached on the basis of public health considerations generally and should surely prevail. Moreover, the members of the proposed reviewing body would have to be experts in drug addiction; but there were very few such experts in the world, and most of them were already members of the WHO Expert Committee. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) wished to make it clear that WHO would not reject any new scientific or other related evidence, but as far as that was concerned paragraph 1 of article 3 was, he thought, adequate. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that his delegation was prepared to agree to article 3 as a whole, but realized that a question of principle was involved which should be resolved by the Conference. The proposed appeals procedure would involve the re-examination of positions adopted by the Commission upon the advice of WHO, which was its normal technical adviser. Furthermore, the decisions of the reviewing body would be final and binding on the Commission. His delegation was not opposed to the inclusion of a provision for appeal and was prepared to agree to the appointment of a reviewing body if the Conference as a whole so desired. It did not think, however, that that body's decisions should be binding upon the Commission. Accordingly, the words "in accordance with the decision so given" in praagraph 7 (d) should be deleted, so that the Commission would be free to adopt or not to adopt the reviewing body's recommendations, as 66 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs it saw fit. He noted that the proposal for a review procedure represented an addition of substance to the third draft of the Single Convention and hence under rule 38 of the rules of procedure would require a twothirds majority vote for adoption. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said he had grave doubts about the competence of the proposed body of three experts who were to be empowered to reverse the decisions of the WHO Expert Committee on Addictionproducing Drugs. He entirely agreed with the representative of WHO that any appeal against the Commission's decisions based on new scientific evidence could perfectly well be made through the application of paragraph 1 of article 3. Mr. CURRAN (Canada), referring to the French representative's remarks on paragraph 7 (d), said that it might be wise to provide that the Commission would take the final decision; the clause could be amended accordingly by the drafting committee. He pointed out, however, that the situations which the review procedure was intended to cover were entirely different in kind from those to which paragraph 1 of article 3 applied. They were cases where a party considered that certain aspects of a matter, or particular reasons, had not been given due weight in the framing of the original decision, and where, therefore, a new notification under paragraph 1 was not justified. It was important to provide for such contingencies. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary of the Conference) recalled the secretariat's earlier statement of its position to the effect that it had no objection to the continuation of the existing division of responsibility between the United Nations and WHO, as embodied in the 1948 Protocol. It appeared, however, that there was considerable support for the institution of some review procedure, and the secretariat would of course accept and implement any decision to that effect. The secretariat would interpret the proposed provision as permitting any party, by sending in a new notification, to seek a new determination at any time, whether or not a previous determination had been given under the review procedure. Secondly, under the existing arrangements between the United Nations and WHO, it would be difficult for the United Nations to administer a review procedure requiring the United Nations to consider the correctness of decisions of WHO from the medical or scientific point of view. Mr. BARONA (Mexico) said that his delegation was in favour of a review procedure. The proposed reviewing body would be an arbitral body, as distinct from the Commission, which was an administrative organ, and WHO, which was a medical and scientific agency. In his delegation's view, a party should be entitled to appeal to outside persons to give a binding arbitral decision. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) fully supported article 3 as drafted by the ad hoc committee, and associated himself with the observations of the representative of Canada concerning the purpose of the review procedure outlined in paragraph 7. He understood that the technical committee itself had not objected to the proposal for a review procedure. There was no question of WHO's competence to decide on the content and properties of a substance. In addition, however, WHO expressed an opinion concerning the substances to be placed in any particular schedule, and it was in that respect that parties should be allowed to ask for the review of a decision. Mr. KOCH (Denmark), referring to paragraph 3 (iii), said that his delegation construed the word "conversion" as having the limited meaning of easy conversion; the word "easy" might in fact be inserted. With regard to paragraph 4, he thought that the drafting committee should be empowered to amend it so as to bring it into line with the criteria being applied by the technical committee in determining the substances to be placed in schedule III. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the drafting committee was considering the word "conversion". It had been suggested that it might define the term in such a way that it would not be necessary to insert the word "easy". Paragraph 4 provided a control, and he was not certain, therefore, that the criteria applied by the technical committee would be relevant. Mr. CHA (China) said that his delegation was in favour of the review procedure outlined in article 3. It was true that one member of the expert group would be designated by the appellant; but even if the views of the appealing party were controversial, one of the other members of the group would be designated by the Commission—whose competence was not in doubt —and the third would be designated by the other two members. Since adequate safeguards were thus provided, and so long as the three experts were suitably selected, there should be no cause for concern over their competence. There was, however, the question whether the Commission should accept the findings of the experts. Of course, if those findings were to be accepted without demur, there might be an arbitrary element in the review procedure. But if the Commission was not bound by the experts* recommendations, there would be sufficient opportunity for reconsideration. He suggested that the drafting committee might consider an appropriate wording that would ensure that the Commission would not be bound by the experts' recommendations. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that, although it was quite possible that the appeals procedure would not be resorted to frequently, that consideration was scarcely relevant to the principle under discussion. With reference to the remarks of the representative of the United States, he said that if the World Health Organization and the Commission were capable of making mistakes, surely the three experts would be equally liable to error. If a party had fresh evidence, that information could surely be studied by WHO and the Commission with the necessary attention. Yugoslavia was in favour of an appeals procedure. It was under the impression, however, that the experts were to be scientists and not judges. If, instead, they were to act as judges, basing their decisions not exclu-Fifteenth plenary meeting — 15 February 1961 67 sively on scientific data, it would be interesting to know what other elements would enter into their ruling. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that the character and qualifications of the experts who were to serve on the proposed reviewing body should be more precisely defined, for theirs would, in effect, be the final decision. They should possess at least the same qualifications as the recognized WHO experts. Some more explicit definition of their qualifications than "competent to deal with narcotic control problems" (para. 7 (c))was therefore required. In his delegation's view, the three experts should not have the power of final decision, which should be vested in the Commission. The Commission could take into account the reports and information submitted by the WHO experts and the three reviewing experts, but it should not be bound by the recommendations of either. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that his delegation interpreted the provisions of paragraph 7 (d) to mean that the final decision would rest not with the three experts but with the Commission. The procedure would thus take the following course: the Commission would give a decision in the first instance, on the advice of WHO; the experts would then be appointed, formulate their opinion and refer it back to the Commission, which would thus be able to review its earlier decision and either sustain or reverse it. When the matter had been discussed in the ad hoc committee, delegations had generally considered that to be the best course. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) pointed out that the draft provisions would create a division of powers that had not previously existed. In the past, decisions had been made by WHO, whereas under the proposed provisions the Commission would decide on the basis of WHO's recommendations. It was generally agreed that the grouping of drugs was a technical matter, and WHO's findings were therefore governed by strictly scientific considerations. However, the question whether those findings should be endorsed would be decided entirely by the Commission. Consequently, any appeal would challenge the decision of the Commission, and not the findings of WHO. Accordingly, in the debate of a review procedure due account should be taken of the new situation with the distinct division of powers it entailed. The representative of Denmark had suggested that paragraph 3 (iii) should indicate the criteria which the technical committee would use in drawing up schedules. The technical committee, however, had considered that it would be unwise to specify those criteria in the body of the Convention, as it had only drawn them up for its own guidance. Since paragraph 3 (iii) already specified criteria which did not appear in the original draft of the Single Convention, it might be advisable to leave it as it stood. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) said that he had merely wished to make sure that the criteria to be used in the future for including substances in different schedules would be the same as the criteria used by the Conference. That purpose was adequately safeguarded by the terms of paragraph 3 (iii) so far as schedules I and II were concerned. But the language of paragraph 4 should be changed to make certain that the criteria being followed for the grouping of the preparations in question would be the same as the criteria applied in the future. He understood from the representative of Canada that the drafting committee would redraft the text to bring it into line with whatever the technical committee decided. The Danish delegation had no strong views oil the appeals procedure; the provisions of article 3 offered adequate guarantees. However, any appeals procedure might be superfluous since provision was already made for revising the schedules. To facilitate agreement, therefore, it might be possible to delete all provisions relating to review and adhere to the procedure laid down in article 10. Since it was the economic and political, rather than the scientific, aspects of the Commission's decisions that would be subject to appeal, it might be preferable if the final decision were left to the Economic and Social Council instead of to a body of "experts on narcotics control"—which in any case was a vague expression. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) said it had been suggested that the Commission might reject the recommendations of the reviewing body. The United States was opposed to any such weakening of the authority of the body in question and considered that the draft gave the Commission sufficient powers in that the latter could, in the first instance, decide whether or not the review should be allowed. Mr. CURRAN (Canada), referring to the suggestion made by the representative of Denmark, pointed out that paragraph 8 provided that decisions of the Commission should not be subject to review by the Council. He recalled that the representatives of France, Mexico and the Netherlands had proposed that the Commission should be the final authority. While there was much merit in that suggestion there was a need for further clarification of the issue, possibly by means of a vote. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) remarked that from his earlier analysis—which he hoped someone else would confirm—it would seem to follow that there were two distinct channels of appeal, corresponding to the division of powers. While appeals against decisions of the Commission might be most suitably left to the discretion of the United Nations bodies concerned, such as the Economic and Social Council, the simplest and most expeditious method of reviewing WHO's findings was by the procedures specified in article 3, paragraph 1. He therefore made the formal proposal to find ways and means by which decisions of the Commission could be reviewed by the Council. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that he would not press his suggestion that more detailed information should be obtained concerning the qualifications of the experts. The representative of Denmark had suggested that the Conference might decide whether or not the provision for an expert review was necessary. A vote might 68 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs accordingly be taken on the subject and, if the Conference so decided, the references to the experts' decision in paragraph 7 could be deleted so that final authority would rest with the Commission. Mr. AZARAKHSH (Iran) supported the suggestion that appeals against the Commission's decisions should be decided by the Economic and Social Council. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that there was a need not only for a scientific opinion, but also for administrative factors to be taken into account. For that reason it had been decided that the drugs included in schedule IV, even though they had harmful effects, should be allowed in certain countries which needed them and could control them. There should thus be no objection to a review body composed of experts on narcotics control, as distinct from scientists. Since the Commission had the ultimate authority to reject the opinion of the expert group, there should be no cause for apprehension over the appeals procedure described in the text, especially as such cases would be rare. India would thus be able to support the entire text as it stood. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) suggested that the Conference might first settle the question whether decisions of the Commission on schedules should be subject to review. The discussion of the method that such a review should take might be deferred until the Conference considered article 10. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that his delegation did not consider it necessary to have any appeals procedure at all although he was prepared to agree to a generally acceptable compromise. One alternative might be an arrangement whereby decisions could be referred to the Economic and Social Council. Mr. KENNEDY (New Zealand) and Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) associated themselves with the remarks of the representative of the United Kingdom. The PRESIDENT suggested that the Conference should vote first on the principle of a review procedure and then decide which body should be the reviewing authority. Mr. KENNEDY (New Zealand) supported that procedural suggestion. It was decided by 30 votes to 6, with 11 abstentions, that provision should be made for review. After a procedural discussion, Mr. de BAGGIO (United States of America) proposed that the debate on the type of review procedure should be adjourned until article 10 had been considered. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) and Mr. ACBA (Turkey) supported the proposal. The proposal was adopted by 42 votes to none, with 4 abstentions. Paragraphs 1 tc 6 of article 3 were adopted by 40 votes to none, with 1 abstention. Article 41 (Trade and distribution) (resumed from the 8th plenary meeting) Article 42 (International trade) Article 43 (Measures of supervision and inspection) The PRESIDENT invited debate on the report of the appropriate ad hoc committee on articles 41, 42 and 43 (E/CONF.34/9). Mr. BUVAILIK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) pointed out that, under paragraph reference 314, the report stated that it had been decided to insert a recommendatory provision requiring all packages containing narcotics moving in international trade carry a double red band as described in paragraph reference 292; in fact, however, the committee had decided that the provisions of the latter paragraph should be deleted. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that his delegation was surprised at the decision to insert the additional provision in paragraph reference 307. He saw no advantage in having two kinds of authorization accompanying consignments of narcotic drugs. Since under article 42, paragraph 5, an import certificate was required before an export authorization could be issued, it seemed unnecessary that a copy of the import certificate should also accompany a consignment of drugs. There was nothing to prevent an individual government from adopting such a procedure, but there was no reason for making it mandatory for all governments. Mr, ASLAM (Pakistan) endorsed those remarks. Regarding paragraph reference 314, he was still not convinced of the advantage of a double red band. Since the band was to be shown on the package containing a drug but not on the exterior wrapping, he did not understand how the work of customs officials would be facilitated by a band which they could not easily see. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) drew attention to paragraph reference 275. Discussion in the ad hoc committee had revealed the desire to apply the licensing system to the manufacture of preparations as well. He would like the drafting committee to look into the matter, because it was not clear from the existing text that preparations were included. He agreed with the United Kingdom representative's views concerning paragraph reference 307. With regard to the suggestion that a special exception might be inserted exempting narcotics in the first-aid kits of new ships built for another country, he thought that aircraft should also be included in such a provision. Mr. WARREN (Australia) supported the United Kingdom representative's views concerning paragraph reference 307 and the Pakistan representative's remarks regarding paragraph reference 314. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) supported the United Kingdom representative's remarks concerning paragraph reference 307. With regard to the recommendatory provision concerning the double red band in paragraph reference 314, he said that such a provision, being no Sixteenth plenary meeting — 15 February 1961 69 more than a recommendation, would only lead to confusion, because it might not be applied by all countries. Mr. CHIKARAISHI (Japan), referring to the proposed final paragraph in article 43, recalled that his delegation had stressed the view in the ad hoc committee that medical practicioners and others handling narcotic drugs should also be required to keep records. It was indispensable for the effective control of drugs that records of their movements should be kept up to the very last stage of consumption. Since, however, many delegations foresaw difficulties in including such a provision in the Convention, he would not press the point, on the understanding that nothing in the Convention would prevent any participating country from requiring medical men and others to keep such records. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) said that his delegation wished to retain the original wording of paragraph references 275, 282, and 300—namely, that reference should first be made to control under state enterprise and then to the alternative of control of manufacture under licence. His government considered, on the advice of the competent Greek authorities, that as a matter of principle the manufacture of drugs should be undertaken by a state enterprise or by state enterprises. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that his delegation had no strong views on the additional provisions to be inserted in paragraph reference 307. It would seem to be a desirable measure, provided that it tightened the system of control. With regard to the recommendatory provision concerning a double red band in paragraph reference 314, he would not oppose the deletion of that provision, on the clear understanding that his government would be free to introduce such a system inside India and to insist that imports of drugs from other countries should be subject to the same requirement. The meeting rose at 1 p.m. SIXTEENTH PLENARY MEETING Wednesday, 15 February 1961, at 3.5 p.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.1-3) (continued) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to continue its debate on the ad hoc committee's report on articles 30,40, 41, 42 and 43 (E/CONF.34/9). Mr. KOCH (Denmark) thought that the ad hoc committee's statement regarding paragraph reference 314 (article 42, paragraph 11) should mention the decision, taken at its fourth meeting (E/CONF.34/C.4/ SR.4), that the use of non-proprietary names on import and export certificates should be mandatory. His delegation believed that the benefits to be derived from requiring the use of those names on packages moving in international trade would not compensate for the administrative difficulties such a requirement would create. There was also the danger that traffickers would be attracted by the marking on the package. Consequently, he proposed that the ad hoc committee's decision to require the international non-proprietary name on packages moving in international trade should be reversed. Mrs. FERNANDEZ (Philippines) shared the United Kingdom delegation's view regarding the ad hoc committee's decision on paragraph reference 307 (article 42, paragraph 6). There was no need to require a copy of the import certificate to accompany the consignment of narcotic drugs, since a party could issue an export authorization only upon receipt of an import certificate. Mr. NONG KIMNY (Cambodia) said he could not approve the ad hoc committee's decision to delete paragraph reference 292 (article 41, paragraph 5). The requirement of a double red band on any package containing a drug was useful, because customs officers were not always able to recognize the international names of narcotics. As for the argument that the double red band would assist illicit traffickers in their operations, he felt bound to reply that, in principle, packages coming into a country would go through the hands of honest customs officers and not of traffickers. If the Conference maintained the ad hoc committee's decision to delete article 41, paragraph 5, his government would, of course, retain the right to require the use of the double red band on packages imported into Cambodia. Mr. KENNEDY (New Zealand) saw no merit in the ad hoc committee's proposal ro require a copy of the import certificate, in addition to a copy of the export authorization, in paragraph reference 307 (article 42, paragraph 6). The existing practice, according to which the local customs officer had a copy of the import certificate which he checked against the export authorization, was preferable, for if the export and import authorizations were sent with the consignment, both might be fraudulently altered at the same time. The drafting committee should use some word other than "transit", which applied in particular to air travel, in paragraph reference 314 (article 42, paragraph 11). The expression "to pass through", used in article 15 of the 1925 Convention, would be acceptable. His delegation had heard no convincing arguments in support of the ad hoc committee's decision to recommend the use of the double red band on packages moving in international trade, and would vote against it. With regard to paragraph reference 317 (article 42, paragraph 14), he urged that nothing be done to interfere with the free movement of international air traffic. Mr. CURRAN (Canada), commenting on the Greek representative's statement at the preceding meeting concerning the order of the references to state enterprises and licensing in paragraph references 275, 282 and 70 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 300, said that xhe ad hoc committee's decision to reverse the order had not implied any preference for one system or the other. The United Kingdom had proposed the reversal on the ground that licensing should logically come first, because it was the system in fact employed by the larger number of States. The PRESIDENT thought that the Greek representative had merely stated his government's preference for the state enterprise system. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that the Canadian representative had correctly interpreted his delegation's proposal on that point. He would not repeat the arguments he had advanced against the double red band in the ad hoc committee. His delegation had concluded that the effect of a recommendation for the use of the band on packages moving in mternational trade would be the same as a general recommendation in article 41, since the manufacturer would not know whether any particular package was going into domestic or international trade and would consequently have to put the red bands on all packages. For the same reason, his delegation would oppose the mandatory requirement that packages containing narcotic drugs moving in international trade should indicate the international non-proprietary name; the manufacturer would not know whether the container was going into the international trade, and so would have to place the international name on all containers. His delegation held the view that narcotics in the firstaid kits of lifeboats or rafts in new ships built in one country for delivery to another should be treated as exports and should be subject to the export and import certificates system. Dr. MABILEAU (France) remarked that opposition to the double red band requirement had come from countries whose borders were not crossed by hundreds of thousands of workers daily. The purpose of the requirement was not so much to stop illicit traffic by smugglers as to make it easier for such a country to prevent individuals from bringing in pharmaceutical preparations containing narcotic drugs banned in that country and available across the frontier. The merit of the requirement had been recognized by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs at its ninth session and again at its fourteenth session when it had adopted resolution 9 (XIV) urging all governments to require that any package moving in trade and containing a narcotic drug show a double red band on its label. For all those reasons, he proposed that paragraph reference 292 (article 41, paragraph 5) should be reinstated in recommendatory form. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) failed to see any reason for requiring the double red band as a control measure against the illicit traffic. He recalled that the resolution referred to by the French representative had been adopted by 5 votes to 3, with 7 abstentions, hardly an impressive majority. In his delegation's view, it was inadvisable to have a recommendatory provision for the use of international names in article 41 and a mandatory provision in article 42. If any provision regarding the use of those names were included in the latter article, it should be recommendatory only. He shared the view of the United Kingdom representative that first-aid kits in new ships should be subject to the export and import certificates system. Mr. BANERJI (India) strongly supported the Cambodian and French representatives' views concerning the use of the double red band. The mandatory requirement for placing the non-proprietary name on packages in international trade was an essential safeguard, as without the aid of such designations customs officials might not be able to determine which drugs in a large consignment required export authorizations. If the ad hoc committee's recommendation on that point should not be accepted, his government wished to place on record its intention to impose the same requirement for the use of international names on imported drugs as it enfored with regard to domestic drugs. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said the use of international names was very helpful, not so much in combating the illicit traffic as in providing the physician and the patient with necessary information. After all, the objective of all pharmacopoeias and regulations governing the manufacture and use of medicines was to help the physician to identify medicaments. The international non-proprietary name was one of the few means of recognizing a drug as a narcotic. The distinction between the recommendatory provision in article 41 and the mandatory provision in article 42 dealing with international trade was justifiable; each country was free to decide whether or not to require the use of non-proprietary names domestically, but it should be required to cooperate in the protection of other countries. As for the red band requirement, his delegation had favoured the mandatory requirement in all cases, but had voted for the recommendation so that agreement might be reached. He still hoped that the red band provision would be included in the Convention, at least in recommendatory form. Mr. BARONA (Mexico), referring to article 42, paragraph 10, expressed the hope that the word "decomisadas" would be retained in the Spanish text to correspond to the word "seized" in the English text. If the idea of confiscation was introduced, his government would for constitutional reasons have to make a reservation to that part of the Convention. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) endorsed the arguments already advanced by other delegations in favour of the adoption of international non-proprietary names and a double red band. Under Brazilian law, any narcotic drugs entering the customs had to be kept locked up and the customs officer was responsible for them. The double red band would greatly facilitate the customs officer's work. So far as the point raised by the previous speaker was concerned, the Brazilian delegation would prefer the idea of confiscation to be clearly specified. Under Brazilian Sixteenth plenary meeting — 15 February 1961 71 law, all narcotic substances seized under the conditions referred to in article 42, paragraph 10, were automatically impounded and added to the government stocks. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that, unless the use of international non-proprietary names and the double red band was actually prohibited in the Convention, governments would be free to use them, whether a recommendation was made or not. In his view, the argument that it might be difficult for manufacturers to apply the recommendation was not really tenable; if the manufacturer wished to export, he would have to comply with the importing country's regulations concerning labelling and other matters. Countries would therefore adopt whatever measure suited their own needs. Canada was already using "proper names" for narcotic drugs which were very similar to the non-proprietary names recommended by WHO. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) said that he was opposed to the use«of the double red band for psychological reasons and to that of non-proprietary names for legal reasons. His delegation could not accept more than a recommendation on either point. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana), referring to paragraph reference 307, said that, if consignments of narcotic drugs were to be accompanied by the import certificate as well as the export authorization, necessary duplication would result. He would therefore vote against the inclusion of such a provision in the Convention. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that it was time that the conference settled the question of the use of nonproprietary names and the double red band, the advantages and disadvantages of which had been discussed ad nauseam. In his view, recommendations might be adequate in connexion with the internal measures to be taken by each government, but in the case of international measures that were generally accepted, it was preferable to lay down obligations. In the case in point, the existence of a mere recommendation would complicate, rather than simplify, the work of the customs officer, as certain countries would apply the system recommended and others would not. The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to consider the report of the ad hoc committee (E/CONF.34/9) paragraph by paragraph. He drew attention to the second sentence in the first paragraph of the report to the effect that if no comment was directed to a particular paragraph, the existing wording of the draft Convention (E/CN.7/ AC. 3/9) had been found by the committee. Article 30 (Medical and scientific purposes) Paragraph reference 207 The Committee's decisions were approved. Article 40 (Manufacture) Paragraph reference 275 The PRESIDENT said that the decision to refer first to the control of manufacture under licence and then to control under a state enterprise did not involve any judgement as to the relative importance of the two solutions. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) said that he wished it to be clearly understood that the order in which the two systems of control were mentioned did not imply that priority should be given to the first of the two. On that understanding, the committee's decision was approved. Paragraph references 276 and 277, 279 and 281 The committee's decisions were approved. Article 41 (Trade and distribution) Paragraph references 282, 284, 285, 289, 290 and 291 The committee's decisions were approved. Paragraph reference 292 Dr. MABILEAU (France) pointed out that the committee had decided to delete paragraph 5 of article 41 because it contained a mandatory provision which was unacceptable to certain delegations. It had not, however, had an opportunity to vote on the inclusion of a recommendation regarding the use of a double red band, although many delegations had welcomed the idea. He proposed, therefore, that article 41, paragraph 5, should be replaced by a recommendation concerning the use of a double red band. Mr. NONG KIMNY (Cambodia) supported the proposal. Mr. CHA (China) asked whether paragraph reference 292 referred to domestic trade only. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that article 41 applied to trade in general, both domestic and international, whereas article 42 contained special provisions for international trade. Article 41, paragraph 5 (paragraph reference 292) would therefore apply to domestic and international trade alike, unless modified. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) thought that, before considering the French proposal, the Conference should vote on the ad hoc committee's decision to delete paragraph 5 of article 41. Dr. MABILEAU (France) pressed for a vote first on the inclusion of a recommendation. After some discussion, the PRESIDENT invited the Conference to vote on the Committee's decision to delete paragraph 5 of article 41. The Conference endorsed that decision by 23 votes to 20, with 6 abstentions. The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to vote on the French proposal that paragraph 5 should be replaced by a recommendation regarding the use of a double red band. The French proposal was adopted by 38 votes to 2, with 11 abstentions. Paragraph references 293 and 294 The committee's decisions were approved. 72 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Article 42 (International trade) Paragraph references 300, 302 and 306 The committee's decisions were approved. Paragraph reference 307 The committee's decision was reversed by 29 votes to none, with 8 abstentions. Paragraph reference 311 Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) said that he wished to make an observation which might be noted by the drafting committee. The Conference had already approved the committee's comment on article 40, paragraph 2(a), that the term "persons" was perhaps too vague; the same term was used in article 41, paragraph (b)(i), and in article 42, paragraph 3 (a) and (b), while paragraph 5 of article 42 used the expression "the person or establishment". In paragraph 8 (paragraph reference 311), the Spanish text there used the expression "persona o entidad". He suggested that in each case some such expression as "individuals or bodies corporate" might be used. Subject to that comment, the committee's decision was approved. Paragraph reference 313 Mr. BARONA (Mexico) stressed that the word "seized" should be interpreted to mean a provisional measure, since it would be impossible under the Mexican Constitution to confiscate consignments of drugs. Mr. BERTSCHINGER (Switzerland), supported by Mr. CURRAN (Canada), suggested that the use of the word "detained" would make the point clearer. Mr. BANERJI (India) pointed out that since the committee's amendment to paragraph reference 307 had been rejected, the proposed addition of the words "and an import authorization" in the present paragraph would be inappropriate. Subject to those reservations, the committee's decisions were approved. Paragraph reference 314 Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that since the Conference had already voted in favour of a recommendatory provision concerning the use of a double red band in paragraph reference 292, which would apply to trade in general, domestic and international alike, no further provision in article 42 seemed necessary. Dr. MABILEAU (France), agreeing, proposed that no reference to a double red band be made in the paragraph. It was so agreed. The PRESIDENT drew attention to the proposal made by the United States representative that the provision for the use of non-proprietary names should be recommendatory. Mr. BANERJI (India), supported by Mr. A. JOHNSON (Liberia), considered that the mandatory form of the provision should be retained. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) expressed the view that the provision should be recommendatory, but pointed out that, in view of the Conference's decision on paragraph reference 290, a reference in the paragraph could be dispensed with, as had been decided in the case of the double red band. Nevertheless, it should be stipulated that the international non-proprietary name was to be used in import and export certificates. Dr. MABILEAU (France) expressed sympathy with the view of the Indian representative, but proposed that, in order to overcome the legal difficulties which would be experienced by some countries, the provision should be kept in a mandatory form, but with the addition of the words "wherever possible." The committee's decision favouring a mandatory provision was approved by 29 votes to 10, with 9 abstentions. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany), explaining his vote, said that it would not be legally possible in his country to use the proposed names in all cases. The committee's decision to delete the final sentence of the paragraph was approved. Paragraph reference 317 The committee's decisions were approved. Article 42 general Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom), supported by Dr. MABILEAU (France), objected to the proposed exemption. The PRESIDENT suggested that the question should be deferred pending the drafting of the Final Act. It was so agreed. Article 42 bis (special provisions concerning the carriage of drugs in first-aid kits of railway trains, ships or aircraft engaged in international flight) Paragraph reference 318 The committee's decision was approved. Paragraph reference 319 Mr. WARREN (Australia) pointed out that the second sentence of the relevant paragraph in the committee's report was obscurely worded and gave an incorrect impression. Mr. BANERJI (India) said he believed that, in fact, the committee's final decision had been in favour of the word "consultation" rather than the word "agreement". Subject to those observations, the committee^ proposals were approved. Paragraph reference 320 The committee's decisions were approved. Article 43 (Measures of supervision and inspection) Paragraph references 322 and 323 The committee's observations were approved. The meeting rose at 5.5 p.m. Seventeenth plenary meeting — 16 February 1961 73 SEVENTEENTH PLENARY MEETING Thursday, 16 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.1-3) (continued) Article 4 (Obligations of the parties) Article 20 (Administration of the estimate system) Article 21 (Administration of the statistical returns system) Article 26 (Information to be furnished to the SecretaryGeneral) Article 27 (Statistical returns to be furnished to the Board) Article 28 (Estimates of production and drug requirements) Article 29 (Limitation of manufacture and importation) The PRESIDENT invited debate on the above articles which had been grouped together for the purposes of the discussion (see E/CONF.34/C.1/L.1, para. 3 (g). The President of the Permanent Central Opium Board would address the meeting. Sir Harry GREENFIELD (Permanent Central Opium Board) said that the Permanent Central Opium Board and the Drug Supervisory Body had put themselves and their resources at the disposal of the Conference in the hope that their combined knowledge and experience might be of some service to the Conference. The two bodies had given close study in recent years to those provisions of the draft Single Convention with which they were expressly concerned (see their comments in E/CONF.34/1). There were four general matters on which he wished to speak. First, the Conference would appreciate that the efficacy of the future board in carrying out its functions must depend upon its moral stature as an international body, and that that would in turn depend upon the qualities of its members. However, to some extent the quality of the members of the Board would itself depend upon the nature of the duties assigned to it: if its responsibilities were substantial and its task was manifestly worth while, men of standing and ability would agree to serve on it. It followed that if in the new Convention the responsibilities of the Board should conceivably be materially curtailed, or its status as an international body dirninished, the likelihood of first-class men offering their services to the Board would be correspondingly reduced. Much also depended on the manner of electing the members of the Board. The existing board was sound and well balanced and functioned happily and effectively as a team; it could claim, in all modesty, to be regarded with respect by the countries and the international bodies with which it had to deal. There was, however, no certainty under the present system of election that a board of the standard of efficiency of the present one would invariably be elected. It had been asserted that the quality of the membership of the present Board was largely due to chanee. If that was the case, it was clearly desirable that in the drafting of permanent legislation for the future some thought should be given to the possibihty of reducing the element of chance and making the election of a fully competent board more certain on each occasion. He recognized the difficulty of achieving such a desirable aim, but urged the Conference to give it full consideration. Secondly, with regard to the functions of the new board, it was doubtless still too early to hazard a conclusion as to whether or not the new Convention would enlarge or curtail the functions assigned to the Board by the existing conventions. It could safely be assumed that the new board would dutifully carry out such functions as might be required of it, and he merely wished to point out that any possible additional functions should be strictly practicable. Thirdly, with regard to the powers to be conferred on the new board, he said the present Board and its predecessors had always approached the subject with great caution, seeking to obtain results by consultation and persuasion rather than by the exercise of their authority. Among the means at its disposal under the existing conventions, the Board considered the most potent to be the public expression of its comments or recommendations in its annual report; it had used that means with great care and discretion, recognizing the sensitiveness which countries might feel to public mention of that kind. The Board refrained from offering any views as to whether increased powers should be conferred on the future control board and contented itself with saying that, whatever powers the Conference might decide to confer, it could be taken as reasonably certain that the new board would show the same restraint and discretion in their exercise as successive boards had shown in the past. Lastly, turning to the question of the status of the secretariat which was to serve the new board, he urged a cautious and thoughtful approach to a matter which was not quite so simple as might at first sight appear. No one with administrative experience would question the desirability, on administrative grounds, of combining secretariat personnel as far as possible into a single establishment, or would deny that small detached secretarial bodies could be administratively tiresome. In the particular instance, however, the matter was, to some extent at any rate, bound up with the delicate and vitally important issue of the Board's independence—a consideration which acquired all the more signifiance as it became generally recognized that the Board's executive powers were extremely slender. It would be most unfortunate if an impression should be created that the future board was simply a minor statistical organ, a mere subsidiary branch or appendage of a larger, more powerful and more generally important body such as the Narcotics Commission. If that should happen, the Board's effectiveness and general power for good could hardly fail to be adversely '4 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs affected and might be greatly reduced. It might perhaps be argued that if the Board was seen to be a body of men of international stature that danger would be checked to some extent. That was certainly true, but, as he had indicated, there could not be any guarantee that the Board would invariably be so composed, and there would always be a period of uncertainty whenever a new board was elected. Moreover, the Board was not continuously in session, and during the interval between sessions the secretariat was required to act in the name of the Board. It followed that the members of the secretariat must be fully in tune with the mind of the Board; and that could hardly be ensured if they were liable to sudden change or felt that their future prospects were governed by influences outside the circle of the Board's authority. The question was thus a matter of some difficulty and he left it to the good sense of the Conference to find the right solution. It was possible to find plausible and ingenious arguments from either side. The Board's sole concern was to urge that the problem should be approached with circumspection, because an important imponderable was at stake: the absolute and visible independence of the future control board. It was essential not only that the Board should be completely independent but that it should be constantly seen to be completely independent. In view of those considerations, the Conference might perhaps think it prudent to leave the secretariat arrangement more or less unchanged, even at the risk of some possible administrative inconveniences. Indeed, the risk was not very great. Despite the apparent inevitability of Parkinson's Law, the Board's staff had not undergone any expansion: in 1935 the Board's staff had consisted of six persons and that of the Drug Supervisory Body of three; in 1961, twenty-five years later, the combined staff of the two bodies was nine, although there had been an evident increase in work owing to the greater number of narcotic drugs and the greater number of countries concerned. If the Conference should express a preference for the status quo, provisions could no doubt be introduced to reduce possible inconveniences to the SecretaryGeneral to a minimum. In any event, the future control board would naturally wish to maintain the closest accord with the Secretary-General regarding its personnel; for example, it would doubtless be ready to consider nominations from the Secretary-General to vacancies in its staff, subject to a clear understanding that it had the right to reject any person whom it might not regard as entirely suitable; and it would also readily entertain suggestions regarding transfers at reasonable intervals, having regard always to the efficiency and continuity of its work. In conclusion, he emphasized that his observations had been strictly objective in character. Before the new Convention came into force the present board would have been replaced by another, perhaps composed of completely different persons; that second board would in turn be replaced by the Board to be constituted under the new Convention. Similarly, the leading members of the present board's secretariat would have retired. His observations had, therefore, been made on behalf of their successors and related to considerations which experience had shown to be important. 1 Mr. KENNEDY (New Zealand) said that article 4, paragraph 1, was acceptable to his delegation, although it had no objection to the small amendment suggested by the Indian Government and the drafting change proposed by the United States Government (E/ CONF. 34/1). With reference to article 4, paragraph 2(a), he was not sure what was meant by "international control organs". If the term meant the organs mentioned in article 5—namely, the International Narcotics Commission and the International Narcotics Control Board— it was difficult to see how those could be "maintained" by the parties except as envisaged in article 6, which provided that the expenses of those organs would be met by the United Nations (in the case of Members of the United Nations) and by contributions from the parties (in the case of non-members). With regard to article 4, paragraph 2(c), his delegation thought that the use of the term "effective penal sanctions" was correct. It had been suggested that the word "effective" should be replaced by the word "severe", but his government considered the latter term too subjective. It was true that, by New Zealand standards, the penalties prescribed under his country's legislation for narcotic offences could well be regarded as severe. However, the proposed Convention was designed to remain in operation for many years, during which conditions would change and, he hoped, improve. He would like to think that under the Convention governments could at all times regulate their penal provisions in the manner best calculated to render effective both the spirit and the written terms of the Convention. It might well be that in the majority of cases the most effective penalty would be a severe one, but this might not always be so. His delegation therefore preferred to retain the term "effective". Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) said that the composition and powers of the Control Board should be examined by an ad hoc committee. His government had always believed that the Board should have complete autonomy and an independent secretariat. However, General Assembly resolution 1587 (XV) noted with approval the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions concerning administrative arrangements under the draft Single Convention, in which the Committee expressed itself against any arrangements which would detract from the principle of a single unified Secretariat for the Unfed Natons (A/4603, para. 15). 2 The Committee also felt that practical administrative considerations indicated a balance of advantage on the side of a single secretariat, serving both the Narcotic Drugs Commission and the Control Board (para. 14). His government supported 1 The statement was subsequently circulated verbatim as document E/CONF. 34/L.ll . 2 The Advisory Committee's report was transmitted to the Conference by the Secretary-General by document E/CONF. 34/78 Corr. 1. Seventeenth plenary meeting — 16 February 1961 75 the views of the Advisory Committee on that point and hoped that the Conference would approve the Committee's recommendation. Mr. RAJ (India) said that his delegation would give careful consideration to the ideas contained in Sir Harry Greenfield's statement. With regard to article 4, paragraph 1, he said it might not be feasible for a party to take "all" the legislative and administrative measures necessary and suggested some phrase as "such legislative and administrative measures as are necessary". With regard to article 4, paragraph 2 (a), it was not clear how the parties should "maintain" international control organs. The parties could naturally be expected to maintain national control organs, but further clarification was needed in the case of international control organs. Moreover, the term "national control organs" could be made more specific by inserting the word "appropriate" before "national". Lastly, with regard to article 4, paragraph 2(c), since the term "severe" was subjective, he said it should be left to each country to define what effective penal sanctions should be imposed. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary) pointed out that article 4 was in principle an enumerating article which listed the obligations of parties. The undertaking of parties "to maintain the international.. . control organs required for carrying out the provisions of this Convention" referred on the one hand to their function as Members of the United Nations in the establishment and continuation of United Nations organs, and on the other hand to the budgetary obligations to be borne by the United Nations in the case of parties Members of the United Nations and to the separate assessment of parties not members of the organization; "national organs" referred particularly to article 25. It might be better to hold over discussion of article 4 until the articles to which it referred had been examined. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) suggested that article 4 should be reserved for later discussion, since it might be desirable to include further references to the obligations contained in articles other than those in the group at present under discussion. The PRESIDENT, agreeing with the Canadian representative's suggestion, invited comment on the other articles in the group. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that the obligations under those articles caused difficulties for countries associated in an economic union like that of Benelux (see E/CONF.34/1, comments under paragraph references 172-179). The Convention should make provision for such countries. It would also be desirable, under article 27, to include an obligation to furnish statistics on substances in schedule IV. With regard to article 4, he felt that paragraph 2(c) should be discussed in conjunction with article 45. Mr. RAJ (India) noted that article 26, paragraph 1 (c), was based on the provisions of article 23 of the 1931 Convention, but the latter was much clearer and more explicit with regard to the type of information required and the circumstances in which such information was to be furnished. He would prefer the relevant clause in the draft Single Convention to be amplified along the lines of the earlier instrument. Mr. CHA (China) considered that article 26 was on the whole well drafted. It was not enough, however, to require the submission of the texts of all laws and regulations promulgated to give effect to the Convention. It was also necessary to know to what extent they had been enforced and how rigorously violatious had been punished. If some provision to that effect were inserted in that article, narcotics control would be more effective. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) agreed with the representative of India that article 26, paragraph 1 (c), should be expanded along the lines of article 23 of the 1931 Convention, on which it was based. Mr. JOHNSON (Liberia) understood the purpose of article 26, paragraph 1 (c), but suggested that it should be redrafted so as to give governments discretionary power regarding the particulars they furnished to the Commission on the subject of illicit traffic, for in the event of litigation a court injunction might be issued restraining the communication of all information. Mr. RAJ (India) thought that that point might be met by the inclusion of the words "subject to constitutional limitations" in the relevant paragraph. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) agreed with the representatives of India and Yugoslavia that paragraph 1 (c) of article 26 should be expanded to include the substance of article 23 of the 1931 Convention—the wording itself could be left to the drafting committee—for that would help considerably in both national and international control. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) observed that articles 20 and 21, and 27 and 28 contained a complicated set of instructions which were primarily administrative in character. The Conference could perhaps agree, for the sake of greater simplicity and elasticity, to merge those articles into a single simple provision empowering the Board to request information of the kind it needed at such times as it should determine. To specify time intervals in the Convention was unrealistic; and such provisions as "The Board shall examine the estimates" were superfluous. He would like to hear the views of the President of the Permanent Central Opium Board on his suggestion. Sir Harry GREENFIELD (Permanent Central Opium Board) fully sympathized with the intention behind the Canadian representative's suggestion. Clearly, in legislating for the future, it was desirable to preserve the greatest possible degree of flexibility. The future board would certainly be grateful if it were free to specify what information it required for the performance of its duties. Nevertheless the enumeration, in the Convention itself, of the types of information which parties should supply to the Board was a source of strength to the Board since, in making a request for information, it could then point to its governing instrument. The 76 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs matter should thus be examined by the ad hoc committee with those two considerations in mind. In general, he felt that if the board consisted of eminent men of considerable standing and experience it should be allowed a fairly wide degree of discretion and should not be required to seek the approval of the Commission for everything it did; he would therefore demur at the inclusion of the phrase "as approved by the Commission" in article 27, paragraph 1. Mr. ANSLINGER (United States of America) agreed with the representative of Canada that the Board should be allowed as much freedom of action as possible. He would point out, however, that the introduction of the estimates system into the 1931 Convention had made it a vastly superior instrument of control to the 1925 Convention. It ensured the annual review of the production and drug requirements of each country, enabled governments to limit exports of narcotic drugs to quantities equal to the known requirements of importing countries, and in many other ways had the effect of tightening control. In his delegation's view, therefore, the system should certainly be retained in the new Convention. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary of the Conference) drew attention to the fact that if the proposals of the ad hoc committee on articles 31 to 34 with regard to poppy straw were adopted, that substance as commonly undei stood would no longer be included in schedule I. It would then be necessary to amend article 27, paragraph 1 (c) (paragraph reference 175), to cover the quantities of poppy straw used in the manufacture of morphine. Mr. BELONOGOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that article 27 was based broadly on the similar provisions in the earlier conventions of 1925 and 1931. His delegation had no objection, therefore, to the requirement that parties should furnish the Board with information of various kinds. It felt, however, that the draft unnecessarily widened the scope of the information required. The provision of information should be based on two criteria: the international organs should have at their disposal all the information they required to carry out their control functions; and governments should not be required to supply information of secondary importance which served only to complicate their work as well as that of the international organs and their secretariats. It was, for example, clearly essential for the international organs to have information on the quantity of drugs being produced by States parties. But his delegation saw no purpose whatever in requesting information on the areas used for the cultivation of, say, the opium poppy and the coca bush, particularly as the production from a given area fluctuated year by year. He would therefore urge the deletion of paragraph 1 (a) of article 27. With regard to the time limits for the submission of statistical information, he agreed with earlier speakers that it would be desirable to extend those time limits to allow for the difficulties of collecting information in large countries with a complex administrative machinery. Certain expressions in the draft Single Convention should be given further consideration, in particular the terms "stocks", "government purposes" and "government stocks" as used in paragraph 3 of article 27 and defined in chapter 1 of the draft. Those definitions took into account conditions in countries with a capitalist economy and did not correspond to conditions in socialist countries, in particular the Soviet Union, where the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, the pharmacies and stocks of drugs were all state-owned. In an international convention the terms employed should surely be defined in such a way as to be applicable to all States likely to become parties. Naturally, his government would prefer that the Convention should provide for the maintenance of all stocks of drugs under the strict control of the State, as was the case in the Soviet Union, especially as that would prevent the leakage of drugs into the illicit traffic, but it understood that many countries where the phramaceutical industry and the wholesale and retail drug trade were privately owned would not be able to agree to such a provision. He therefore believed that some broader form of wording should be used in the draft Convention, and the ad hoc committee should be asked to give the matter very careful attention. Mr. CHA (China) said that since his delegation attached great importance to the need for flexibility in multilateral conventions, it supported the remarks made by the representative of Canada and the President of the Permanent Central Opium Board. Because an international convention would have to be in force for many years it should be drafted in general terms without entering into excessive detail. Thus, while the parties should be obliged to furnish information to the Board, the latter might be given the authority to revise the forms for submitting estimates and information when changing circumstances required a different type of data to be furnished. The text might accordingly be amended to provide the Board with the necessary powers. Miss VELISKOVA (Czechoslovakia) explained, with reference to article 27, paragraph 1 (a) and article 28, paragraph 1 (a), that Czechoslovakia would be unable to implement the provisions for furnishing statistical returns in respect of areas cultivated for the production of drugs. In her country, the plants which could be used for the production of narcotic drugs were utilized for the production of foodstuffs and for industrial purposes. Alkaloids were isolated from poppy straw, which was a waste product in Czechoslovakia's agriculture and was purchased by industrial enterprises. Hence, a precise estimate of the areas cultivated for the purpose of obtaining alkaloids was impracticable. The same remark applied to cannabis. Since a number of other countries participating in the Conference were faced with similar difficulties, the Czechoslovak delegation proposed that those provisions should be deleted. Again, the mere fact of specifying areas used for the cultivation of plants that might be utilized for the production of narcotic drugs did not eliminate the possibility of illicit traffic, which could only be Seventeenth plenary meeting — 16 February 1961 77 effectively prevented by control measures. With regard to article 27, paragraph 3, she understood the reasons for the provision that the parties should not be required to furnish statistical returns respecting stocks intended for government purposes. Nevertheless, the provision seemed to be contradicted by the second part of the paragraph, which should perhaps be deleted. The Board could estimate stocks and utilization of drugs for government purposes even if the initial quantities were unknown, as it received returns respecting quantities of drugs produced and imported for those purposes as well as the quantities used for the civilian population. Her delegation considered that the data need not be furnished to the Board, since there was no possibility that the stocks intended for government purposes might be used for the illicit traffic. Consequently, control in that field lay within the competence of individual States. The Czechoslovak delegation also proposed the deletion of the provisions of article 28, paragraph 1 (e) and of article 29, paragraph 1 (e). Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) explained that if the proposals of the ad hoc committee on articles 31 to 34 (E/CONF.34/3) in respect of poppy straw were adopted by the Conference, poppy straw as such would not be a drug, and the provisions of article 27, paragraph 1 (a) and article 28, paragraph 1 (a) regarding the information on areas would not be applicable to areas cultivated with the poppy for seed and poppy straw. Already under the present text, neither paragraph would apply to areas in which the cannabis plant was cultivated for industrial purposes. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that it had certainly not been his intention that the requirements concerning statistical information should be weakened. He had merely been concerned that there should be sufficient flexibility to enable the Board to take account of changed circumstances. Furthermore, countries that were not parties should also be permitted to provide information. He sympathized with the viewpoint expressed by Sir Harry Greenfield concerning the need for statutory regulations. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) agreed that the Convention as a whole should be simplified, though without loss of effectiveness. On the other hand, it had been suggested that there should be flexibility concerning the information furnished to the Board so as to provide for future eventualities. He was not entirely sure that there was a need for such flexibility for, with the scientific advances that were being made, it might subsequently be possible to replace opium and other drugs by substances which had no harmful effects, and there might then be no need for a single convention at all. Besides, if a State signed a multilateral convention, it could not enact the national laws necessary to fulfil its obligations under the instrument unless it knew precisely what those obligations were. Concerning article 28, he fully agreed with the representative of the USSR that superfluous information should not be requested. For instance, it would be redundant to furnish information on the approximate quantities of drugs produced in the areas cultivated, as laid down in article 28, paragraph 1 (a). Mr. RAJ (India) said that the provisions of article 27 were acceptable, as they had worked very well in practice and were based on the 1931 Convention. He agreed, however, with the representatives of Canada, the United States and USSR that article 27 and the other articles on statistics and estimates could be simplified. For the reasons mentioned by the representative of the USSR, India had also found it difficult in practice to furnish its annual returns within three months. He noted that the United Kingdom delegation had the same difficulties, and suggested that the period should be extended to give the larger countries the necessary time to prepare their returns. Five to six months might perhaps be a suitable time-limit. Mr. VERTES (Hungary) agreed that the Convention should be simplified. Accordingly, he would support the deletion of the provision regarding statistics on areas cultivated for the production of drugs. With reference to article 27, the technical committee had decided that concentrates of poppy straw should be included in schedule I. Thus, as soon as the Convention entered into force it would be necessary to furnish estimates of the amounts of concentrated poppy straw produced. In Hungary, concentrated poppy straw was only an intermediate product. The process of transformation was continuous, with the result that the proportion of concentrate was initially low and gradually rose to the maximum, until alkaloids were ultimately produced. It was therefore hard to establish at what precise point the statistics would have to be furnished. The provision might therefore be amended to the effect that statistics should be supplied in cases where the product was intended for the open market. With regard to article 27, paragraph 1 (c), he fully agreed with the Deputy Executive Secretary that it was necessary to draft the provision so that it also covered poppy straw. But since poppy straw was not a narcotic until it had been processed, the drafting committee should be asked to devise a suitable wording. Concerning the time-limit for the submission of statistics, Hungary supported the United Kingdom view that five months would be a suitable period. As to the manner and form in which statistical returns should be furnished to the Board, he said the matter was so important that the ad hoc committee should consider all its aspects thoroughly. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that article 27 was on the whole acceptable, although some changes might be desirable, especially with regard to the role of the Commission in connexion with statistical returns. It was reassuring to learn from the Deputy Executive Secretary that the provisions of article 27, paragraph 1 (a), and of article 28, paragraph 1 (a), would not apply 78 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs to areas cultivated for industrial pruposes. In any event, since production varied from year to year in a given area, such information could only be approximate and therefore of doubtful value. The time-limit for submitting statistical information and estimates should clearly be discussed further, as should the question of stocks and the use of the term "government purposes"; provisions acceptable to all parties should be drafted. On the question of flexibility, he thought that a systematic attempt to simplify the text might have the effect of weakening the Convention. Instead, flexibility might be achieved by the judicious use of the machinery provided in the text for making changes in the light of circumstances. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that, so far as the difficulties presented by poppy straw concentrate were concerned, he agreed that so long as the product was in the factory it was an intermediate product, and therefore the requirements concerning the submission of information should not apply. But when the poppy straw left the factory in the form of concentrate and entered the market, the stringent measures provided for opium had to be applied. From that point on, the Board should have all the necessary statistical information concerning the product. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary), referring to article 27, paragraph 1 (paragraph reference 172), said that it was the view of the Secretariat that the statistical forms should be established by the Board and that no reference to the Commission was necessary. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) said that while he had initially been prepared to support the representative of Canada in his plea for a simplification of the text, his delegation was now inclined to have reservations on the subject. It would, in fact, be better if the Convention specified the obligations of the parties in some detail, for otherwise there was a danger that in the future a government might find itself confronted with a difficult request. There was already a measure of flexibility, m that under article 11 (paragraph reference 78) the Board could amend the list of items in respect of which parties were required to furnish statistics and estimates. In fact, he was not entirely sure that even that provision was suitable for inclusion in the text. With regard to the time-limit for submitting information, he agreed that the period stated was too short, since it was hard even for the smaller countries to compile their information in time. He agreed with the representative of the USSR that the term "government stock" might be misleading; perhaps the Soviet delegation would propose an amendment. The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m. EIGHTEENTH PLENARY MEETING Thursday, 16 February 1961, at 3.5 p.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 arid Add.1-3) (continued) Article 4 (Obligations of the parties) Article 20 (Administration of the estimate system) Article 21 (Administration of the statistical returns system) Article 26 (Information to be furnished to the SecretaryGeneral Article 27 (Statistical returns to be furnished to the Board) Article 28 (Estimates of production and drug requirements) Article 29 (Limitation of manufacture and importation) The PRESIDENT, inviting the Conference to continue the debate on the above articles, suggested that, at that stage, remarks on articles 27 and 28 should relate to broad matters of principle. Mr. WIECZOREK (Poland) said his delegation would support the clear and constructive proposal concerning articles 21, 27 and 28 made by the Canadian representative at the preceding meeting. A general provision would be preferable to a detailed provision. His delegation also agreed with the representatives of the USSR and Canada that the parties should not be required, by the terms of the Convention, to furnish superfluous information to the international control organs. If the Conference was in agreement on the Canadian proposal, the articles might be referred to an ad hoc committee. Mr. BERTSCHINGER (Switzerland) considered article 27 the cornerstone of the entire narcotics control system. And though that article, as drafted, could provide a secure foundation for the fight against the illicit traffic, the ad hoc committee should take into account the criticisms expressed by various delegations. On the other hand, he could not share the United States representative's favourable view of article 28, for reasons which he would explain in the ad hoc committee. U TUN PE (Burma) thought that article 27, paragraph 1 (a), should be re-drafted in more flexible terms. His government was not in a position to furnish statistical returns in respect of the areas cultivated for the production of opium or the quantity of opium produced. Because the Shan States had been excluded from the operation of the Geneva Agreement of 1925 and also from the Bangkok Agreement of 1931, the authorities in that region had not collected any statistics. In addition, most of the areas in which the opium poppy was grown were not in fact administered. His government would do its best to furnish figures but would find it difficult to carry out that obligation satisfactorily with respect to the Eighteenth plenary meeting — 16 February 1961 79 border areas, which had not been supervised for a long time because of the difficult terrain, the lack of communications and the absence of a clearly demarcated frontier. Furthermore, the three-month period allowed for the preparation and furnishing of statistics to the Board under paragraph reference 181 was too short to be practicable in hilly country without a developed communications system. In his delegation's opinion, a six-month period should be granted. Mr. VERTES (Hungary), referring to the Yugoslav representative's statement at the preceding meeting regarding poppy straw concentrate, agreed that there could be two different situations: one, as in Hungary, where poppy straw was converted into morphine without leaving the factory; and the other, where poppy straw concentrate was exported. He snared the Yugoslav representative's view that an appropriate provision should be inserted in the Convention to cover the second situation. Mr. GRINBERG (Bulgaria) associated his delegation with the reservations which had been expressed by other delegations regarding article 27, paragraph 1 (a). The statistics of areas cultivated for the production of drugs would not provide the Board with any useful information. His delegation also had doubts about the expressions "government purposes" and "government stocks" in paragraph 3 of that article, but believed that the matter would be dealt with in the ad hoc committee. Mr. BOGOMOLETS (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) considered articles 27 and 28 important for the effective realization of the control system, since the statistics received under those articles would enable the Board to survey the world drug situation. Some provisions, such as paragraph 1 (a) of article 27 and paragraph 1 (a) of article 28 requiring statistics and estimates in respect of the areas cultivated or to be cultivated for the production of drugs, were unsound and would have to be reconsidered. Some delegations had suggested that the articles under consideration should be made more flexible. But as the Convention would impose legal obligations on the parties, governments would have to know what obligations they were assuming in adhering to the Convention, and in particular what information they would be required to transmit. Accordingly, he did not agree with the delegations who would insert general formulae and permit the Board to determine what statistics it would require. Furthermore, the manner and form of furnishing statistical returns should be approved by the Commission, as provided in article 27, since the Commission would be a more representative body than the Board. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that, in view of the vast size of his country and the slowness with which statistics were gathered, it would be preferable to set a time-limit of six months for furnishing statistics. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) also favoured a longer period for furnishing statistics. He supported the Canadian suggestion that the provision on statistical information should be rather flexible and not too detailed. In view of the provision in article 21, paragraph 4, to the effect that it should not be within the competence of the Board to question or express an opinion on statistical information respecting drugs required for government purposes, what purpose was the information required in article 27, paragraph 3, intended to serve? Sir Harry GREENFIELD (Permanent Central Opium Board) suggested that it would be better to take up that question in the ad hoc committee. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) supported the PCOB view that the words "addition to government stocks" in paragraph 1 (e) of article 28 should be replaced by the words "government purposes". He was confident that the passage could be redrafted to cover conditions in socialist countries and in countries like Greece, where government agencies were in charge of the production and manufacture of drugs, and reconciled with the preceding clause. With respect to paragraph 4 of articles 28, he proposed that the final clause should read "and the reasons of any changes in the said method". In view of the very dangerous character of the drugs concerned, it would be appropriate to require an explanation of any changes in the method used for determining quantities shown in the estimates. Mr. CHA (China) agreed that the modification of paragraph 1 (e) of article 28, suggested by the PCOB, should be adopted. Mr. RAJ (India), referring to article 28, paragraph 1 (a), said that his government would find it difficult to furnish estimates of areas to be cultivated for the production of drugs such as cannabis. The cannabis plant grew wild in India, although the collection of cannabis from wild plants was strictly controlled. There was no connexion between the amounts of cannabis produced and the areas under cultivation, and his delegation entirely shared the views of the PCOB and Drug Supervisory Body cited in footnote 25 to article 28. Mr. LIMB (Republic of Korea) did not think that paragraph 1 (a) of article 28 should apply to cannabis in countries where the cannabis plant did not contain narcotic substances and was grown only for industrial purposes. The PRESIDENT invited comments on article 29. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil), referring to paragraph reference 206, suggested that the opinion of the government of the importing country should be taken into consideration in the exceptional cases in which exports were essential for the treatment of the sick. He also proposed that the word "essential" in the last line of paragraph reference 206 should be replaced by the word ''indispensable", to make the criterion even stricter. Mr. RAJ (India), noting that paragraph 4 of article 29 was restricted to exports, said that in his delegation's view, the paragraph should deal with imports as well. He agreed with the Brazilian representative that the importing country was the better judge of the need for imports of drugs for the treatment of the sick in emergency cases. While it might be difficult for the PCOB to check imports, that could be done ex post facto. The PRESIDENT invited comments on article 20. 80 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. BELONOGOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that, in connexion with article 20 as with all the articles of the Convention referring to non-party States, his delegation took the position that the Convention should have no repercussions on countries which had been deprived of the right to take part in the Conference and might be prevented from acceding to the Convention under article 48. Paragraph 2 of article 20 clearly affected States not parties to the Convention: the wording, in itself, was contrary to the spirit of the Convention. The PRESIDENT invited comments on article 21. Mr. RAJ (India), referring to paragraph 4 of that article, hoped that it would made clear that the provisions of article 22 were not applicable to drugs required for government purposes. Mr. GRINBERG (Bulgaria) said that article 21, paragraph 2, was open to the same criticism as had just been directed by the representative of the USSR at article 20, paragraph 2. Since many States had not been invited to take part in the Conference and might be barred from acceding to the Convention, provisions of that type were not justifiable. Mr. WIECZOREK (Poland) supported the statements of the USSR and Bulgarian representatives concerning the paragraphs in articles 20 and 21 affecting States not parties to the Convention. If the procedure for acceptance in article 48 was improved, as he hoped, those paragraphs of articles 20 and 21 might be included, but for the moment he would have to put on record his opposition to them. Mr. CHA (China), noting that there was no stipulation in the articles under consideration concerning synthetic drugs, asked whether there was any provision in the draft Convention covering the duty of the parties to submit information to the Board in respect of the production, manufacture and consumption of such drugs. It was his impression that the schedules did not contain synthetic drugs. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that the obligation to furnish statistics and estimates would exist in respect of synthetic drugs, since the term "drugs" would include all substances in schedules I and II. All synthetic drugs at present under international control had been included by the technical committee in those schedules. The schedules in document E/CN.7/AC.3/9/ Add.l included all synthetic drugs under international control at the time at which that document had been prepared. The PRESIDENT suggested that the ad hoc committee to consider articles 4, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28 and 29 should be composed of the representatives of Australia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, China, the Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville), Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Iran, the Republic of Korea, Liberia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It was so agreed. Article 22 (Measures to ensure the execution of the provisions of the Convention) The PRESIDENT invited debate on article 22. Mr. SAFWAT (Director of the Permanent Anti-NarcoticsBureauof the League of Arab States) recalled that the Middle East Narcotics Survey Mission of 1959, of which he had been a member, had discovered abundant evidence of the illicit traffic in cannabis and opium and of the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs, particularly heroin (E/CN.7/382). The increase in the production and consumption of narcotic drugs was a clear indication of the urgent need for strict international control of the production of and trade in all such drugs. The system of controls set up under the nine existing international narcotics treaties comprised both national and international control of the manufacture of, trade in and distribution of narcotic drugs, with the basic aim of preventing both the illicit tiaffic and drug addiction. Unfortunately, although ninety countries were parties to the different narcotics treaties, many of them had not fulfilled their obligations. The reports of the Permanent Central Opium Board showed that it was difficult to obtain accurate figures for the production of opium from the producing countries and the figures themselves were difficult to interpret. The Board therefore had considerable difficulty in estimating the needs of any country. As was stated in the report on its thirteenth session in 1958 (E/3133, para. Ill ) the Commission had been sorry to learn that many countries were not carrying otu fully the estimate system set forth in the 1931 Convention and that defective estimates still constituted a problem. In 1957, thirty-three countries had submitted no reports on seizures (ibid., para. 202). The international control system had been in existence for some considerable time, and experience over the last forty years had shown that it had many defects. First, although the United Nations urged governments to cooperate and exchange information, many of them did not do so. Secondly, there was no permanent international system of inspection of the production and distribution of narcotic drugs. Thirdly, the international supervisory bodies had no authority to oblige governments to heed their recommendations. Fourthly, new drugs had appeared, such as synthetic drugs, barbiturates, amphetamines and khat, for which no provision had yet been made. It was obvious that the present system must be improved so as to enable the United Nations to exercise effective supervision over the producing and manufacturing countries. The only part of the draft Single Convention which laid down enforcement procedures was article 22. Although that article had its good points, it was not sufficient to remedy the present situation, as there were still member States which took no steps to ban the cultivation of cannabis, combat the illicit traffic or seize opium. The situation was so grave that if stringent Eighteenth plenary meeting — 16 February 1961 81 measures were not taken, the results would be catastrophic from the health, economic and social points of view. Article 22 might be strengthened by the addition of a paragraph to the effect that, if the Board became convinced that any party to the Convention was not fulfilling its obligations, it could request the SecretaryGeneral to take action to destroy prohibited crops, seize any surplus production from licensed cultivation and any illicit production from factories, and control the borders of countries known to be used for the illicit traffic. The measures would be carried out under the supervision of a small group of United Nations experts. Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) pointed out that article 22, paragraph 1 (a) and (b) contained provisions for disciplinary action against governments who were failing to carry out their obligations under the Convention; but governments might find themselves unable to deal with such problems as drug addiction because of internal difficulties such as the nature of their law-enforcement and administrative machinery. In such cases, international assistance should be provided to help governments to solve their narcotics problems. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that there was a lack of uniformity in the criteria which the Board was to adopt for the different kinds of action it was to take under article 22. Under paragraph 1 (b), the Board was to act on the basis of information in its possession. Paragraph 2 specified that action was to be taken if the Board found that the substantial failure of a State to carry out the provisions of the Convention was seriously impeding the control of drugs in the territory of another State. According to paragraph 3 (a), the Board might recommend an embargo if, as a result of its study of the estimates and statistics furnished under articles 27 and 28, it found that a party had failed substantially to carry out its obligations under the Convention or that any other State was seriously impeding the effective administration thereof. The Board might find it difficult to judge which action to take in a given case and, having initiated relatively mild measures, might even be precluded from taking more drastic action. The ad hoc committee should try to lay down the order in which the different types of action should be taken and define the reasons that should dictate the choice of one measure rather than another. The ad hoc committee should also consider whether the Board should be given such powers as those provided in article 22. The President of the Permanent Central Opium Board had stated at the previous meeting that the most potent means at its disposal was the public expression of its comments or recommendations in its annual report. The powers conferred upon it by the proposed article were much greater, but it might not wish to use them. Under article 24 of the 1925 Convention, the Board had the power to recommend an embargo, but it had never done so. He doubted whether the Board should be given even greater powers than those it already had or even whether it should continue to exercise those of its present powers that had never been used. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) said that, before considering article 22 in detail, the Conference should consider certain general questions, in particular the character of the Board. It was obviously not a functional commission of the Economic and Social Council but a highly technical auxiliary body of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. As it was to replace both the present Permanent Central Opium Board and the Drug Supervisory Body, its functions must be much the same as theirs in other words, technical and administrative. It was obviously inappropriate to give a technical body the extraordinary executive powers set out in article 22 to enforce the provisions of the Convention. Such powers would make the board all-powerful. They were so broad that the article would have to be fundamentally altered if the Convention itself was to be generally acceptable. As article 22 stood, it only cast doubt on the willingness of States to carry out their international obligations but also vested the Board with political powers which lay outside its competence. Everyone agreed that the Board should be responsible for estimates and the control of stocks, but many delegations would be opposed, quite rightly, to its being given sole power to judge whether the provisions of the Convention were being substantially carried out. There would be no objection to its requesting information from governments or asking for explanations, but for it to make public declarations, call upon a government to adopt remedial measures, decide upon a local inquiry or force a country to apply an embargo would be an infringement of the sovereignty of States. Such safeguards as the appeal procedure, the provision that such decisions should be taken by a majority of the Board and the quality of the Board's membership could not offset the grave moral offence that the mere suspicion that it was not carrying out its international obligations would cause to a State. Paragraph 1 (e), in particular, was totally unacceptable. The mere proposal to make a local inquiry would be an infringement of its sovereign rights. Some attempt had been made to cloak the extremity of such a measure by stating that if the government failed to reply within four months to the Board's proposal, that would be considered a refusal to consent; but if the government did not consent, the Board would decide, without any real evidence, that that government had failed substantially to carry out the provisions of the Convention; and in that case, the Board might call the attention of the parties and the Council to the matter and publicly declaie that, in its opinion, a party had violated its obligations. The provision that the Board should publish the views of the government concerned if the latter so requested was an attempt to mitigate the severity of the measure, but it was in itself completely unacceptable. His delegation had stated its reasons for opposing local inquiries in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Such inquiries would be a violation of national sovereignty. In Mexico, the government exercised the power conferred upon it by the people through the legislature, the executive and the judiciary in accordance with the Constitution. If a person or committee was sent by the Board to conduct a local inquiry in Mexico, that would conflict with the constitutional principle of the inviolability of its national territory. The provision that the 82 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs inquiry was to be carried out with the consent of the government was no defence, for the government could not refuse if it wished to avoid unpleasant publicity. Furthermore, the criteria by which the Board was to judge whether a State had failed substantially to carry out its obligations needed clarification. There was no definition of what were the substantial provisions of the Convention and no indication of what factors would be taken into consideration to decide whether a party had or had not failed to carry them out. That was a most important point, for a party might be wrongly accused even though the accusation was made in good faith. Lastly, no provision was made for an appeal against the Board's ruling or for the government concerned to be given a previous hearing before being pilloried for not carrying out its obligations. The article must be amended to allow a government in such a position to defend itself. He had further comments to make regarding the commendation of embargo and the mandatory embargo, but he would make them in detail on a later occasion. He wished it to be clearly understood that none of the criticisms he had made were to be interpreted as an attack on the members of the Board, in whose integrity and competence he had the greatest confidence. He had merely wished to state very clearly his fundamental objections to granting the Board powers which went far beyond those of the International Court of Justice. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that his government had already voiced its concern regarding article 22, which, however desirable, might be a stumbling block to the acceptance of the Convention. If drugs were to be used for medical and scientific purposes only, some form of enforcement should be envisaged, but it had to be reasonable. The inclusion of unnecessary and unrealistic police measures would not only be unlikely to ensure enforcement, but would prevent many countries from signing the Convention. Although Canada had no reason to fear that the provisions of article 22 would be applied to it, he sympathized with the views expressed by the previous two speakers. In any event, there were certainly more effective means of ensuring the implementation of the Convention than a mandatory embargo with an appeal procedure. The fact that the power to recommend an embargo provided for in the 1925 Convention had never been used showed that there must be better and more modern means of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Convention. The question of sanctions had been much discussed during the drafting of the 1953 Protocol, but it had been felt that a final decision should be deferred until the Single Convention was being considered. That time had now come. There were alternatives to article 22 as drafted. A more practical procedure might be that laid down in article 23, which might possibly be strengthened; alternatively, the provision in article 22 relating to a public declaration that a party had violated its obligations might be retained, but in that case, the country concerned should be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances and defend itself before the declaration was made. In any event, article 22 must be radically altered if the Convention was to be saved. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that he was broadly in agreement with the previous speaker. Only thirtyeight States had acceded to the 1953 Protocol, largely because of objections to the enforcement measures, which had been regarded as a violation of sovereignty. The measures fell into four main groups. Those in paragraph 1 (a) to (c) (reference paragraphs 125 to 129) were unobjectionable. The local inquiry procedure mentioned in paragraph 1 (e) might be admissible if it was carried out with the consent of governments, but the matter needed further thought. The recommendation of an embargo (paragraph 3), which existed under the present system, had been used. It might nevertheless be regarded as a powerful weapon to be kept in reserve, and he was in favour of its retention. As for the mandatory embargo (paragraph 4), the objections to it were so great that, in order to make the Convention generally acceptable, it seemed better to drop it. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) associated himself with the views expressed by the Canadian representative regarding the general concept of article 22. Although he understood the motives underlying the provisions in question, he thought that they should be omitted in order to make the text generally acceptable. It would be better not to discuss the article in detail at that juncture, but to refer it to an ad hoc committee with the request that it should select those provisions which it felt to be suitable for inclusion in the final text of the Convention. Mr. BELONOGOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) endorsed the comments of the representative of Mexico. Article 22 was one of the least acceptable provisions of the whole draft Convention. It violated the sovereign rights of States and was not in harmony with the functions of the Board, which were technical and supervisory. The Permanent Central Opium Board and the Drug Supervisory Body adequately fulfilled those functions at the moment and there was no need to extend the powers of the new board. He particularly objected to the Board's being given the power to make political decisions, such as the decision to impose economic sanctions. He was also opposed to the Board's being given police functions, such as the carrying out of inquiries, which lay outside its competence. As the USSR had stated in its comments (E/CONF.34/1), such an extension of the Board's powers was quite unjustified. In addition, his delegation objected to the provision that the Board should be entitled to impose a mandatory embargo that was unacceptable in principle, and he agreed with the United Kingdom representative that it would be useless to give the new board a power which had been used under the existing system. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) said that his government had ratified the 1953 Protocol, which provided for similar enforcement measures, because it had felt sure that those measures would not be applied except in respect of a State which wilfully violated its obligations under the Protocol. The proposed enforcement provisions were unlikely ever to be applied, and he agreed that the question should be considered whether such severe provisions were necessary at all. Eighteenth plenary meeting — 16 February 1961 83 Mr. LIANG (China) said that his delegation was in general agreement with the provisions of article 22. Such provisions were essential if the trade in drugs was to be effectively controlled on a world scale. A mandatory embargo would not be an undue infringement of national sovereignty, since paragraph 4 (ii) made it clear that such an embargo would be imposed only as a last resort; nor would a local inquiry constitute such a violation, provided that it was carried out with the consent of the government concerned. However, as many delegations thought that the proposed provision would give the Board excessive powers, and as the Board had never taken action in pursuance of the existing provisions, his delegation agreed with the Canadian representative that it would be preferable to devise some alternative machinery, so long as it was sufficiently effective. He also supported the Pakistan representative's suggestion that the ad hoc committee should be asked to formulate provisions which would be generally acceptable. Sir Harry GREENFIELD (Permanent Central Opium Board) pointed out that it was not quite correct to say that the Board had never acted on the enforcement provisions of the 1925 Convention. On three occasions before the Second World War such action had been initiated, but it had not been carried to a conclusion. He would consider it a pity if the future board was to be just an appendage to another body, and he was surprised that representatives who were familiar with the work of international narcotics control should think of the Board's functions in that way. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that article 24 of the 1925 Convention, article 14 of the 1931 Convention and article 11 of the 1953 Protocol each embodied some or all of the ideas of the article under discussion. India was a signatory to all three instruments, and was in favour of any measure which effectively ensured that parties took steps to combat the scourge of addiction; nor would his delegation wish to see the Board deprived of any of the valuable functions which it performed. However, the Indian delegation appreciated that some governments might have difficulty in accepting the idea of local inquiries and embargoes, particularly in a mandatory form, and it might therefore be wise not to insist on such clauses. Therefore his delegation would be ready to consider sympathetically any proposal that might emerge in the ad hoc committee for a more generally acceptable solution. He also agreed that the Board should not become merely a subsidiary organ, but should remain an impartial, non-political body; thus the Board should not be given the responsibility for taking decisions of a semipolitical and controversial nature. Such action should be left to bodies such as the Narcotics Commission, the Economic and Social Council, and the General Assembly. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said he saw no objection in principle to the proposed provisions for local inquiries and embargoes, but he did not think that an embargo would ever in fact be imposed and he would not object to the deletion of the relevant provision. In view of the difficulties felt by other countries, his delegation would be ready to join in seeking alternative means of ensuring the efficacy of the Convention. Paragraph 1, as drafted, would give the Board general responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of the Convention were carried out. His government considered that the Board should not be given so wide a responsibility, as its authority might in fact be weakened thereby. For example, the provisions for the treatment of addicts were not the concern of the Board. Furthermore, there was the danger of a conflict between the Board and the Commission, which had similar functions. The Board's role should remain as under the 1925 and 1931 Conventions, and he suggested that the words "and in order to ensure that the provisions of this convention are carried out", appearing in paragraph 1, should be deleted. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that, as he had pointed out in his general statement, the 1953 Protocol had served the useful function of indicating what measures were likely to prove unacceptable. He was glad that most delegations appeared to agree that draft article 22 would need amendment, and he was confident that a solution could be found. He endorsed the remarks of the Mexican, Canadian, and USSR representatives on the subject. Mr. WIECZOREK (Poland), referring to his government's comments (E/CN.34/1), said that article 22 was unacceptable because it would substitute coercive measures for the principle of co-operation, and because it would prevent the Convention from receiving general support. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) said that his delegation wanted to see a Convention "with teeth"; he would therefore like the article retained, but he realized that some of its provisions raised difficulties for many governments, and his delegation would try to put forward suggestions for making the text easier to accept. A decision to delete the article would constitute a retreat which might prove dangerous, particularly since similar provisions already existed in the 1953 Protocol. With regard to the statements by many representatives that the embargo provisions had never been put into effect, he pointed out that the existence of such powers was valuable even if they were not used. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) said that the ultimate decision regarding the implementation of the Convention should lie with parties. There was no harm in the suggestion that the Board could help in conducting inquiries, but the initiative in asking for such help should be left to the government concerned. Similarly, the provision in paragraph 4 for a mandatory embargo was out of keeping with the humanitarian purposes of the Convention. Governments should certainly co-operate, but the Board should not be given the powers of a supergovernment. He endorsed the Mexican representative's remarks on the subject. Mr. GRINBERG (Bulgaria) supported the statements made by the representatives of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, Mexico and Canada. His delegation would like article 22 to be deleted; while the idea 84 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of having a perfect instrument might be attractive, what mattered was that it should be generally acceptable. He thought that most earlier speakers had been in favour of the deletion of the article; and if that was not the majority view, there was at any rate general agreement that some alternative formula would have to be worked out. He therefore supported the suggestion of the representative of Pakistan that the ad hoc committee should be asked to seek such a formula. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary) said that the secretariat had kept in close touch with the possibilities of operation of the board's "executing" power since it was involved in those provisions of article 24 of the 1925 Convention which envisaged action through the Secretary-General or if the party concerned brought the matter before the Economic and Social Council. It had also studied the possible extension of such a power in connexion with the Single Convention. With reference to the comments of the United Kingdom and Netherlands representatives on the widening of the Board's functions, he agreed that the article, for example in paragraphs 1 (b) and 2, would apparently provide for sanctions even in respect of the execution of the penal provisions relating to illicit traffic and of the provisions for the treatment of addicts; that interpretation went, perhaps, beyond the original intention of the drafters. With regard to the implementation of the embargo provisions, he pointed out that some of the circumstances in which the 1925 Convention had been drawn up no longer prevailed. At that time, some manufacturing countries had been over-producing and drugs had been leaking from the legal factories in their territories into the illicit traffic, and in such cases a commercial sanction had had some point. Moreover, lawful exports had often been diverted into illicit channels. At the present time, the illicit traffic came mainly from illicit sources, as the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the PCOB had both pointed out. Some governments, such as that of Hong Kong, had themselves drawn attention to the fact that therr countries had become centres of illicit traffic, but there had been no application of sanctions; indeed, that government had been commended by the international bodies for its exposure of the situation and its attempts to remedy it. Secondly, it was very doubtful whether the existence of such a sanction would assist the work of the Board. He quoted extracts from an article by Mr. Herbert May, a former President of the Board, in the Bulletin on Narcotics (January to April 1955, page 10), which drew attention to the difficulties and risks which would be experienced by the Board in implementing such sanctions, the risk that an embargo might cut off necessary medical supplies and the fact that it was a matter of chance whether such an embargo would be of consequence to a country or not. Mr. May had rightly pointed out that the principal means of compliance on which the Board must rely was the good faith of governments and the power of public opinion. The meeting rose at 5.45 p.m. NINETEENTH PLENARY MEETING Friday, 17 February 1961, at 10. 40 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/1 and Add.1-3) (continued) Article 22 (Measures to ensure the execution of the provisions of the convention) (continued) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to continue the debate on article 22. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) suggested that the measures provided for in the article fell into two distinct categories. The first group (paragraph 1 (a) to (d)) were administrative in character whereas the remainder were more in the nature of penal sanctions. The Conference might therefore discuss each clause, one by one, in the plenary meeting, taking the administrative measures first, and then passing on to those providing for a local inquiry and the embargo. Such a course would facilitate consideration, which could later be continued by the working group. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) doubted the wisdom of voting separately on each clause. If that course were followed a curious situation might result, since the provision regarding the mandatory embargo might be deleted, the provision for a local inquiry might either be deleted or retained and the question of providing for a recommendatory embargo would be left open. The whole article needed very careful consrderation in order to devise a more realistic procedure, for a convention could be violated in different ways—either wilfully or innocently. It would perhaps be more constructive to provide that the Board should have the power, not to punish, but to obtain information, in the light of which it would be able to determine whether a country needed assistance in implementing the Convention. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that however desirable it might be to expedite the work of the Conference, it should not sacrifice quality. It would be preferable to discuss the individual clauses separately. In that way, those provisions which met with unanimous agreement could be disposed of immediately without reference to an ad hoc committee, whereas all controversial ones could be discussed at length in committee, instead of being voted on at the first reading. That course would avoid a duplication of the discussion. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) thought that the provisions of the article fell into three categories and could accordingly be dealt with in different ways. First, there were those provisions which were generally unpopular. The provisions of paragraph 4 (mandatory embargo) came under that heading and could perhaps best be disposed of in the plenary meeting. Nineteenth plenary meeting 17 Febrnary 1961 85 Secondly, there were the provisions which encountered considerable but not universal opposition. They included the paragraph relating to a local inquiry. The Conference, at its plenary meeting, could decide whether or not to vote on the substance of those provisions. Thirdly, there were provisions, like those regarding the recommended embargo, which had not yet been discussed, or on which delegations were undecided. Since those points needed further discussion, they might be referred to an ad hoc committee. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) agreed. The Conference might first deal with the provision for the mandatory embargo and then that concerning the local inquiry. Mr. BANERJI (India) agreed that the Conference should be able to decide those two questions in the plenary meeting and that the details of the other provisions could best be studied by a committee. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) said that though agreeing with the classification of the provisions suggested by the representative of the United Kingdom, he was inclined to regard the provision for the local inquiry (paragraph 1 (e)) as even more controversial than that for the mandatory embargo, in that it was a challenge to the internal jurisdiction of States. He thought it should be classed in the same category as the provision concerning the mandatory embargo. Dr. MABILEAU (France) suggested that the provision concerning a mandatory embargo should be disposed of first, since it was unanimously opposed. The other provisions might then be discussed further. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) agreed with the representative of Mexico that the provision concerning local inquiries infringed national sovereignty and was therefore unacceptable. If a vote was taken in the plenary meeting, therefore, that provision should be voted on jointly with the one concerning the mandatory embargo. Such a course would facilitate the work of the Conference and of the ad hoc committee. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that he was not in favour of taking a vote on the provisions in the plenary meeting, although he would defer to the wishes of the majority. Secondly, he did not agree that the provisions could be classified as the United Kingdom representative had suggested. Miss HARELI (Israel) said that the implementation of the Convention should essentially result from the voluntary action of the individual governments. The imposition of such measures as a mandatory embargo or a local inquiry was consequently undesirable. There might well be cases, however, in which a government would welcome the assistance of the Board in conducting inquiries, and the Conference should therefore not preclude the possibility of inquiries conducted with the free consent of the government concerned. Mr. WIECZOREK (Poland) suggested that it might be possible, even without taking a vote, for the Conference to agree in plenary to delete those provisions which met with unanimous opposition. On the other hand, the provisions on which there were differing views could be referred to the working group. The PRESIDENT, noting that the differing points of view on the procedure to be followed seemed impossible to reconcile, ruled that the article should be dealt with in four distinct parts. He would first invite discussion on paragraph 1 (a) to (c), which concerned the normal competence of the Board and on which there seemed to be general agreement, so that there should be no need for a vote. Next would come paragraph 1 (d) to paragraph 2 (b), dealing with the remedial measures which the Board might invite a government to adopt. In the third place, the Conference would discuss paragraph 3, concerning the recommendation of embargo; and, lastly, paragraph 4, dealing with the mandatory embargo and appeal. Paragraph 1(a), (b) and (c) Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) suggested that, since the provisions in question were either non-controversial or indeterminate, they should be referred to an ad hoc committee. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) agreeing with that suggestion, said that his delegation would present its views in detail to the ad hoc committee. He recalled his earlier remarks on the principle of voting on the various clauses at first reading. That applied to all the articles but, if there seemed to be unanimity, the Soviet Union would abide by the general wish to eliminate any given provision of an article. In particular, he said that the provisions concerning a local inquiry and the mandatory embargo should be deleted and that the matter could be disposed of in the plenary meeting. Paragraph 1(d) and (e), paragraph 2 Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that paragraph 1(d) 130 had not as yet been discussed but might well be discussed in an ad hoc committee. The provision would need some re-drafting. Paragraph 1 (e), on the other hand, was unnecessary. It was only permissive in that a government had to consent to the inquiry; and, whether it was retained or not, there would be nothing to prevent the Board from agreeing with a government that a local inquiry should be held. The representative of Israel could therefore be reassured on that point. Paragraph 2 should be discussed further in an ad hoc committee. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany), referring to paragraph 1 (d), said that it should be made clear that a party to the Convention would be expected to take only such measures as were in conformity with national law. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) said that his delegation reserved the right to state its views in detail on all the provisions referred to an ad hoc committee, since the plenary meeting was concerned only with questions. 86 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of principle. He reiterated his delegation's view that the provision concerning a local inquiry should be totally deleted. If a government wished spontaneously and voluntarily to invite an investigation, it would be free to do so. For example, in 1948 Peru had voluntarily invited an expert committee to conduct an investigation into coca chewing. That was a specific instance of government co-operation. Dr. MABILEAU (France) agreed with the representative of the United Kingdom that it would be better to delete paragraph 1 (e). Mr. RAJ (India) said that the provision concerning a local inquiry was identical with article 11, paragraph 1 (d), of the 1953 Protocol. Such an inquiry could only be carried out with the agreement of the government concerned and in collaboration with officials designated by that government. A number of delegations were nevertheless opposed to the procedure because they believed that it conflicted with the principle of national sovereignty. The provision as drafted was not likely to be applied in practice, since any government opposed to its inclusion would never consent to a local inquiry conducted by the Board, and the desirability of its retention should be examined by an ad hoc committee. With regard to paragraph 2, he supported the United Kingdom representative's view that these provisions, too, should be referred to an ad hoc committee. They contained important stipulations concerning the action to be taken by the Board in the event of the substantial failure of a State to carry out the provisions of the Convention. He felt that the approach to the Council should be made through the Narcotics Commission. Mr. BUVAILIK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that, as did other delegations, his own opposed the idea of giving the Board the power to institute a local inquiry. Such a provision constituted a violation of the sovereign rights of States and should therefore be deleted. The PRESIDENT asked the Conference to decide whether a vote should be taken on paragraph 1 (e). It was decided by 21 votes to 3, with 23 abstentions, that a vote should be taken on the provision. It was decided by 27 votes to 10, with 14 abstentions, to delete paragraph 1 (t). Paragraphs 3 and 4 Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that the paragraph should be referred to an ad hoc committee for further study. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) thought that it might be better to take a vote first on the inclusion of a provision concerning a mandatory embargo before deciding on the inclusion of one concerning a recommendatory embargo. Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) said that the term "substantially" in paragraph 3 (a) was too vague. With regard to paragraph 4 (b) (ii) he said that there was some confusion of the Secretary-General's powers with those of the International Court of Justice. The embargo contemplated was in effect a sanction which could only be applied by a competent organ of the Umted Nations. The appeal procedure proposed brought to mind the insurmontable difficulties which had arisen in connexion with the establisment of arbitral tribunals by the International Court of Justice. It seemed wrong to vest the power of decision in the Secretary-General who had no judicial authority. Such a procedure would impair the impartiality of the Secietary-General with regard to the sovereign equality of States. Furthermore, some States had not ratified the Statute of the International Court of Justice or did not recognize the Court's jurisdiction. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that the provisions relating to a mandatory embargo and appeal should be deleted. He supported the view that, irrespective of the result of the voting on the inclusion of a mandatory embargo, paragraph 3 should be referred to an ad hoc committee for re-drafting. Mr. RAJ (India) said that, so far as was known, the Board had never had recourse to a mandatory embargo; and, in view of the opposition, it was not worth retaining a provision which might never be applied. By contrast, he thought that the automatic embargo on exports provided for in article 14, paragraph 2, of the 1931 Convention should appear m some form in the new convention, since it was not the intention of the Conference to weaken existing controls. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) supported the view that the principle of a recommendatory embargo should be retained because the new convention would take the place of all the existing instruments. The provision concerning a recommendatory embargo, an important feature of the 1925 Convention, would encourage governmental authorities to apply the provisions of the Convention carefully and would give strength and authority to the Board in carrying out its functions. He felt that the matter should be discussed by an ad hoc committee before being put to a vote. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) said that it was understandable that each State wished to maintain its sovereign status ; paragraphs 3 and 4 should, therefore, be redrafted with that consideration in mind. The Convention could be made acceptable to all States without infringing their hard-won sovereignty. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that France was one of the countries which had ratified the 1953 Protocol. However, in a spirit of co-operation, his delegation would not oppose the exclusion of a mandatory embargo if the majority so wished. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that his country had ratified all the conventions concerning narcotic drugs. In his view, the new convention should contain some provision regarding an effective and realistic form of embargo. An ad hoc committee should be asked to draft a generally acceptable provision. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) said that his government had ratified the 1953 Protocol, which made provision Nineteenth plenary meeting — 17 February 1961 87 for a mandatory embargo. It had accepted the relevant clause in a spirit of international co-operation and conciliation. His delegation was, however, strongly opposed to the inclusion of such a provision in the new convention, especially as the 1953 Protocol related only to opium whereas the new instrument would apply to all narcotic drugs. The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to vote on the provisions concerning a mandatory embargo and appeal (paragraph 4). It was decided by 41 votes to 3, with 3 abstentions, not to include those provisions. After a procedural discussion, the PRESIDENT suggested that paragraphs 1 except sub-paragraph (e), 2,3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 should be referred to an ad hoc committee composed of the representatives of Australia, Bulgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, Canada, China, the Republic of the Congo (Leopoldville), Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Liberia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Yugoslavia. It was so agreed. Article 5 (The international control organs) Article 6 (Expenses of the international control organs) Article 7 (Constitutional position and continuity of functions of the Commission) Article 8 (Privileges and immunities of members of the Commission) Article 9 (Committees of the Commission) Article 10 (Decisions and recommendations of the Commission) Article 11 (Functions of the Commission) The PRESIDENT invited debate on the above group of articles. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) considered that it was inappropriate to include in such a convention provisions for the establishment of a functional commission of the United Nations, for that could properly be done only by the Economic and Social Council, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Preferably, the functions to be vested in the proposed new commission should be entrusted to the existing Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Nor was it permissible, through the Convention alone, to change the name of that commission—that again could only be done by the Economic and Social Council. His delegation therefore intended to propose the deletion of articles 7, 9 and 10, and paragraph (/) of article 11. It would also propose the deletion of article 8, as being outside the scope of the Convention, and intended to suggest certain amendments to articles 5, 6 and 11. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) agreed substantially with the remarks of the United States representative; he, too, believed that articles 7, 8, 9 and 11 (0 should be deleted. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) agreed with the previous speakers and fully supported their suggestions. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) also supported the previous speakers. There was no need to set up a separate commission under the Convention; the Commission concerned with narcotic drugs control should remain a functional commission of the Economic and Social Council. Article 8 was unnecessary, because the matter of privileges and immunities was already covered by the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. He agreed that article 11 (j) should also be deleted. If, however, provisions for a commission were to be retained in the Convention, the commission should not be authorized, as was done in article 9, to set up a sub-committee to discharge any of its functions, particularly in cases where its decisions would become binding on parties. Dr. MABILEAU (France) associated his delegation with the remarks of the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Netherlands. The Conference should not, through the Convention, set up a new functional commission, nor should it change the name of the existing commission. The proposed deletions would certainly simplify the Convention, but they should perhaps be examined point by point. With regard to article 8, however, he felt that there was already general agreement that it should be deleted. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) associated his delegation in principle with the views of the delegations of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Mr. LIANG (China) likewise supported the remarks of previous speakers on the articles in question. Article 8 should be deleted as superfluous. There was no need to set up a new commission; the existing functional commission of the Council should remain, and its name should not be changed. The Commission would, he noted, under rule 71 of the rules of procedure of the Economic and Social Council, have to discharge functions other than those flowing from the Convention; that fact should perhaps be recognized in article 11. With regard to other parts of that article, he doubted whether it would be proper to empower the Commission to adopt amendments to the Convention. His delegation was in favour of the deletion of articles 7, 8, 9 and 10. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) associated his delegation with the views expressed on the group of articles. He drew attention to the footnote to article 9, which he fully endorsed. His delegation also agreed with the delegations of Mexico, Turkey, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia on the deletion of article 11, paragraph (b) (iii), footnote 12. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that his delegation also was in favour of the deletion of article 9. 88 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. WARREN (Australia) agreed with the views expressed by the representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union and others, in particular with regard to articles 7, 8 and 9. Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan) fully supported the proposed deletion of articles which duplicated the authority of the Economic and Social Council with regard to the setting up of functional commissions. At the same time, the Council should perhaps be given assistance, through resolutions of the Conference, in improving the existing Commission. The Conference was attended by experts who were well qualified to advise the Council on any changes which might be necessary in, say, the membership, scope of work and functions of the Commission in consequence of the adoption of the Single Convention. Mr. KIDWAI (India) asked for clarification regarding the constitutional position of the functional commission dealing with narcotic drugs control, whether or not the relevant articles were retained in the draft Convention. Even if the existing Commission remained in being, it was clear, as Mr. Narasimhan had stated at the first plenary meeting that its position would be somewhat changed, since it would have a dual source of authority and a dual set of functions. His delegation was very anxious that there should be continuity in the work of the Commission and, more particularly, that a major part should be played in that work by the main drug producing and manufacturing countries. India was the largest opium-producing country in the world and had been a member of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs from the outset; it had specifically been mentioned as one of the permanent members of the Commission in resolution 199 (VIII) of the Economic and Social Council. His delegation felt very strongly that the present Conference should, as it was eminently fitted to do, either write the constitution of the Commission into the Convention or specifically confirm the present position. The Conference should also confirm the present composition of the Commission and should not leave the matter to the decision of the Council. He agreed with the representative of Afghanistan that the Conference consisting of all Member States of the United Nations and the specialized agencies was more eminently fitted to write the constitution of the Commission than any other body of the United Nations under the General Assembly. His delegation had no objection to the enlargement of the Commission, if that was desired by the majority. Paragraph 2 of article 7 of the draft seemed, on the whole, unexceptionable. If paragraph 1 of that article were retained, however, he would suggest that it should read: "The Commission shall continue to be a functional Commission of the Council with its present system of permanent representation." That would make the position clear beyond any doubt and would entirely satisfy his delegation. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) associated his delegation in general with the remarks of previous speakers who had proposed the deletion of a number of provisions from the draft Convention. Since, however, the existing functional commission would be invested with certain powers regarding the substantial obligations of parties, it might be advisable, as the representative of Afghanistan had suggested, to adopt certain formal resolutions for the guidance of the Economic and Social Council. There were, however, in any case, certain provisions in the articles to be deleted which should stand in the Convention. One example was article 10, paragraph 2: it would be necessary to specify at what point in time a decision of the Commission came into force and became binding on the parties. In fact, that provision should be made much clearer. Again, with regard to appeals against decisions of the Commission, it might be necessary to include a special provision in the Convention. He would be glad to have the views of the Executive Secretary on the consequences of the deletion of article 10. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary of the Conference) said that it was his understanding that, with regard to the treaty functions of the Commission, there would be no review by the Council unless that were specifically provided for in the Convention. The Charter functions of the Commission, on the other hand, were subject to automatic review since the Commission was required to report to the Council, and the Council, in turn, to the General Assembly. Mr. PRAWIROSOEJANTO (Indonesia) recognized that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs would in the future have a dual role owing to the functions that would devolve upon it with respect to the enforcement of the Single Convention. In order, however, that the Commission should be able to carry out its enforcement function effectively, the Convention should contain adequate stipulations regarding the Commission's composition, functions and procedures. That might create some legal and constitutional problems, but the Conference should try to solve them, for the Commission's most important work would undoubtedly be in relation to the Convention. His delegation was in favour of an increase in the membership of the Commission corresponding to the increase in the membership of the United Nations, provided, of course, that it remained workable in size. It also believed that the Convention should ensure adequate geographical representation in the composition both of the Commission and of the Board, and that no two members of the Board were of the same nationality. Sir Harry GREENFIELD (President, Permanent Central Opium Board) said he was considerably alarmed to note that many delegations assumed that the Permanent Central Opium Board was a mere technical subsidiary of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. He would draw attention to document E/CONF.34/8— written by Professor Reuter, a member of the Board and an eminent international lawyer—which sought to arrest the spread of that notion, for it could seriously undermine the status of the future board. The independence of the Board was one of its most precious attributes, and should be safeguarded at all costs. The meeting rose at 1.5 p.m. Twentieth plenary meeting — 20 February 1961 89 TWENTIETH PLENARY MEETING Monday, 20 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) ( continued) Article 13 (Composition of the Board) (continued) Article 14 (Terms of office of members of the Board) ( continued) Article 15 (Privileges, immunities and renumeration of members of the Board) (continued) Article 16 (Rules of procedure of the Board) (continued) Article 17 (Delegation of authority of the Board (continued) Article 18 (Decisions of the Board) (continued) Article 19 (Functions of the Board) (continued) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to continue its debate on the group of articles relating to the Board and on the amendment submitted jointly by India and Turkey to article 13 (E/CONF.34/L.7). Mr. ISMAIL (United Arab Republic), referring to article 13, paragraph 1 (a), said that, by reason of the nature of its functions, the Board should have at least two members with medical, pharmacological or pharmaceutical experience. He supported the amendment to paragraph 4 of that article submitted by India and Turkey, and particularly the second paragraph of the amendment which concerned geographical representation. With regard to article 15, his delegation favoured the deletion of paragraphs 1 and 2, but not of paragraph 3. He also agreed with those delegations which had proposed the deletion of article 17. Mr. LIMB (Republic of Korea) said that, without prejudice to the principle that members of the Board must be technically qualified, he was in favour of including a reference to the desirability of equitable geographical representation in article 13. There appeared to be general agreement on that point and he suggested that the drafting committee should be asked to take it into account. As the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany had said at the previous meeting in connexion with the Commission, persons belonging to States which were not Members of the United Nations but were parties to the Convention should be eligible for election both to the Commission and to the Board. Twenty-first plenary meeting — 20 February 1961 95 Mr. BUVAILIK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) agreed with other delegations that articles 15, 17 and 18 should be deleted, as being unnecessary. His delegation welcomed the amendment to article 14 submitted orally by the Polish representative at the previous meeting; that amendment would fill a gap in the provisions relating to the Board's procedure. With regard to article 13, paragraph 2, he said it was a generally recognized procedure that a representative on one body should be authorized to attend the meetings of another body as an observer when the fields of interest of the two bodies were related. It was, however, possible that the Board might consider a question of particular interest to a State or States represented on the Commission, and he would like to suggest that the provision should be interpreted as authorizing the representative of any member of the Commission to attend the sessions of the Board as an observer if he so wished. Such a procedure might assist the Board in reaching a sound decision. Mrs. CAMPOMANES (Philippines) proposed that the minimum number of persons to be nominated by WHO under article 13, paragraph 1 (a), should be increased from three to four in order to give the Council a wider choice. In the selection of members of the Board, the prime consideration should be the personal qualifications set out in paragraph 3, but equitable geographical representation was also important, and her delegation therefore supported the second paragraph of the amendment submitted by India and Turkey. In paragraph 4, she proposed that the qualifications prescribed should include "a knowledge of the international conventions and their operation". In view of the earlier decision to delete article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 15 could be similarly omitted. Mr. AZARAKHSH (Iran) said that, as his delegation had pointed out during the preparation of the draft, in view of the increased membership of the United Nations it would be logical to enlarge the membership of the Commission and the Board correspondingly. He agreed with the French representative that it was difficult to define the precise qualifications required in the case of the members mentioned in article 13, paragraph 1 (a), but WHO would be in a position to nominate specialists in the relevant fields. With regard to article 13, paragraph 1 (b), his delegation felt that since the Board was a technical organ, its members should be fully informed of the difficulties arising in different parts of the world in connexion with narcotics control. While equitable geographical representation was desirable, it was even more important that there should be members familiar with the particular problems arising in agricultural and manufacturing countries respectively, and also in countries where addiction was a major problem. He supported the amendment submitted by India and Turkey. Miss VELISKOVA (Czechoslovakia) thought that a reference to the principle of equitable geographical representation should be included in article 13, as the Board had an important part to play in the implementation of international control measures. She supported the deletion of article 15, and endorsed the Polish suggestion that article 16 should lay down that a two-thirds majority was required for important decisions. She supported the suggestion that article 17 should be deleted, but in the event of its retention, would support the suggestion made by the Hungarian representative at the previous meeting. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) said that, as was stated in the footnote to article 13, paragraph 1 (6), his government was in favour of including in that paragraph a reference to the need for equitable geographical representation, since the Board would have political as well as technical functions. He was in favour of substituting the word "consultation" for the word "agreement" in the second sentence of paragraph 3. With regard to paragraph 4, he drew attention to the opinion of his government as set out in the footnote to the draft; he also supported the views expressed by the Peruvian representative at the previous meeting with regard to the inclusion on the Board of persons representing States. His delegation adhered to the view expressed in the footnote to article 14, paragraph 4; a three-fourths majority might be required for a recommendation by the Board but not for a decision by the Council. Where article 15 was concerned, he agreed with many delegations that it was unnecessary for the Convention to contain provisions regarding the privileges, immunities and remuneration of the members of the Board. With regard to article 17, it seemed to him that if none of the functions enumerated in the footnote to that article could be delegated, the exceptions would in fact constitute the general rule. He supported the view that the article was unnecessary and would be too complicated to administer. The ad hoc committee might give some consideration to article 18. He supported the opinion expressed by the Indian representative at the previous meeting that if the article was retained, countries should be given a reasonable time in which to indicate their views after being notified of a decision by the Board. He agreed with the United States representative that article 19 should either be deleted or take the form of a general declaration. In reply to a question from Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana), Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that the second part of article 13, paragraph 4, beginning with the words "both in the producing and manufacturing countries" reproduced textually the second part of article 19, paragraph 4, of the 1925 Convention as amended. The term "producing" in the latter text had been understood to mean a country producing the main raw materials then used for the manufacture of narcotic drugs; in other words, opium and coca leaves. The term "producing" as used by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs had retained the technical meaning of "producing opium or coca leaves". 96 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drags Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) said that in the light of the Deputy Executive Secretary's explanations, his delegation considered that the word "producing" should be retained. He agreed with the French representative that the word "pharmacological" in paragraph 1 (a) was unnecessary, and was in favour of including a reference to geographical representation in paragraph 1(b). Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) pointed out that there was some danger of confusion with regard to the discussion of article 15. Some delegations had suggested the deletion of paragraphs 1 and 2, concerning the privileges and immunities of the Board, in view of the deletion of article 8, which dealt with the privileges of members of the Commission. Other representatives, such as the Mexican representative, had advocated the deletion of the whole article. He hoped that when the matter was discussed in detail, or when the Conference took a decision, paragraph 3, which dealt with remuneration, would be considered separately from the other two paragraphs. The Office of Legal Affairs discussed the effects of the deletion of paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 15 in the last paragraph of its comments on that article (E/CONF. 34/1). In the first paragraph of those comments, the office explained why it no longer felt it necessary to include a specific reference in the Single Convention to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, as it had suggested in its footnote to article 8 of the draft. Article IV of that convention applied to representatives and article VI to experts. He knew that the President of the PCOB considered it important to provide for the privileges and immunities of members of the Board, as their status would otherwise be reduced to that of experts. Economic and Social Council resolution 123 E (VI) recommended that governments should extend to members of the PCOB privileges and immunities on the lines laid down in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities, but did not define those privileges or specify whether board members were to be treated as experts on missions under article VI of the Convention. There was, however, no doubt that the Council had wished to emphasize the status of Board members, and it might be felt that the particular privileges to which they were entitled should be enunciated in the Single Convention. Economic and Social Council resolution 123 D (VI), dealing with the remuneration of board members, stressed the importance of members being independent of their governments, and recommended that the question of their remuneration should be considered in the fight of that fact. He merely wished to draw attention to the subject and to urge that the conditions of service on the Board should be such as to attract the best possible men. As the President of the PCOB had emphasized in his statement, the Conference was legislating for the future as well as for the present. Mr. WATTLES (Office of Legal Affairs) said three courses of action were open to the Conference. It might adopt a brief, general provision like article 15, paragraph 1, of the third draft. But in the opinion of the Office of Legal Affairs, it was hardly worth while to include a general provision which did not go much beyond article 105(2) of the Charter. Alternatively,, the Convention might make specific reference to article VI of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. The Economic and Social Council, in its resolution 123 E (VI), had recommended that governments should extend to the members of the PCOB privileges and immunities on the lines laid down in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities; the article of that convention which would be applicable to members of the Board would be article VI relating to experts on missions for the United Nations. That article would give Board members immunity from arrest, immunity from legal process, inviolability of papers and documents, the right to use codes and to receive correspondence by courier or in sealed bags, certain facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions, and immunities in respect of personal baggage. However, the salaries of Board members would not be exempt from national taxation. There were two possible solutions: either simply to allow members to pay taxes to their respective governments, or to reimburse them for such payments according to the procedure followed in the case of United Nations staff members who were nationals of States not parties to the Convention on Privileges and Immunities. Lastly, if the Convention wished to grant Board members more extensive privileges and immunities than those allowed to experts performing missions for the United Nations, it might establish a new set of privileges and immunities in the Single Convention. At the preceding meeting, the representative of China had raised the question whether the PCOB was a United Nations organ. In that connexion, he drew attention to the following statement in the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs (vol. I, pp. 228-229): "The PCOB and the Drug Supervisory Body have been considered as 'organs of the United Nations'" for the purpose of General Assembly resolution 774 (VIII), and they appear to have been regarded as 'other organs', as distinguished from 'subsidiary bodies', in General Assembly resolution 875 C (IX)." Thus, while it could be debated whether the Board was a United Nations organ in the normal sense, there was precedent for so regarding it. In reply to the same representative's further question whether the decisions of the Conference would be binding on the Economic and Social Council, he said that the Conference certainly could not bind the Council, but that it could submit a plan to it for approval or rejection. The Commission and the Board could assume their functions as subsidiary organs of the Council only with its consent, and if there were financial implications, with the approval of the General Assembly. With respect to article 14, paragraph 4, the Office of Legal Affairs had grave doubts that a provision requiring a three-fourths majority would be in conformity with the Charter. There were passages in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on voting procedure in the Assembly concerning the question of South-West Africa (I.C.J. Reports, 1955, p. 67) Twenty-first plenary meeting — 20 February 1961 97 which seemed to indicate that the voting procedure could not be changed without an amendment of the Charter. Mr. PvABASA (Mexico) wished to clarify his previous statement concerning article 15. Mexico considered the PCOB a very important body and had the greatest respect for the efficiency with which it had carried out its duties. He had therefore certainly not intended to suggest that board members should be deprived of the privileges and immunities they needed to carry out their work efficiently and independently. Indeed, if existing provisions would not give the members of the Board the requisite privileges and immunities, his delegation would be the first to propose that they should be given diplomatic immunities. Moreover, in suggesting the deletion of article 15, he had notintended that no provision should be made for fair remuneration for Board members. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization), referring to suggestions by several delegations that the number of persons to be nominated by WHO under article 13, paragraph 1 (a), should be increased, recalled that similar suggestions had been made during the preparation of the first and second drafts but that, after careful consideration, a decision had been taken in favour of the arrangement now proposed. Under the existing conventions, WHO was empowered to appoint two members of the Drug Supervisory Body. The slight departure at the last election from the practice laid down in the relevant convention had been due to the attempted fusion of the PCOB and the DSB, rather than to dissatisfaction with WHO's powers of appointment. The World Health Organization was in favour of retaining the wording of paragraph 1 (a) in the third draft. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) believed that the only reason for maintaining the Board in being was that its members would be independent, impartial and disinterested persons of high technical competence. They should have the status of international civil servants and should sever their connexions with their governments. Consequently, it would be unwise to lay down any criteria for the selection of board members other than personal and technical qualifications. His delegation could not accept any provision implying that board members represented governments or producing, manufacturing and consuming countries. While they should certainly possess knowledge of the drug situation in the producing, manufacturing and consuming countries, it must be made clear that they did not represent particular interests. He had no objection to the consideration of equitable geographical representation in the election of board members, but thought a specific reference to that principle was unnecessary, since it would be borne in mind by the Economic and Social Council. Mr. BANERJI (India) agreed that board members should have the status of international civil servants and should not act as representatives of States. But the principle of equitable geographical distribution was firmly recognized even with respect to the international civil servants in the United Nations secretariat. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) wished to make it clear that in his previous statement concerning article 15, he had supported the deletion of paragraphs 1 and 2 only. The views expressed by the United Kingdom representative on that point were also those of his delegation. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary), replying to a question by the representative of the Ukrainian SSR concerning the normal procedure for establishing the remuneration of experts, said that their remuneration and honoraria were determined by the General Assembly, on the basis of proposals submitted by the SecretaryGeneral. Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) said that Council resolution 123 D (VI) referred to the normal procedure, namely, consideration by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, which submitted recommendations to the General Assembly on the Secretary-General's proposals. The PRESIDENT invited the members of the Conference to vote on the retention of articles 17 and 18. Article 17 was deleted by 41 votes to none, with 4 abstentions. Article 18 was deleted by 44 votes to none, with 1 abstention. Article 23 (Reports of the Board to the Council and parties) The PRESIDENT invited debate on article 23. Mr. BANERJI (India) proposed the deletion of the second sentence in paragraph 2. The words "undertake to permit" seemed to imply a specific obligation to secure adequate circulation and therefore imposed too heavy a burden on a large country in which many languages were spoken. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said he understood the words in question to mean merely that a party had to permit the publication of the report, not that it had to make translations available. Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) said that, in the opinion of the PCOB and the Drug Supervisory Body, it was unnecessary to stipulate in the Convention that the reports of the Board must be submitted to the Council "through the Commission". Since the Commission would be a functional commission of the Economic and Social Council, the Council itself should determine the procedure. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) considered paragraph 1 too detailed. It should be redrafted in a simplified version along the lines of article 27 of the 1925 Convention. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) thought paragraph 2 should stipulate that a specified period of time must elapse between communication of the reports to the parties and publication. Unless some more precise term was used than the word "subsequently", government officials were likely to learn of 8 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs the reports from the press before they received the official communication. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) proposed that article 23 should be referred to the ad hoc committee for further consideration. It was so agreed. Article 12 (Secretariat of the Commission) Article 24 (Administrative services of the Board) The PRESIDENT invited debate on articles 12 and 24. Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan) said that articles 12 and 24 were closely related and, although the wording was simple, it was difficult to appreciate their full implications. There was a considerable divergence between the views of the Permanent Central Opium Board and the Drug Supervisory Body (E/CONF.34/8) and those of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (E/CONF.34/7). There was another discrepancy; under the 1925 Convention, as amended by the 1946 Protocol, the secretariat of the PCOB had a certain judicial authority, which had been reaffirmed by its president at the 17th plenary meeting, but the representative of the Office of Legal Affairs had stated that the PCOB was to be considered as a United Nations organ. Before making up his mind on the principles involved, he would like the following points to be elucidated: (1) Was the secretariat of the Board to be regarded as part of the United Nations Secretariat? (2) How had the judicial functions of the PCOB been carried out since 1925? (3) Would it be more economical to have one or two secretariats? (4) What were the financial implications of each of the two solutions? (5) Would a single secretariat or two secretariats make for the most efficient working? (6) What would be the implications for the present regime if the personnel policy of the United Nations was applied to the Board's secretariat? (7) If there were two secretariats, did that involve a duplication of work? Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that article 24 raised a very important question, which, as the President of the PCOB had pointed out at the 17th plenary meeting, was not so simple and straightforward as might at first sight appear. On the contrary, it was very complex and, because of its implications for the future, the President of the PCOB had urged a cautious and thoughtful approach. In view of the importance of the question and the divergent views expressed by the Advisory Committee and the PCOB and DSB, it was advisable to consider the background of the present situation. When it had considered the question of a single secretariat at its fourth session, in 1949, the attitude of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs had at first been favourable. It had even stated in its report (E/1361, p. 30) that a single secretariat would be a sound arrangement administratively and would simplify the task of governments in the matter of communication with the control bodies. However, views had changed in the course of the ensuing year and some criticisms of the proposed arrangement had been expressed at the Commission's fifth session. Those criticisms were summarized in the report of that session (E/1889/Rev.l, paras. 114 and 115) under the following heads: (1) A single secretariat would have to serve two masters independent of each other, the Commission and the Board. That might lead to administrative inefficiency. (2) The independence of the Board as a judicial body would be endangered if it were to be served by the same secretariat as the Commission, a political ("legislative") body. (3) No real economy would be achieved by the establishment of a single secretariat. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs had as yet had no opportunity of discussing the Advisory Committee's report and, therefore, no opportunity of weighing the amendments to article 24 proposed in paragraph 16 of the report. In view of that fact, the USSR representative had suggested at the 809th meeting of the Fifth Committee that the General Assembly should be asked not to endorse the Advisory Committee's report but merely to bring it to the attention of the Plenipotentiary Conference. General Assembly resolution 1587 (XV) did nothing more than transmit the report to the Conference, without any strong recommendation in its favour. Having considered the relevant comments of the Secretary-General's survey group, which had reviewed the organization of the Secretariat in 1954-1955, the Advisory Committee had decided that there were four main points in favour of a single secretariat (paragraph 14 of its report). First, it thought that the proposed separate secretariat would be a very small unit for purposes of separate organization and administration. The criticism of the existing arrangement seemed strange, for it had functioned admirably for over thirty years with a minimum of staff. The PCOB had originally had a staff of six and the DSB a staff of three; the combined staff of the joint secretariat was still only nine, in spite of the increased workload due to the increased number of narcotic drugs and the greater number of countries concerned. Secondly, according to the Advisory Committee, there was considerable overlapping and duplication between the Narcotic Drugs Division and the joint secretariat of the PCOB and DSB. That view was not shared by the two bodies concerned, which stated in paragraph 5 of their report (E/CONF.34/8) that they were not aware of any duplications and, failing proof to the contrary, they regarded such a possibility as extremely remote. Thirdly, the Advisory Committee had thought that a single secretariat would be more economical and efficient. The President of the PCOB had not agreed. He had stated at the 17th plenary meeting that the Board's effectiveness and general power for good might be adversely affected. Lastly, in the Advisory Committee's view, the existing arrangement would make appropriate geographical distribution of the Board's secretariat difficult to achieve. It was obviously more difficult to apply the principle of equitable geographical distribution in a small secretariat than in a large one, but, as the PCOB and DSB Twenty-first plenary meeting — 20 February 1961 99 secretariat had developed, that principle had not been entirely neglected. The President of the Board had said that the future Control Board would wish to maintain the closest accord with the Secretary-General regarding its personnel. For example, it would be willing to consider nominations from the Secretary-General to vacancies in its staff and it would readily entertain suggestions regarding transfers at reasonable intervals, subject to considerations of the efficiency and continuity of its work. For the Board to carry out its task, it should have authority and command respect. Those conditions were obviously satisfied by the existing Board. In the thirty or more years of its existence, it had achieved the position which was felt to be desirable for the future board. It might be dangerous to tinker with a piece of machinery that was working so well. As was pointed out in document E/CONF.34/8, paragraph 1, the PCOB's effective independence constituted one source of its authority in the eyes of governments and public opinion. The same point had been made by the President of the PCOB. The only safe way was to continue with two separate bodies, one political (the Commission) and one technical (the Board) and two separate secretariats. One secretariat could not serve two masters. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary) said that there was no divergence of views regarding the necessity of maintaining the Board's independence and authority, but that was not necessarily the same issue as that of a statutorily separate secretariat. The General Assembly, the Advisory Committee and the Secretary-General had, in fact, been convinced that it was not. As the representative of Afghanistan had pointed out, there was a considerable divergence between the views of the Permanent Central Opium Board and the DSB, on the one hand, and the General Assembly and the Advisory Committee, on the other. General Assembly resolution 1587 (XV) transmitting the report of the Advisory Committee to the Conference had been adopted without objection in the Fifth Committee and unanimously in the Assembly. Thus all the governments represented at the Conference except those of countries not Members of the United Nations had already "commended the recommendations of the Advisory Committee to the consideration of the Conference." The Advisory Committee, the General Assembly and the United Nations Secretariat had not considered only the administrative and budgetary aspects of the question in the normal sense; they had given very careful thought to the connexion between the independence of the Board and the statutory maintenance of a separate secretariat for it, as was clear from paragraph 15 of the Advisory Committee's report. Turning to the views expressed by the PCOB and the DSB in their report, he said that paragraph 1 dealt with the Board's power to impose sanctions. Reference was there being made to the powers vested in the Board under article 24 of the 1925 Convention, extended by article 26 of that Convention and by article 14 of the 1931 Convention. In actual fact, those powers had not been exercised in the thirty-two years of the Board's existence, even though their use had been considered on a number of occasions and preliminary steps taken on a few. Furthermore, there were strong reasons for thinking that such powers were unlikely to be exercised frequently, for reasons such as those set out in Mr. Herbert May's article on the Single Convention published in the United Nations Bulletin on Narcotics of April 1956, Even if the power to impose sanctions were to be exercised, however, that did not in itself in any way imply the necessity for a separate secretariat. First, the Board was expressly precluded from delegating the exercise of that function to the secretariat by the last paragraph of article 19 of the 1925 Convention. Secondly, any legal advice it needed on such a point could apprepriately be obtained from the Office of the Legal Counsel, while if it wished to obtain information about the illicit traffic, that could be supplied by the Division of Narcotic Drugs, which was the depository of the extensive treaty information from governments and which circulated its documents on the illicit traffic to members of the Board for information. A comparison might also be made with the WHO Expert Committee on Addiction-producing Drugs. That committee took decisions on drugs to be placed under control which had important commercial and other implications; but it had not been suggested that, for that reason, it should be given a secretariat separate from the regular WHO secretariat. As regards the arguments in paragraph 3, a number of facts pointed in the other direction. The Board and the DSB met at least twice a year, their field of operation was specific and closely defined in treaties, and the secretariat was in constant touch by cable and letter with the President and members of the Board. It was feasible to acquire the specialized knowledge required by serving in the unit, and in fact no professional qualifications were laid down as they were in many units of the United Nations Secretariat. It might be noted that, in the League period, the DSB had operated perfectly well as part of the Opium Section of the League Secretariat, corresponding to the present Division of Narcotic Drugs. The reasons for the amalgation of the PCOB and DSB secretariats were, first, that the functions of the two bodies interlocked—the PCOB administered the estimates established by the DSB—and secondly, that when the arrangement had been made, the PCOB had been in Geneva, whereas the division had still been in New York, and it would have been uneconomical to maintain a detached part of the division at Geneva. Paragraph 5 raised a point that was important from the practical point of view. It was stated that no duplications were known, and such a possibility was regarded as extremely remote. In actual operation, however, there were examples to the contrary. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs was a political and legislative body which, under its terms of reference, had responsibilities and interests in all fields of narcotics control, whereas the PCOB and DSB had specific tasks relating essentially to the statistical control system, including esti-100 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drug3 mates. The League of Nations had taken steps to see that the Board would be free from the intervention of other organs in carrying out those specific tasks. Both the Commission and the Board reported to the Economic and Social Council, the latter under article 27 of the 1925 Convention; in practice, the Board's report was considered first by the Commission and reached the Council with the Commission's observations. In the United Nations period, so far as the Secretariat was aware, no significant problems had arisen over the respective jurisdiction of the Commission and the Board, and none need be anticipated. That was, however, a very different thing from duplication at the secretariat level. Given the situation of two bodies, one with specific responsibilities which, with regard to policy or legislation though not with regard to detailed executive action, lay within the field of the other, some degree of duplication at the secretariat level was inevitable in that each secretariat had to, and did, follow the proceedings of the other. To take one instance, that happened in the field of the illicit traffic. Under its terms of reference, the Commission was the international organ responsible for supervising the course of the illicit traffic and making studies and recommendations to governments concerning that traffic. It carried out its task on the basis of information provided by governments which enabled it to review the previous year's results each spring. However, the Board received statistics, under article 22 (1) (e) of the Convention of 1925, of confiscations on account of illicit import or export, the primary purpose of which was to enable it to complete the accounting of the drugs available in a country. Its annual report, however, usually included a chapter on the illicit traffic, which was primarily based on those statistics. The information reached the Council a year later than the Commission's annual review for the year in question. The Board's secretariat, in document E/OB/W.78, transmitted to the Commission in connexion with the preparation of the Convention, had recognized the duplication expressly. There were other types of duplication on which views expressed in document E/CONF.34/8 were not consistent with the information available in the Secretariat, but perhaps further discussion, of them, if desired, could be better left for the Committee stage. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) said that his government supported the concept of a single secretariat. A separate secretariat for the Board would appear to be unnecessary and wasteful. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that his government supported the recommendation made in the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (paragraph 17) that the Single Convention should limit itself to providing that all necessary secretariat services should be furnished to the Commission and the Control Board by the Secretary-General. Thus, it felt that a provision similar to that in aiticle 12 should be made applicable to the Board. The necessary arrangements could be made in the ad hoc committee to ensure that the Board maintained its separate functions and was not merged with the Commission. The PRESIDENT asked the members whether they wished to continue the discussion of articles 12 and 24 in the ad hoc committee or the plenary meetings. Dr. MABILEAU (France) proposed that the articles should be carefully considered in plenary, and a decision taken on the principle involved. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) supported the French proposal. It was so decided. The meeting rose at 5.45 p.m. TWENTY-SECOND PLENARY MEETING Tuesday, 21 February 1961, at 10.35 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l) ( continued) The PRESIDENT drew attention to the report of the ad hoc committee appointed at the 12th plenary meting to consider articles 35 to 38 (E/CONF.34/10). As was explained in the introductory note to the report, the absence of comment on a particular provision meant that the provision had been found acceptable to the committee. Article 35 (Restrictions on the cultivation or growth of the coca bush) Mr. ESTRELLA (Peru) urged that the definitive text of paragraph 1 should be brought into line, mutatis mutandis, with the corresponding provision which the United States had proposed with respect to the opium poppy (E/CONF.34/C.5/L.1). Article 35 was adopted. Article 36 (National coca leaf agencies) Article 37 (Restrictions on the international trade in coca leaves and crude cocaine) Mr. ESTRELLA (Peru) said that the word "exclusively" in paragraph 1 of the proposed new single article should, of course, be interpreted in the light of the provisions of article 56 concerning reservations. As the USSR representative had said (see footnote 3 to ad hoc committee's report), the first sentence of paragraph 2 should not mention any producing countries by name, but should refer in general terms to countries which had produced the coca leaves during the past few years and had so informed the Permanent Central Opium Board. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) reiterated the opinion expressed by his delegation in the ad hoc committee that from both the legal and the practical standpoint, it would be preferable not to list specific producing countries in the first sentence of para-Twenty-second plenary meeting — 21 February 1961 101 graph 2 but adopt a text along the following lines: "The General Assembly, after consultation with the countries which produce coca leaves or produced the leaves in the last few years and so reported to the Permanent Central Opium Board, may adopt regulations for such control." Such an amendment would not affect the economic interests of the countries in question; it would also be correct in a convention which would continue to be applicable for a period of years. A country mentioned by name in the Convention might cease to produce or export coca leaves; it would then be necessary to amend the Convention. It was in order to avoid that difficulty that his delegation had proposed the new wording. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) said that the amendment proposed by the Soviet Union representative was entirely acceptable to his delegation, since it was merely a drafting change. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) asked why the ad hoc committee had decided to delete that part of draft article 36 which dealt with control of the production and distribution of the coca leaf and to substitute the paragraph 2 proposed in its report. Moreover, according to that text, it would be the General Assembly which would adopt regulations for such control. It was, however, his understanding that the Conference had been convened precisely in order to draw up a system of control, and he therefore found it surprising that the question was to be referred to the General Assembly. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) replied that the former text of articles 36 and 37 essentially reproduced for coca leaves the provisions relating to the control of the production of opium (articles 31 and 32). The latter provisions had been based on the practical experience of several countries—India, for example—and had been found to be effective. It seemed doubtful, however, whether such provisions would be equally effective in the case of a different crop—coca leaves—and in other countries. It had therefore been decided to provide for a procedure by which the most suitable system of control Ivould be established for that particular crop under the special conditions prevailing in the coca-leaf-producing countries. That was the idea underlying the ad hoc committee's draft. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said he was not fully satisfied by that explanation, which answered only his first question. He recognized that the control system would have to be established by agreement with the producing countries concerned. Those countries were, however, represented at the Conference, and there was nothing to prevent the Conference itself from working out a system of control forthwith in consultation with those countries, instead of referring the matter to the General Assembly. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) said that it would be difficult for the Conference, without adequate preparation, to work out a series of measures for the effective control of the cultivation of the coca bush and the distribution of coca leaves. If the Convention included provisions which were based upon insufficient experience, it would inevitably have to be amended before very long; the procedure described in the proposed paragraph 2 would make it possible to devise the best method of control. Mr. RAJ (India) recalled that in 1947 the delegation of Peru had requested the Commission on Narcotic Drugs to send a commission of inquiry into the effects of chewing the coca leaf to that country; the Economic and Social Council had approved the establishment of such a commission in its resolution 123 C (VI) and had approved its despatch to Peru by its resolution 159IV (VII). In the report to the Economic and Social Council at its twelfth session (E/1668) the commission of inquiry had described the harmful effects of coca leaf chewing, which inhibited the sensation of hunger, thus maintaining a constant state of malnutrition, and diminished the chewer's capacity to think and work. The commission, recognizing the harmful effects of coca leaf chewing, had recommended that the governments of the countries concerned should improve the living conditions of the population, especially their nutrition, housing conditions and education. However, in view of the social and economic factors which gave rise to the habit of chewing, limitation of the production of coca leaf and control of its distribution should be effected gradually until complete suppression was achieved within a period of fifteen years. The ad hoc committee had apparently not paid due attention to those recommendations. While it was true that the coca bush could not be brought under the same control as the opium poppy or cannabis, it was necessary to provide for a system that was at least roughly comparable to the control measures for poppy straw or cannabis, or both. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary) recalled that, at the time, Peru and Bolivia had been unable fully to accept the recommendations made by the commission of inquiry; several years later, however, they and the other countries concerned had found it possible to approve Economic and Social Council resolution 548 E (XVIII) regarding measures to control the production and use of the coca leaf. As the problem of coca leaf had been tackled later than that of controlling opium, not so much experience was available, and the subject still required much careful study. Mr. ESTRELLA (Peru) said he was glad to be able to state that the provisions of articles 36 and 37 of the draft Convention had been incorporated in his country's legislation. The Peruvian Government had undertaken further studies designed to enable it to improve its laws relating to the coca leaf. While it was not possible to introduce the immediate and total prohibition of cocaleaf chewing, the practice would gradually be limited and would be eliminated within twenty-five years of the Convention's entry into force. Mr. VERTES (Hungary) thought that, in view of the importance of the coca leaf problem from the medical, economic and political points of view, the matter should preferably be dealt with by the Assembly. He also agreed with the USSR representative that the producing countries should not be mentioned by name in the first sentence of paragraph 2. 102 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. CURRAN (Canada) thought that the ad hoc committee's proposal with regard to articles 36 and 37 was a reasonable one and should not require further lengthy discussion. He also supported the USSR suggestion that the provision naming the countries in paragraph 2 should be replaced by a more general text. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) agreed with the USSR representative that countries should be mentioned by name in paragraph 2. His delegation had always been opposed to monopolies; to give a list of countries in the Convention would lead to complications. The drafting of the paragraph required some improvement. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said he still found the text proposed by the ad hoc committee unsatisfactory. Naturally, the control measures applicable to the opium poppy could not necessarily be applied to the coca bush; the producing countries should be consulted on the measures of control they considered most suitable, and precipitate action should be avoided. But successive drafts of the Single, Convention had been under draft consideration for ten years or so, and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs had been concerned with control over various substances, including the coca leaf, for an even longer period. It was therefore hardly possible to speak of excessive haste; and it was highly irregular that a conference of plenipotentiaries, at which the countries directly concerned were represented, should refer the question to the General Assembly. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that although his delegation was ready to accept the text of articles 35 to 38, as amended, it understood and shared the Yugoslav delegation's misgivings. In the case of poppy straw, for instance, some form of control had been accepted. But the French delegation would not press the point. It would simply make a suggestion on the question of reservations, to which the Peruvian representative had referred: as coca leaf chewing was a very old custom in certain countries and was therefore extremely hard to eradicate, article 56, paragraph 4 (e), which stipulated that it must cease "within twenty-five years", might make some reference to gradual eradication The situation should be reviewed from time to time, in order that the progress made could be judged. Mr. ISMAIL (United Arab Republic) agreed with the Yugoslav representative that it was time to establish some form of control over the coca leaf. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) also thought that the Conference should provide for control, in one form or another, and should not leave the matter to the General Assembly. With the consent of the countries directly concerned, the question might be referred back to the ad hoc committee, which could draft a revised provision. Mr. BANERJI (India) agreed that a decision on the coca leaf was overdue. The question had been under study for a long time and it would seem odd if an instrument such as the Single Convention contained no specific provision on the subject. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) said that the Conference should draft as complete a Convention as possible. The question of the coca bush had been studied for over ten years in consultation with the governments directly concerned. The draft Convention had been prepared by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, in which those countries were represented. The third draft provided for specific control of the coca leaf. Yet, instead of including the provisions proposed in the third draft, the ad hoc committee suggested that the question should be referred to the General Assembly. As the Yugoslav representative had said, the countries which the General Assembly would have to consult were present at the Conference and could be consulted without difficulty. The PRESIDENT proposed that the Conference should vote on the general principle laid down in the provisions which the ad hoc committee proposed in lieu of articles 36 and 37 of the third draft. If necessary, the Conference could then vote on the amendment suggested by the USSR and supported by several delegations. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) thought that, in the interests of clarity, the Conference should first vote on paragraph 2 — in other words, on the question whether provision for some form of control of the coca leaf should be included in the Convention or whether the question should be referred to the General Assembly. The PRESIDENT said that paragraphs 1 and 2 were interconnected: paragraph 1 provided that the parties should control the cultivation of the coca bush, without specifying how that was to be done, and paragraph 2 referred the question of international control to the General Assembly. They were therefore based on the same principle. He saw no reason, however, why they should not be voted on separately. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said he had merely wished to make it as clear as possible what the Conference was voting on. After the President's explanation, he agreed that the two paragraphs should be voted on together. The PRESIDENT put to the vote the general principle laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2. The result of the vote was 18 in favour and 15 against, with 13 abstentions. The principle was not adopted, having failed to obtain the two-thirds majority required by rule 38 of the rules of procedure. The PRESIDENT proposed that the Conference should request the ad hoc committee to prepare a redraft based on the provisions of articles 36 and 37 of the third draft. It was so agreed. Mr. BANERJI (India) agreed with the USSR representative that the provision should not give a list of countries. If the Conference endorsed that idea, the ad hoc committee should take it into account. The PRESIDENT put to the vote the USSR proposal that specific countries should not be listed. The proposal was adopted by 44 votes to 1, with 7 abstentions. Twenty-second plenary meeting — 21 February 1961 103 After some discussion concerning the membership of the ad hoc committee, the PRESIDENT suggested that the committee might be enlarged. It was so agreed. Article 38 (Special provisions relating to coca leaves in general) Mr. ISMAIL (United Arab Republic) thought that, in the third line of the ad hoc committee's proposed addition to article 38, paragraph 2, the adjective "medicinal" before "alkaloids" was superfluous. Cocaine and ecgonine, the only alkaloids extracted from the coca leaf, were always used for medical purposes. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) suggested that the word "drugs" should be used, instead of the new term "medicinal alkaloids". Mr. ISMAIL (United Arab Republic) pointed out that, since alkaloids were concerned, it would be better to keep the more precise term and simply to delete the adjective "medicinal". Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the proposed addition was obscure. The intention seemed to be to require separate statistics on coca leaves used only for the preparation of the flavouring agent and not for the production of alkaloids. If that was so, it should be more clearly stated. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) said that, since the same coca leaves were sometimes used both for the preparation of the flavouring agent and for the production of alkaloids, the additional phrase was meant simply to ensure that the same statistics were not submitted twice over. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that that idea was not clear from the text. Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) agreed that the purpose was to ensure that statistics were not submitted twice in respect of the same coca leaves. With reference to the adjective "medicinal", he pointed out that the term "alkaloid" was used without an adjective in paragraph 1; paragraph 2 could use the same wording, as the representative of the United Arab Republic had requested. The PRESIDENT suggested that the drafting Committee should be asked to improve the draft of article 38, as amended. It was so agreed. Article 47 (Treatment of drug addicts) The PRESIDENT invited debate on article 47 and on the amendment thereto submitted jointly by the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia and Indonesia (E/CONF.34/L.9). Mr. ELLENBOGEN (United States of America) stated that the United States delegation and its head, Mr. Anslinger, whose contribution to the fight against drug addiction was well known, unreservedly supported article 47 as proposed in the third draft of the Single Convention. The article was of the greatest importance; for many years the United States Government had been emphasizing the need for the treatment, care and rehabilitation of drug addicts. There were many specialists on the subject in the United States and they had learned from experience that those ends could be achieved only if drug addicts were confined in surroundings where they were progressively deprived of their drugs—in other words, in a closed institution. There was nothing punitive about a method of treatment which consisted in reducing the addict's opportunities for obtaining drugs. The isolation of susceptible persons from pathogenic agents was one of the most time-honoured practices in public health. Drug addiction was contagious in the sense that the addict tended to convert others to his morbid habit, and it was therefore essential in his case to use the recognized public health method of quarantine. Treatment in liberty had failed wherever it had been tried, and very few doctors who were drug addicts attempted to cure themselves; they entered an institution. Article 47 recognized that drug addicts should be treated in an environment free of drugs and under supervision; it created only a very limited obligation for States parties to the Convention. It did not compel them to treat all addicts in a closed institution and it applied only if drug addiction was a serious problem in the country concerned and if it had sufficient economic resources to be able to apply some to the treatment of drug addicts. Even if those two conditions were satisfied, article 47 imposed on the parties nothing more than an obligation to establish "facilities", without specifying their number or size. He hoped that the success achieved by treatment in closed institutions would encourage governments to increase the number and size of the facilities concerned, but that was left to their discretion. A multilateral treaty concerning the problem of narcotic drugs would be incomplete if it did not contain a provision imposing an obligation in respect of the treatment of drug addicts, and article 47 served that purpose. The United States delegation sincerely hoped that the article would be adopted as drafted. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that, despite its brevity and the apparent vagueness of its subject-matter, article 47 was one of the most important in the Convention. If there were no drug addiction, narcotics control would not be necessary, illicit traffic would not exist and there would scarcely be any reason for the historic Conference. Drug addiction took different forms in different countries. In Canada it took the form of addiction to heroin, the most vicious and most dangerous form. Those who had had occasion to observe the effects of that morbid habit on human behaviour could not but implore the opium-producing countries to seek, in the interests of mankind, to make the use of opium and its derivatives impossible except for medical and scientific purposes. In Canada there were about 3,000 heroin addicts. That was not a large number in relation to the total population, but the nature of the evil required stern measures until the symptoms had disappeared. The pro-104 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drags blem was regarded as a medical and a social one and it was felt that addicts should be treated in institutions where the withholding of drugs and the rehabilitation of the persons concerned could be properly ensured. Canada did not underestimate the difficulties of treatment. It was realized that an addict who had given up his morbid habit might easily resume it. No really effective treatment had been discovered as yet. On 24 January 1961, the Canadian Minister of National Health and Welfare had introduced a bill concerning illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and drug addiction. The bill provided for the establishment of institutions where special methods of treatment would be applied. Addicts found in possession of drugs could be sentenced to be detained for treatment, and later released with the approval of the National Parole Board and placed under special supervision for an indefinite period, on conditions prescribed by the Board. Drug addicts who had not been found in possession of drugs could be admitted for treatment under provincial laws. Under the Canadian Constitution, the treatment of illnesses not associated with crime was a matter for the provinces. The essential purpose of the bill submitted to Parliament was not to detain drug addicts, but to treat them by the most up-to-date methods in the hope that many of them could resume their places in society as useful citizens. It was to be hoped that an analgesic as effective as the drugs in current use but presenting no risk of addiction would one day be discovered, but in the meantime realities must be faced and the necessary measures taken. For that reason, article 47 was very important. Mr. SHADOURSKY (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) explained that the treatment of drug addicts was not a problem in Byelorussia, where there were very few. Measures had been taken with a view to caring for them in closed institutions and enabling them to resume an active life. Since the establishment of the Soviet system, the Byelorussian SSR had undergone vast social changes and there had been considerable development of health services, which were free. Moreover, there was no unemployment, and everyone was usefully occupied; no one feared losing his employment or having to bear heavy medical expenses in case of sickness. There was therefore nothing to serve as a source for a social evil such as drug addiction. Since 1913, despite the devastation suffered during the two world wars, the number of hospital beds, doctors and medical auxiliaries had increased by between 600 or 800 per cent; and that trend was continuing. Appropriations for health services in the 1961 budget were 12.4 per cent higher than in 1960. The Byelorussian delegation considered that article 47 should be strengthened and should include an obligation on States to raise the material and cultural level of living of their peoples and to develop their public health services. For that reason it was introducing the joint amendment (E/CONF.34/L.9). Mr. SAFWAT (Director-General of the Permanent Anti-Narcotics Bureau of the League of Arab States) said that drug addiction was still a serious problem in certain Arab countries, and particularly in the Egyptian province of the United Arab Republic and in Lebanon. In Syria and elsewhere there were very few drug addicts, and they were mostly foreign immigrants. The drug most heavily consumed in Egypt was hashish, and the number of addicts was growing constantly. The Egyptian authorities were seriously considering the foundation of a sanatorium, with a view to ascertaining the number of addicts and treating them. Their exact numbers were difficult to determine, since many escaped police supervision. Addiction to hashish developed in three stages. At first, a person began taking the drug under the influence of friends who were already using it and who extolled its alleged benefits. In the second stage it became a habit, and the duration of that stage depended on the state of health and nutrition of the person concerned. Sooner or later he reached the third stage, that of addiction, when he became a charge on his family and his country. At that stage the addict would not hesitate to commit a crime in order to obtain the money he needed for the satisfaction of his vice. In the first and second stages, the consumer of hashish could give up the drug for a short period, but the addict was quite unable to do so unless treated by up-to-date methods. The consumer of opium reached the stage of addiction rapidly and, like a person addicted to cocaine, heroin or morphine, ceased to be a normal human being. It was of the greatest importance that the Conference should endeavour to find a method and lay down permanent rules for determining the number of drug addicts as accurately as possible, especially since it was very difficult to distinguish between a consumer of hashish and a person addicted to that drug. The meeting rose at 1.5 p.m. TWENTY-THIRD PLENARY MEETING Monday, 27 February 1961, at 10.40 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Tribute to the Memory of H.M. King Mohammed V of Morocco Mr. FAHMI (United Arab Republic) expressed his government's sympathy with the people of Morocco in connexion with the death of H.M. King Mohammed V after a life dedicated to the independence and progress of his country and to the cause of world peace. On the proposal of the President, the members of the Conference stood in silence in memory of H.M. King Mohammed V. Twenty-third plenary meeting — 27 February 1961 105 Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l; E/CONF.34/L.9) (continued) Article 47 (Treatment of drug addicts) (continued) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to continue its debate on article 47 and on the amendment thereto submitted jointly by the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia and Indonesia (E/CONF.34/L.9). Mr. FAHMI (United Arab Republic) said that his government, which shared the views expressed at the preceding meeting by the representatives of the United States and Canada, was establishing a special sanatorium for the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts. The Narcotics Act, 1960, provided that no penalties would be imposed on an addict who requested treatment and that an addict who was arrested might be committed to the sanatorium for a period of not less than six months nor more than one year. The basic requirement for effective treatment was close supervision of the addict in a closed institution. Both the World Health Organization and the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs had recognized that addicts could be treated successfully only in hospitals under special conditions. Because of their overpowering desire to continue using drugs, they had to be placed in an environment where they could not obtain any form of narcotics and had to be supervised if they were to be successfully rehabilitated. The results achieved in the small number of countries which had established separate hospitals for the treatment of drug addicts should encourage other countries to follow their example. His delegation believed that article 47 was fully in accord with the recommendations of experts and the Commission and with the lessons of experience. Therefore, it strongly urged that the article should be retained as drafted. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) said that as, fortunately, the level of drug addiction was low in Greece, his comments would primarily be based on general considerations. In view of the very high cost of providing for the treatment of drug addicts in closed institutions, he suggested that a proviso might be added to article 47 to the effect that whenever the facilities for the treatment of drug addicts were inadequate, technical assistance might be provided with a view to their improvement; the United Nations could make a valuable contribution in that field. He also proposed that at the end of paragraph 1 the following sentence should be added: "The application of the provisions of this paragraph shall take into account the economic recources of the country concerned." Commenting on paragraph 2 he said that, naturally, the treatment of drug addicts in closed institutions presented many difficulties, for a large number of trained staff were required in relation to the number of addicts: many countries with a high incidence of drug addiction lacked the resources to provide that form of treatment. In that connexion, his delegation shared the views of the representatives of Austria, the United Kingdom and Iran recorded in footnote 47 to paragraph 2. Accordingly he proposed that the words "by efficient, scientific, special methods" be substituted for the words "in closed institutions". Mr. LIANG (China) said that drug addiction and the illicit traffic were so closely interlocked that it was difficult to determine which was the cause and which the effect. Chinese law provided for severe penalties for drug addiction; addicts were sentenced to imprisonment and were treated in closed institutions. His delegation favoured the retention of article 47 as drafted. U TIN MAUNG (Burma) wholly subscribed to the view that drug addiction, whatever its incidence, should always be considered a serious problem and should be attacked by both medical and educational methods. Every country, irrespective of its culture and civilization, was exposed to the danger. The Burmese Government, fully conscious of the threat which drug addiction had posed to the health and moral fibre of its people, particularly of the young, had decided in 1948 to ban all forms of opium consumption. In 1949, it had opened an observation clinic in the mental hospital at Tadagale, a suburb of Rangoon, in which opium addicts were kept under strict surveillance and fed on an ordinary diet. All opium addicts, except those not amenable to treatment, now received curative treatment in that clinic, from which they were discharged when the medical superintendent considered that the opium habit had been eradicated. In the case of hardened addicts who failed to respond to treatment, the medical superintendent issued certificates permitting them to purchase their minimum requirements of opium. Such certificates were renewable every six months; on applying for renewal, a certified addict was required to undergo further observation and, if necessary, curative treatment. The certificate was withdrawn if the addict failed to attend the clinic at the close of the six-month period. In the ten years that the clinic had been in operation, 2,764 addicts had been admitted, and 1,601 had been cured. The Blister method of treatment was used, but his government would undoubtedly wish to carry out experiments with other methods approved by WHO. As he had remarked at the third plenary meeting, Burma needed technical assistance from the specialized agencies in the field of treatment of drug addiction, as well as in narcotics control. His delegation also supported the principle that governments should use their best endeavours to rehabilitate drug addicts. Non-governmental or semi-governmental institutions and groups might be established to train addicts who had rid themselves of the narcotics habit for the resumption of normal life. Drug addiction should be universally recognized as a medical and psychological problem rather than a correctional problem. However, opinions differed as to the methods to be used in treating addicts and the possibility of curing addiction. One school of thought believed that the chances of curing and rehabilitating addicts were slim; another school considered that, while complete cure was impossible, addicts might once again become normal persons; and a third group was of the opinion that addicts should be registered and allowed government rations of narcotics according to need, the dose being gradually decreased to a minimum. In the fight of those conflicting opinions, 106 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs his delegation believed that, as the treatment of drug addicts involved medical responsibilities it would be unwise to preclude the possibility of exploring new curative methods and approaches. New procedures might be developed in future which would render the methods now employed in closed institutions obsolete. His delegation therefore considered that the term "closed institutions" in paragraph 2 was too restrictive and that the paragraph should be redrafted in the form of a recommendation. Article 47 as it stood was not acceptable to his delegation. Mr. BANERJI (India) wished to place on record his government's great admiration for the work done by the United States of America in the treatment of addicts. He entirely agreed with Judge Ellenbogen that article 47 was a fundamental provision. The Conference could not be content with taking the negative approach to the humanitarian and social problems of drug addiction that was reflected in the penal provisions of the Convention. In order to achieve its ultimate objective of preventing the social and economic incapacitation of individuals by the pernicious drug habit, the Convention should set out the measures that should be taken, first, to isolate the addict so that he would not corrupt others and, secondly, to provide for the cure of his addiction so that he might again become a useful member of society. His delegation found no difficulty in approving paragraph 1, which merely drew attention to the importance of providing facilities for treatment, care and rehabilitation. So far as paragraph 2 was concerned, his delegation had had doubts about the terms "compulsory treatment" and "closed institutions". However, as Judge Ellenbogen had explained, the paragraph contained qualifying phrases: the question whether drug addiction constituted a serious problem for a particular country would be a relative one, and each country would decide for itself whether it had such a problem. In India, the major health problems were malnutrition, tuberculosis and malaria; drug addiction was, relatively speaking, a less serious problem. According to the PCOB report for 1960, 0.37 kg of morphine, 2.34 kg of codeine and 0.35 kg of pethidine per million inhabitants had been consumed in India in 1958; the comparable figures for economically developed countries were far greater. Consequently, if it was understood that the effect of the initial clause of paragraph 2 was to permit each country to decide when it had a serious problem of drug addiction, his delegation's objections to that paragraph would be largely removed. The idea of compulsory treatment was excellent, and his government intended to apply it as soon as it was able. It could therefore accept paragraph 2 provided that it was clearly understood that countries would not be expected to do more than their economic resources, which in their own judgement could be set apart for the particular purpose, would permit. Like Burma, India had many different claims on its resources and had to decide to which to give priority. A start on the problem had already been made in India which, in view of the nature of the country and the size of its population, was far from discouraging. He agreed in principle that addicts should be treated in closed institutions, though not necessarily in special hospitals. A special ward in a general hospital would be sufficient. The meaning of the term "closed institutions" in paragraph 2 should be more fully defined in order to make that point clear. The article should be referred to an ad hoc committee for clarification. Mr. AZARAKHSH (Iran) said that article 47 as drafted was acceptable to his delegation. In his country, addicts were considered as sick persons in need of medical care. In many countries it was thought that drug addiction could be dealt with only by expensive long-term programmes, but that was not borne out by Iran's experience. Two of the three requirements for the eradication of drug addiction were, as his country's experience had proved over the last six years, to deprive the addicts of the drug and to educate the public to look upon addiction as a vice. Once that was done, the medical treatment of addicts became a simple matter. The Iranian campaign against opium smoking, based on those principles, was proving very successful, in spite of the fact that certain countries were still producing more opium than was required for licit uses. He strongly endorsed the comments made by the United States representative at the previous meeting regarding treatment in closed institutions, which he could confirm from his personal experience. The problem of drug addiction had two quite different aspects, depending on whether it was a traditional habit in the country concerned or a newly acquired vice. In Iran, where opium smoking had long been a custom, addiction was not linked with criminal behaviour and the addicts were not as a rule psychologically disturbed; hence, treatment was relatively easy and there were few relapses. However, drug addiction was a contagious habit and in countries where it was new, it was often associated with criminality. Addicts who wished to spread the drug habit were to be found in every country, however, and they were very different from the traditional opium smokers, for instance. Having tried first mass treatment in towns in combination with mobile clinics in the villages, then treatment in open medical institutions and dispensaries, Iran had reached the conclusion that the antisocial addict could be treated ^nly in closed institutions. Under Iranian law, addicts who presented themselves voluntarily at special treatment centres and offenders under sentence were treated at the government's expense. The necessary funds were obtained from the sales of confiscated opium and the fines paid by narcotics offenders. More than 150,000 addicts had been treated free of charge since 1955. However, if the drug habit was really to be eradicated, compulsory treatment was necessary. His country was working in that direction, but programmes of compulsory treatment were expensive and, furthermore, could not succeed unless parallel measures were taken to stop the illicit traffic. As long as certain countries held that international control infringed the sovereign rights of States, little progress would be made towards its suppression. Twenty-third plenary meeting — 27 February 1961 107 Turning to the joint amendment (E/CONF.34/L.9), he pointed out that governments did not need the excuse of drug addiction to undertake programmes of social betterment. Furthermore, bad economic, social and cultural conditions were the result, not the cause, of drug addiction. An addict who paid $40 for a gramme of heroin or $12 for ten grammes of opium from illicit traffickers doomed his family to proverty and ignorance. Moreover, the deterioration in his character produced by his addiction had repercussions on all the members of his family. A definite improvement in the living standards of former addicts had been noted in Iran. Raising the cultural level seemed unlikely to affect addiction either, for many addicts were to be found among doctors, writers and artists. Article 47 provided for the compulsory treatment of drug addicts. In Iran, it had been found that the number of addicts under treatment varied in accordance with the price of drugs on the illicit market. When the supply was small and the prices therefore high, there were more addicts in hospital than when prices were low. The primary condition for the eradication of drug addiction was therefore strict control of the illicit traffic by all States. Mr. PRAWIROSOEJANTO (Indonesia), speaking as one of the sponsors of the joint amendment, said that although drug addiction was not a problem in Indonesia, his delegation endorsed the principle that its social and economic causes should be eradicated. Mr. KENNEDY (New Zealand) said that, although his delegation supported the underlying principle of article 47, namely, that the drug addict should be cured and resume his normal participation in the life of society, it doubted whether direct reference to details of medical treatment should be made in the Convention. It also had some doubts about the text of the article as it stood. If the view of WHO that all drug addiction, whatever its incidence, was always a serious problem was accepted, as it was by New Zealand, the word "serious" might be deleted from paragraph 2. If that view were not accepted, more than half of the 108 countries mentioned in paragraphs 146 and 147 of the report of the fifteenth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (E/3385) would be considered as having no problem necessitating the provision of facilities for treatment. There also seemed to be varying views about the meaning of the term "drug addiction". In article 47 it was used to refer to addiction to any narcotic drug scheduled as such. Some delegations, notably those of the United States and Canada, had indicated that they were thinking mainly of addiction to heroin. The management of drug addiction was a highly complicated problem which could not be dealt with within the framework of an international agreement. It might be better not to attempt the impossible and therefore to delete paragraph 2. The whole question might subsequently be referred to WHO for a report on the medical management of drug addiction. At the same time, it should be recognized that it was a matter that should be left to the discretion of individual governments, which would take their decision in the light of the information available and with the advice of their own medical profession. Although he had suggested that paragraph 2 might be deleted, he supported its main idean — amely, the provision of facilities for compulsory treatment. In New Zealand, legislation to that effect had been in force for the last fifty years. He therefore agreed with the view expressed by the United Kingdom in footnote 47 to that it might be made the basis of a recommendation. In his country, it was planned to provide a procedure for the treatment of drug addicts identical with that proposed for psychopaths. In both cases, the treatment would be compulsory. The core of the issue was the provision of compulsory treatment, which should be appropriate to the case being treated. The reference to "closed institutions" in the article as drafted seemed unnecessary and undesirable. Although some psychiatric cases required treatment in closed institutions, the term evoked a long-past era when incarceration had been the only treatment for the mentally ill. He concurred in the view of WHO (E/CONF.34/9) that treatment should not necessarily and under all circumstances be in a closed institution. Some reference had been made to quarantine, but that concept was no longer so firmly held as in the past, even for the control of communicable diseases. He had already questioned the appropriateness of including provisions on medical treatment in the Convention, which was concerned with the control of the production, manufacture, distribution and supplies of scheduled narcotic drugs and with measures against illicit traffickers, who were criminals and not patients. The additional paragraph proposed in the joint amendment strengthened his contention that the article should be confined to paragraph 1. Drug addiction was only one of a vast range of diseases which emphasized the interrelationship between the state of a country's health and the level of its social and economic development. The basic principles of that relationship were expressed in the preamble to the Constitution of WHO. It seemed unnecessary to repeat them in the Convention, as they were better expressed and in greater detail in the WHO Constitution. He was therefore unable to support the amendment. Mr. Archibald JOHNSON (Liberia) said that he endorsed the moral principles underlying article 47 but was unable to accept the reference to the compulsory treatment of addicts in closed institutions at the end of paragraph 2. Although he sympathized with its motives, the provision as drafted would prove an obstacle to the ratification of the Convention by many States. The same principle would, however, be acceptable in the form of a recommendation. He supported the joint amendment, which recognized that social and economic factors were responsible for drug addiction. Mrs. VASILEVA (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) drew attention to the report of the thirteenth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (E/3133), which-said that the work of control should be directed primarily towards preventing the development of addiction by regulating the licit supply of dangerous drugs 108 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and by stamping out the illicit (para. 262). The report had emphasized that the problem comprised prevention not only by administrative means, but also by social measures and had gone on to state that treatment could not be limited to withdrawal of the drug, but had to include psychiatric treatment and physical and vocational rehabilitation. At its twelfth session, the Commission had been in favour of the treatment of addicts in closed institutions (E/3010/Rev.l, chapter IV). In the report of its thirteenth session, however, it was interesting to note that in Morocco, for instance, the government's compaign against addiction had been based on preventive measures and that the provision of a normal diet and a job often sufficed to prevent an addict from smoking (E/3133, para. 271). It was also noted that the reduction of illiteracy stood in direct relationship to decreasing addiction (E/3010/Rev.l, para. 238). At the twelfth session the Peruvian Minister of Health had indicated that addiction to coca leaf was due more to malnutrition than to vice (ibid., para. 317) and that the addiction rate fell with an improvement in nutrition. He had drawn attention to the various economic and social problems calling for solution particularly in the fields of education and communications. It had similarly been stated that, in Mexico, addiction was encountered among the very poor and particularly among the illiterate. The representative of Bolivia had also told the Conference that malnutrition was a contributing factor to coca-chewing. Under the Constitution of the USSR, all citizens were guaranteed the right to education, to work, and to pensions and free medical services. There was therefore no problem of addiction in that country. In view of the importance of those economic and social considerations, the Soviet delegation considered it essential that a paragraph should be added to article 47 on the lines proposed in the joint amendment. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that article 47 embodied the generally accepted principle that the treatment of addicts should be designed to restore them to normal social life. However, there was not the same general agreement concerning the methods of treatment to be applied. The Brazilian delegation therefore respected the views of those who objected to the provision for treatment in closed institutions or who considered that the method of treatment should be left to the discretion of national authorities. In Brazil, addicts were required to be treated either in public institutions or in private institutions subject to public inspection. Treatment in the home was not allowed in any circumstances. According to the latest Brazilian census, taken in 1959, there were thirty such institutions in the country for the treatment of drug addicts, most of whom were addicted to cannabis. Since some countries with a large number of addicts and inadequate financial resources might well find it very difficult to treat cases in closed institutions, the enforcement of the provisions of article 47, paragraph 2, would have to be conditional on the economic and technical resources of the individual parties. Thus Brazil would be prepared either to accept the article as it stood or agree to the provision being included in the form of a recommendation. Mr. CERNIK (Czechoslovakia) said that his country had practically no problem of addiction, but that it was aware that .the treatment of addicts presented a very important social problem, on whose solution not only the fate of drug addicts depended but also the success of eradicating the danger in the future. While the Czechoslovak delegation considered that provisions concerning medical treatment should be included in the Convention, it did not believe that such provisions were adequate to achieve the aims of the Convention, which were the elimination of the dangers of narcotic drugs and the eradication of their use. Since a social problem was primarily involved, even the best medical treatment could not eliminate addiction. That purpose could be achieved only by effective preventive care combined with educational, cultural and economic measures in addition to medical treatment. In the view of the Czechoslovak delegation, the most suitable methods of eradicating the use of narcotic drugs were to raise the material and cultural standards of the population, to guarantee the right to work, leisure and care in old age and sickness, and to provide good facilities for medical treatment and general education. Systematic health education was also important. In the belief that the need for such measures should be reflected in the Single Convention, Czechoslovakia had become a sponsor of the joint amendment. Mr. ESPINOSA (Philippines) said that although drug addiction was not a serious problem in his country, in the interests of international co-operation his delegation would state its views on the subject. The dangers of addiction were well known and, apart from the moral and physical degradation it entailed, addiction also had far-reaching social and economic consequences which were causing increasing concern to governments. Moreover, addiction was always a problem, whatever its incidence. While it was desirable to provide for compulsory treatment, however, the Philippines agreed with the view expressed by WHO that treatment did not always have be provided in closed institutions. It might be advisable therefore to redraft article 47 to include a recommendation to the effect that the parties should establish conditions for treatment in a drug-free environment in hospitals. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) said that he was in favour of the inclusion of article 47 in the Convention, which should contain a statement that treatment should be provided for drug addicts. There were, however, different opinions about the best methods of treatment. In that connexion, he endorsed the views expressed by the Indian representative concerning the difficulties with which under-developed countries were faced in deciding on priorities for the use of their resources. Whether an under-developed country could provide facilities for the treatment of drug addicts in closed institutions would depend on its resources. If the Convention was to contain an article regarding compulsory treatment, it should also include a recommendation regarding Twenty-third plenary meeting — 27 February 1961 109 the provision of technical assistance to the underdeveloped countries for the setting up of the necessary institutions and facilities. He therefore supported the Greek representative's proposal. Some countries had expressed doubts about the inclusion of the last part of paragraph 2, relating to compulsory treatment of drug addicts in closed institutions. He could see no objection to it, for countries were invited to take such measures only if they had a serious problem of drug addiction and if their economic resources permitted it. It went without saying that, if a country had the necessary resources, it would be only too anxious to institute programmes for the well-being of its population, whether their object was the eradication of drug addiction or economic and social development. He therefore supported the joint amendment, the principles of which were entirely acceptable to his delegation. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) considered that paragraph 2 of article 47 should be in the form of a recommendation and should not impose a formal obligation. Addiction was not widespread in the Netherlands. Nevertheless, his delegation took the view that addiction was always a serious matter. Compulsory treatment was probably one of the best existing methods of dealing with addiction, but better methods of treatment might be devised in the future; it was, therefore, inadvisable to make the provision compulsory. The Netherlands delegation also had some difficulty in accepting the provision regarding closed institutions. While some delegations might interpret the term to mean a special ward in a normal hospital, the Netherlands was inclined to interpret it to mean an institution more in the nature of a prison. Accordingly, he considered that a formal obligation to provide treatment in such institutions would only hamper medical progress. Since article 47 as a whole dealt with the main problem confronting the Conference, it required very careful attention. If it was drafted in the form of a recommendation, no doubt all countries would do their best to comply with it. While agreeing that an improvement in the economic and social conditions of a country would have a considerable influence on the addiction rate, he considered that the provision contained in the joint amendment lay outside the scope of the Convention. Mr. MEASKETH (Cambodia) said that the provision regarding the compulsory treatment of addicts in closed institutions should be in the form of a recommendation, thus leaving governments free to decide what form of treatment was most appropriate to their specific needs. Closed institutions might be expensive and a special ward in a general hospital might be a more appropriate solution. Only governments could know what was the situation in their own country and what resources were available for any measures that were required: the decision should therefore be left to their discretion. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) said that no sincere humanitarian could fail to agree with the provisions of article 47 concerning the treatment of addicts. However, a number of newly independent countries were already facing considerable difficulties in their efforts to eradicate diseases such as leprosy, tuberculosis and bilharziasis which were even more serious than addiction. Moreover, some methods were not suitable for use in all countries. Ghana, for instance, could not afford to treat addicts according to the methods used, say, in the United States. It would have to give considerable thought to the question of compulsory treatment in closed institutions for it might not have sufficient medical personnel to deal with cases, even if it could build the hospitals. At the moment, Ghana had only 400 to 500 doctors for a population of 7 million. It only had facilities for imprisoning persons engaged in the illicit traffic and for providing medical care for addicts. In view, therefore, of the difficulties facing a number of countries, it might be preferable merely to recommend provision for compulsory treatment and to delete the reference to treatment in closed institutions. Ghana agreed whole-heartedly with the joint amendment. Mr. TADOTA (Japan) said that his delegation agreed with the general principle embodied in article 47. It had some doubts, however, as to the desirability of confining addicts to closed institutions. While Japan favoured the establishment of hospitals and institutions for the treatment of drug addicts, and proposed to make every effort in that direction, it saw no reason why open hospitals could not serve the purpose as well as closed institutions. It therefore favoured the deletion of the words "in closed institutions". Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) pointed out that it was very difficult to embody, in two short paragraphs, the essential requirements for dealing with such a difficult problem as the treatment of addicts, especially in a convention designed to cover a large number of countries with different conditions. In a debate on the complex question of treatment, it should be borne in mind that the outstanding requirements were aftercare and rehabilitation. If successful, rehabilitation played a considerable part in prevention proper, and it was essential clearly to emphasize the need for it. Moreover, rehabilitation presented far greater difficulties than the first stage of treatment, which was withdrawal. A number of delegations had referred to WHO's comment that, while it was desirable to make treatment compulsory, treatment need not always be provided in a closed institution. It should perhaps be added that a drug-free environment was the sine qua non of successful treatment. Since the term "drug-free environment" comprised closed institutions, that wording might be considered as a basis for redrafting the provisions of article 47, paragraph 2. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary) said that, according to the secretariat's interpretation of the draft, paragraph 2 of article 47 was in effect a recommendation which did not impose a binding obligation on all the parties. The paragraph dealt with the establishment of facilities for that type of treatment in the case of addicts who needed it, and applied only to countries which had the means and a serious problem of addiction. A party would remain free to treat some addicts, such 110 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as opium smokers, outside closed institutions in accordance with the principles laid down by medical science. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that, although France had no serious problem of drug addiction, it was anxious to co-operate with other countries in finding an acceptable text for article 47. In any event, even if the article was not of particular importance for France at the moment, no one could tell whether drug addiction might not become a problem there in the future, as drug addicts were driven by their vice to spread the habit or to become drug pedlars in order to obtain supplies. It was difficult to lay down methods of treatment, for drug addiction took many different forms. In any event, treatment was only part of the solution; prevention was equally important. The preventive aspect was stressed in the joint amendment, which certainly had its place in the Convention. He thought, however, that the idea should be mentioned in the preamble rather than in article 47. He sympathized with the difficulties mentioned by some delegations in connexion with paragraph 2 of the article. He had no strong feelings about it and would accept whatever text would make the article acceptable to the majority. Mr. KROOK (Sweden) said that drug addiction had not been a serious problem in Sweden, although there were a number of addicts in the country. In 1955, an investigation had been conducted in the course of which 150 cases had been reported. At the moment there were about 1,000 addicts in a total population of 8 million. A great deal of the abuse, however, related to amphetamins and also, in recent years, to some new stimulants which were also under narcotics control. The import and manufacture of heroin were prohibited and there were no heroin addicts in Sweden. The drugs sold in the illicit traffic were drugs intended for legal purposes and stolen from pharmacies. There were only a few cases of smuggling. The control of prescriptions had recently been tightened, addicts were registered and special narcotics departments had been set up by the police. Experience in the treatment of alcoholics and drug addicts had shown that addiction was a disease and that it required medical treatment which, in principle, should be voluntary so that the maximum number of patients would seek help. Compulsory treatment should be restricted to special cases. His delegation considered that treatment should be provided in appropriate institutions, but not necessarily in closed ones, though it agreed that treatment should take place in a drug-free environment. It was planned in Sweden to establish a hospital exclusively for the treatment of alcoholics and drug addicts. Since there were differences of opinion as to methods of treatment, it might be preferable to leave countries free to choose whatever methods their medical authorities considered most suitable. The words "compulsory treatment in closed institutions" in paragraph 2 of article 47 might therefore be replaced by the words "adequate treatment". Mr. BOGOMOLETS (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) considered that the Convention should contain provisions and recommendations aimed at combating addiction. It should contain recommendations for putting an end to the illicit traffic and should deal with the control of addiction and the treatment of addicts, and it should provide for measures which would diminish the craving of addicts for drugs. Social and economic factors were extremely important in that connexion. While, in principle, his delegation was in favour of the provisions of article 47, it considered them incomplete. Believing that the Convention should recommend the parties to take the necessary social and economic measures, his delegation supported the joint amendment. The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m. TWENTY-FOURTH PLENARY MEETING Monday, 27 February 1961, at 3.5p.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l) ( continued) Article 47 (Treatment of drug addicts) (continued) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to continue its debate on article 47 and on the amendment thereto (E/CONF.34/L.9). Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) noted that a number of delegations interpreted article 47 differently from the United States delegation. From its fifty years of experience with the treatment of drug addicts and their social rehabilitation, the United States had learned that the most effective method was compulsory treatment in closed institutions. The institution did not necessarily have to be a penal institution; it might be a special section of a hospital. What was important, however, was that the drug addict should be unable to procure drugs and that he should be surrounded by a competent staff able to treat him. It had been said that article 47, paragraph 2, would be more readily acceptable if it was in the form of a recommendation; in fact, as drafted it was a recommendation. The provisions of that paragraph would, after all, apply only if drug addiction posed a serious problem and if a country's economic resources were sufficient, and even in those circumstances, States were merely asked to "use their best endeavours to establish facilities". However, if it was considered desirable to insert the words "recommendation", his delegation would have no objection, provided that the principle was admitted. That did not in any way mean ruling out methods other than treatment in closed institutions, but it was simply an acknowledgement that such treatment was the most effective at the moment. If through Twenty-fourth plenary meeting — 27 February 1961 111 research better methods were discovered, the United States would welcome them. As for the amendment, he said the first line was incorrect, because the measures referred to did not constitute the "most important prerequisite" for eradicating drug addiction. The amendment was based on a certain political philosophy which advocated socialized medicine. Medical associations in the United States were opposed to socialized medicine, and if provisions capable of being interpreted as advocating socialized medicine were inserted in the Convention, the United States would have difficulty in ratifying it. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that, as had been pointed out before, drug addiction took a variety of forms according to the drug involved and the part of the world in which it was used. Methods of treatment might therefore also vary. It had been said that article 47, paragraph 2, as it stood was in the form of a recommendation. While it was true that the paragraph did not impose an obligation, it did make a recommendation of a rather special kind because of the use of the word "shall", which was somewhat unusual for a recommendation. While the parties were called upon only to "use their best endeavours to establish facilities", they would not do so except with a view to treatment. His delegation did not think that the Convention should prescribe any particular method of treatment. It was for each country to decide what treatment would be most effective in the circumstances. He would therefore prefer a more general formula in paragraph 2, such as "adequate facilities for effective treatment of drug addicts". If it was thought that special mention should be made of compulsory treatment in closed institutions, which was certainly desirable in certain cases, that could be done in a resolution which would appear in the Final Act. The Single Convention was intended to be a lasting instrument; it could hardly recommend methods which, even if they were the best at the moment, might not continue to be the best in the more or less distant future. The amendment to article 47 was unacceptable because it was incomplete; it mentioned only one cause of drug addiction. The statement made by the United Kingdom representative in the course of the fifteenth session of Commission on Narcotic Drugs in 1960 to the effect that poverty was often a cause of drug addiction (E/3385, para. 172) should not be taken out of context. The United Kingdom representative had been speaking of the situation in the Far East and not of drug addiction in general. In the economically developed countries, there were a great many drug addicts in the medical profession. Moreover, WHO was hoping before long to undertake a study on the prevention of drug addiction, as the present state of knowledge was inadequate for determining the exact causes of the evil. The amendment was in any case too wide; it was not applicable only to drug addiction and would be out of place in the Convention. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) also thought that article 47, paragraph 2, should be in the nature of a recommendation. Once States accepted the principle that drug addicts should be treated, they could be depended upon to adopt the measures which they considered most likely to ensure a recovery. As some representatives had pointed out, it was not always necessary that treatment should be given in closed institutions. Moreover, even if such treatment was for the time being the best in certain cases, the situation might change. Just as some diseases which had formerly required long treatment were now quickly cured by a few injections, it might be hoped that, before the Single Convention ceased to be operative, new and more rapid means of treatment would have been discovered which would make the measures provided for in paragraph 2 obsolete. A more general formula would therefore be preferable. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) said that the only form of drug addiction which existed in Mexico was the smoking of marijuana (cannabis) and that the habit existed only among certain small groups of the population, particularly in large towns. Poverty was not the only cause, as was demonstrated by the fact that poor people jn rural areas, for example, seldom indulged in it. The drug addict, like the alcoholic, was regarded not as an offender, but as a sick person who should receive special treatment. It was thought that he should be isolated until his recovery in an environment where he would be unable to procure drugs, and an effort was also made to rehabilitate him in his family and social environment by psychological treatment. Attempts were also made to eradicate the causes of drug addiction. For those varying reasons, his delegation was in favour of article 47 as drafted. The reason was not that Mexico had no serious problem in that regard—Mexico had always been willing to co-operate with countries where the problem arose—but that, as had been said, the provisions of the article were sufficiently flexible and imposed no obligations on the countries concerned. The only obligations laid upon the States parties were, under paragraph 1, to give attention to the provision of facilities for the treatment of drug addicts and, under paragraph 2, to use "their best endeavours" to establish facilities for treatment in closed institutions, in cases where drug addiction constituted a serious problem and where the country possessed the necessary economic resources. Nevertheless, if it was considered desirable to mention the word "recommendation" explicitly in that paragraph, his delegation would have no objection even though regarding it as unnecessary. Mexico had no objection to the principle of the joint amendment. There could be no doubt that all countries wished to improve the economic and social well-being of their people, raise their cultural level and expand medical services, and that they were working constantly towards that end. The amendment, however, involved a general principle which was out of place in a convention concerned specifically with narcotic drugs. A provision of that kind might, if absolutely necessary, be included in the preamble or, perhaps even better, in an instrument concerned with economic or social matters. 112 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) also thought that paragraph 2 was merely in the nature of a recommendation, since States were only called upon to "use their best endeavours". Reverting to the amendment submitted by Greece at the previous meeting, he said that in view of the discussion which had taken place, it would doubtless be best to adopt a compromise solution. He suggested that at the end of paragraph 2 the words "and by efficient special scientific methods" should be added. Without excluding other possible methods, treatment in closed institutions was, as the United States representative had said, the best at the moment. It would thus be mentioned first as the one to be preferred. A country unable to provide it would at least be morally obliged to use efficient scientific methods. Mr. VERTES (Hungary) said that drug addiction was rare in Hungary and the addicts were mainly persons who had received prolonged drug therapy. The Government was nevertheless interested in the problem because of its serious social implications. The Hungarian delegation therefore approved the terms of article 47 but thought that the new paragraph contained in the joint amendment and stressing the preventive aspect should be added. In countries where drug addiction was widespread, it mainly affected three groups: firstly, the medical and related professions; young medical students should therefore be taught more about the dangers of drugs. It was noteworthy in that connexion that addiction was rare among pharmacists, despite the fact that they were in direct contact with drugs. The second group affected comprised the leisured classes, who found in it an additional source of pleasure. In their case, too, suitable publicity could have a salutary effect. The third group comprised the poorer classes, for whom drugs represented an alleviation of misery. In all three cases, the value of preventive measures was beyond doubt. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) reiterated that his government also regarded compulsory treatment in a closed institution as the best at the moment. It was, admittedly, unforeseeable what the future would bring, and the door to new discoveries should not be closed, but at the same time one had to be realistic. Paragraph 2 in no way prevented countries from undertaking research in order to develop new methods. While it was true that the causes and effects of drug addiction varied from country to country and that the situation in North America was different from that in other parts of the world, article 47 as drafted was flexible enough to allow for that. If, however, a better wording could be found that did not weaken the fundamental idea expressed in the article, he was ready to consider it. As to the amendment, he shared the views of the United Kingdom representative. The measures referred to in it were not the "most important prerequisite" in the fight against drug addiction. In Canada, for example, where economic well-being was comparable with that of any other country, such a situation had not prevented the evil from spreading. In the same way, the cultural level was not a factor in the problem as it occurred in North America. As to medical services, those were highly satisfactory in Canada, where there were 11.1 hospital beds and one physician per 1,000 inhabitants and where national hospital care was widespread and continually growing. In so far as the amendment implied that medicine should be socialized, he said the Conference should not introduce into the Convention provisions which might create constitutional difficulties and so prevent States from ratifying the instrument. Drug addiction was unrelated to the factors mentioned in the amendment. Although he had full sympathy with the objectives stated in the amendment, they had no place in the article. If they were to be mentioned at all in the Convention, the only suitable place was the preamble. In view of the nature of the instrument, however, he doubted whether even that would be appropriate. In Canada drug addiction was a penal offence, and in his opinion strict enforcement measures were among the most effective means of fighting that evil. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) supported the general principle laid down in article 47. A complete absence of drug addiction, which would make an article of that nature superfluous, would doubtless be the ideal situation, but unfortunately under existing conditions such a provision was essential in an instrument on narcotic drugs. In Denmark, drug addiction did not come under the penal laws, but was a matter for the medical services, which treated the patients and endeavoured to readapt them to life in society. As compulsory treatment in a closed institution was regarded as the last resort, the Danish delegation would find it difficult to accept the somewhat categorical provisions of paragraph 2, even though they were clearly in the nature of a recommendation only. What was the most suitable treatment for each specific case was a question for the physicians of each country. A formula along the lines of that suggested by the representative of the United Kingdom was therefore to be preferred. If it was desired to draw special attention to the possibility of treatment in a closed institution, the right means would be a resolution in the Final Act. As to the amendment, he said that the concern which ir reflected was certainly shared by all States. However, a provision of that kind would be out of place in the Convention, for, as the representative of Canada had said, there was no obvious relationship between drug addiction and the economic level of a country. The Danish delegation was therefore unable to support the amendment and would vote against it. Mr. RODRIGUEZ FABREGAT (Uruguay) said that the treatment of drug addicts was of such social importance that some provision on the lines of article 47, paragraph 1, was essential. While drug addiction was not a problem in Uruguay, the statements of some of the representatives on its causes and origins showed that it might become one. The fight against drug addiction should be based on humanitarian considerations. Twenty-fourth plenary meeting — 27 February 1961 113 He was glad to say that a Uruguayan scientist had just discovered a product which could be used against cancer and which, because it was not habit-forming, would represent a magnificent contribution to improving the well-being of mankind. Article 47, paragraph 1, merely gave official sanction to what many States had already undertaken. The Uruguayan delegation was of the opinion that drug addiction should be considered from the medical, rather than the penal point of view. The individual's economic status was of little importance in that regard: addicts were found in all classes of society. The State should therefore protect its citizens through curative and preventative measures. Whether or not paragraph 1 took the form of a recommendation was immaterial. A recommendation in any case implied an obligation because the principles mentioned were universally recognized as valid. As to paragraph 2, he said it was dangerous to lay down so many conditions. Besides, the Conference was not asked to indicate the method of treating drug addicts, as modern techniques were being improved every day. The choice of treatment could thus be left to the specialists. The joint amendment merely listed the objectives at which all States were aiming. In Uruguay, all levels of education were free, and, in addition, primary education was compulsory. Medical services were accessible to all. The principles contained in the amendment were thus already being put into practice in Uruguay. However, since they stated that the individual was entitled to better living conditions, education and other basic human rights, it would be as well to include them in the Convention, whether in article 47 or elsewhere. Mr. ESTRELLA (Peru) said that paragraph 2 was restrictive and that it would be better to adopt a wording which was not as likely to become out-dated by scientific progress. As to the amendment, he said it was so general that it might more suitably be placed in the Convention's preamble. Mr. BANERJI (India) conceded the value of the principles underlying the amendment now before the Conference but thought that it would be out of place in the Convention, to which it added nothing. Nor for that matter was he convinced that higher levels of living necessarily meant less addiction. It had been found that the use of tranquillizers and barbiturates was more widespread in the highly developed countries, where people had more money and were under greater strains than in the less developed countries. His delegation could not therefore see the usefulness of adding a provision of that kind to the Convention. Mr. SOSA (Panama) said that he was prepared to support article 47 as it stood. Paragraph 1 could not give rise to any objections, and paragraph 2 implied no obligation, since the measures it advocated were subject to certain conditions. He saw no objection to having it put in the form of a recommendation. Mr. LIMB (Korea) said that the principle underlying article 47 was entirely acceptable to his government, as it was consistent with the law of 1957 on the control of narcotic drugs, which provided for the compulsory treatment of drug addicts in closed institutions. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that his delegation was in agreement with the broad principle contained in the amendment that States should improve the economic and social well-being of their peoples, in order to raise their cultural level and improve their health and sanitary conditions; he could not see how anybody could quarrel with that idea. He did not consider that there was a strict consequential relation of cause and. effect, with the implication that the bettering of standards of living would automatically bring about a solution for drug addiction. He considered the amendment dealt only with one aspect of the question, since there were also large numbers of drug addicts among the wealthier educated classes of society. He suggested that that wide statement of principles should rather be included in the Final Act than in the Convention. Article 47, furthermore, dealt with treatment, whereas the amendment concerned prevention. Miss HARELI (Israel) observed that the treatment of addicts was as important as the fight against abuse and illicit traffic. Nevertheless, article 47 should be worded more flexibly in order to allow for the different situations prevailing in the various countries and also for eventual scientific progress. It should, moreover, be worded as a recommendation. Mr. SHADOURSKY (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that the amendment should be regarded as a recommendation and not as a proposal which would oblige governments to alter their medical services. If the Convention was to remain valid for a number of years, it should cover not only treatment, but also prevention. Dr. MABILEAU (France) drew attention to the value of education, in the broadest sense of the word, in the prevention of drug addiction. The danger was not confined to the less educated; it was not so much a question of the level of education as of ignorance of what was involved. The Hungarian representative had quite rightly pointed out that there were more addicts among physicians than among pharmacists; the reason was that training in pharmacy entailed a thorough knowledge of all types of narcotic drugs. At the same time, an increase in addiction had been noted in countries where mild forms of synthetic narcotics were sold. He suggested that the preamble of the Convention should contain a warning against ignorance on the subject. The PRESIDENT proposed that the French representative's suggestion should be referred to the drafting committee. It was so agreed. The PRESIDENT put the joint amendment (E/CONF. 34/L.9) to the vote. The amendment was rejected by 23 votes to 17, with 7 abstentions. 114 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs The PRESIDENT put to the vote the proposal of the representative of Ghana that paragraph 1 should be in the form of a recommendation. The proposal was rejected by 15 votes to 2, with 28 abstentions. The PRESIDENT put to the vote the proposal of the representative of Burma that paragraph 2 should be in the form of a recommendation. The proposal was adopted by 29 votes to 8, with 11 abstentions. The PRESIDENT put to the vote the proposal of the representative of Sweden that the last part of paragraph 2 should be replaced by the words ".. . best endeavours to establish adequate facilities for the effective treatment of drug addicts." The proposal was adopted by 34 votes to 7, with 6 abstentions. The PRESIDENT suggested that article 47, as amended, should be referred to the drafting committee. It was so agreed. Article 12 (Secretariat of the Commission) Article 24 (Administrative services of the Board) (resumed from the 21st plenary meeting) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to continue the debate on articles 12 and 24. He drew attention to two amendments which had been submitted: one sponsored by Afghanistan, Brazil, Denmark and the United States of America (E/CONF. 34/L. 10) and the other by France and India (E/CONF.34/L.16). The comments of the Advisory Committee on the administrative arrangements under the Single Convention were before the Conference (A/4603, transmitted by E/CONF.34/7 and Corr. 1), as were those of the PCOB and DSB (E/CONF. 34/8) and the verbatim text of the statement made by the President of the PCOB at the 17th plenary meeting (E/CONF.34/L.11). Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan) said that there were five main reasons why the administrative functions of the proposed Commission and Control Board should be performed by a single secretariat. First, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions had concluded, after a thorough study of the question, that it would be best to merge the secretariats of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the new Control Board within the Division of Narcotic Drugs. Also the fact that the Advisory Committee's conclusions had been unanimously endorsed by the General Assembly meant approval by the governments taking part in the Conference. Secondly, the Secretary-General's survey group which had reviewed the organization of the secretariat (paragraph 74 of its report, cited in A/4603, para. 10). Thirdly, the PCOB and DSB could, from the technical and legal points of view, be regarded as organs of the United Nations, and their secretariats should accordingly be furnished by the Secretary-General in consideration not only of the consistency which marked United Nations administrative activities but also of budgetary requirements. Fourthly, it was undesirable to have a complicated apparatus which would involve duplication of effort and create complications for the parties to the various conventions. Fifthly, even if the Conference decided to give the Control Board a separate secretariat to preserve its independence, the staff of both secretariats would have to be provided by the Secretary-General and would be governed by the same regulations as other staff of the United Nations Secretariat, since under the terms of article 6 of the draft Single Convention the expenses of the secretariat would be borne by the United Nations. As the Executive Secretary had said, the circumstances which had led to the inclusion in the 1925 Convention of certain articles relating to a separate and independent secretariat no longer existed. Moreover, it was very unlikely that the sanctions provided for in the 1925 Convention would ever have to be imposed or that the Permanent Central Opium Board and its secretariat would consequently be called upon to exercise their judicial powers. The United Nations Office of Legal Affairs was well equipped for meeting such a contingency. For all those reasons his delegation had decided with certain others to submit an amendment (E/CONF. 34/L. 10) to articles 12 and 24 of the draft Single Convention. His delegation could not support the amendment of France and India to article 24 (E/CONF.34/L.16). The two paragraphs of that amendment contradicted each other since they stated that the secretariat of the Control Board would be provided by the SecretaryGeneral, but would be responsible solely to the Board. Furthermore, the second paragraph implied that there would be two secretariats, one for the Board and the other for the Commission, Mr. EVANS (United States of America) said that as one of the sponsors of the amendment submitted by the representative of Afghanistan, he also believed that it was preferable to have a single secretariat. That arrangement would permit of greater flexibility to the extent to which special services might be provided by the United Nations Secretariat. Mr. KENNEDY (New Zealand) said that his delegation had voted in favour of resolution 1587 (XV) in which the General Assembly had approved the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. He did not think that the decision of the General Assembly should be modified. The independence of the Control Board would in no way be jeopardized by the existence of a single secretariat within the Division of Narcotic Drugs, for the activities of the Board would depend on the resolutions adopted by its members. Furthermore, a single secretariat would make it possible to avoid duplication and to make use of the legal services of the United Nations Secretariat. His delegation was therefore in favour of a single secretariat and consequently of the amendment submitted by Afghanistan and other delegations. It could not support the amendment submitted by the French and Indian delegations, because that amendment would prevent the unification of the two secretariats. Twenty-fourth plenary meeting — 27 February 1961 115 Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that the amendment which France had submitted jointly with India was only a compromise proposal intended to take into account the complexity of the problem as explained by the President of the PCOB in his statement. In that connexion it was noteworthy that the General Assembly had not taken a decision in favour of a single secretariat; it had only requested the Conference to study the report of the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee had itself considered a compromise solution, for paragraph 16 of its report said that if a separate secretariat was envisaged for the Control Board, provision should be made for the Secretary-General to nominate and subsequently appoint the secretary and staff of the Board, subject to approval by the latter, in lieu of nomination by the Board and appointment by the Secretary-General. That was the compromise solution put forward in the amendment submitted by India and France, which provided for the appointment of the secretariat of the Board by the Secretary-General after consultation with the Board. There would therefore not be two secretariats in the organic sense, but a functional separation so that if the independence of the Commission and the Board were accepted, the secretariat officials would be responsible not in every part of their working life, but only in their technical duties to one single authority. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that from the viewpoint of sound administration the principle of double secretariats was questionable and that it was preferable to have only one secretariat. He recalled that the first draft of the Single Convention had provided for a single secretariat, forming an integral part of the United Nations Secretariat; and that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs at its fourth session had accepted the Secretariat's views that that would be a sound arrangement administratively and would simplify the tasks of governments in the matter of communication with the control bodies (E/1361, section 12, p. 30). He sustained the principle that the United Nations Secretariat was a unified independent and objective organ. His delegation had voted in favor of General Assembly resolution 1587 (XV). The historical reasons which favoured separate secretariats for PCOB and DSB and for the Commission had very limited application to the present problem. There was, moreover, no reason to fear that a single secretariat might endanger the independence of the Control Board, which was amply provided for by other provisions of the Convention. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that his delegation had voted in favour of General Assembly resolution 1587 (XV). In his view, however, the amendment which he had submitted jointly with the representative of France was not in any way inconsistent with the General Assembly decision or with the concept of a single secretariat. The amendment was not, in fact, essentially different from that sponsored by Afghanistan; it was mainly in their wording that the two differed. The second paragraph of the amendment sponsored by France and India was indeed only expressing an obvious truth. It followed naturally that the secretariat of the Board, being appointed by the Secretary-General, should be responsible to him from the administrative point of view, but as that secretariat was placed at the disposal of the Board, it had to be responsible to the Board in technical matters. Technical authority and administrative authority were quite distinct. Moreover, although consultation of the kind referred to in the amendment of France and India was current practice, it was preferable to make specific provision for it. His delegation was prepared in that regard to consider a redraft of its proposal on condition that there was no doubt that the Secretary-General would consult the Board before appointing its secretariat. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) said that he was in favour of the four-power amendment since it was customary to leave the Secretary-General considerable latitude in matters concerning the secretariat. The amendment of France and India would on the contrary have the effect of unduly restricting the freedom of action of the Secretary-General who, if he saw fit, could always establish a special procedure for the secretariat of the Control Board. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that the two main reasons given for the establishment of a single secretariat were not well founded. A single secretariat would not be more economical, since the existing staff serving specifically the PCOB would be entitled to an indemnity. Efficiency could scarcely be increased, since the DSB and PCOB secretariats had always given complete satisfaction to the parties. His delegation was therefore in favour of two separate secretariats. It found the two-power amendment satisfactory on the whole, but would prefer the words "after consultation with the Board" to be replaced by the words "subject to the agreement of the Board", since it was essential that there should be perfect harmony between the Board and its secretariat. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that he was in favour of a single secretariat. While harmony was indeed necessary between the Board and its secretariat, the procedure envisaged in the two-power amendment was not satisfactory, since it might lead to a conflict of authority between the Board and the SecretaryGeneral. The independence of the Board would be safeguarded by the fact that its secretariat would be a separate entity within the United Nations Secretariat to the extent that important functions would be assigned to it. Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan) said that the Advisory Committee, contrary to the impression given by the representative of France, had expressed a clear preference for a single secretariat in paragraph 17 of its report. As the representative of India had declared his readiness to accept drafting changes in his amendment, it was to be hoped that an agreed text could be worked out. The meeting rose at 6 p.m. 116 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs TWENTY-FIFTH PLENARY MEETING Tuesday, 28 February 1961, at 11.05 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l) (continued) Article 12 (Secretariat of the Commission) (continued) Article 24 (Administrative services of the Board) (continued) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to continue the debate on articles 12 and 24 and on the amendments thereto (E/CONF.34/L.10 and L.16). Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) said that he had preferred to postpone his statement on articles 12 and 24 until he had had an opportunity of hearing the opinions of the various representatives. He had little to add to the views of the PCOB and its president (E/CONF.34/8 and E/CONF. 34/L.ll); he wished, however, to clarify certain points raised and briefly to answer some criticisms that had been made in the statement by the secretariat. In the first place, the matter under consideration was of great importance and complexity, as the President of the PCOB had already pointed out. Secondly, it was essential to adopt an objective and long-term approach to the articles in question, since the arrangement eventually worked out would have to last for a long time. Any unduly rigid provisions might have a harmful effect on the future operation of the Convention. Therefore, whatever decision was taken should guarantee international interests; in that respect, it was fortunate that the problem involved no political or national considerations and could be examined solely on its merits. It had been said that, since the General Assembly had dealt with the administrative aspects of the draft Single Convention and had adopted resolution 1587 (XV), consideration of the matter in the Conference would be a mere formality in the case of those representatives who had voted for the Assembly's resolution. It had been suggested, in fact, that the representatives would be more or less bound by the General Assembly's deliberations on the subject. He was not at all sure that that view was correct. He understood that there had been no discussion on the merits of the question and that the Assembly had merely adopted a resolution as a basis for further discussion by the Conference. He recalled that the representative of the Soviet Union in the Fifth Committee had said that the Committee should not ask the General Assembly to endorse the Advisory Committee's report, but merely to bring it to the attention of the Plenipotentiary Conference for due consideration (A/C.5/SR.809). Moreover, it seemed reasonable to suppose that, since the Advisory Committee had prepared its report (A/4603) in contemplation of the Conference and on the basis of the articles in the draft Convention, the report should be referred to the Conference for a final decision. Therefore, General Assembly resolution 1587 (XV) could hardly be considered a binding decision which was not open to further discussion. The administrative position in the past was clearly set out in paragraph 13 of the Advisory Committee's report. The provisions governing the secretariat of the PCOB were contained in article 20 of the 1925 Convention. Those provisions were clearly never intended to divest the Secretary-General of his responsibility for the secretariat, but merely to ensure that while the secretariat of the PCOB should be part of the United Nations Secretariat, the PCOB should be independent both in theory and in practice. There was nothing in the Advisory Committee's report to suggest that any special difficulties had been encountered in the working of that arrangement, or that it had weakened the SecretaryGeneral's responsibilities. If the arrangement had worked satisfactorily for some thirty years, it might be asked why it should be changed. The Advisory Committee had advanced a number of arguments in favour of administrative changes (report, para. 14). In the first place, it considered that as a separate secretariat would be a very small unit, its members would tend to become indispensable to the Board, thereby reducing the possibilities of interdepartmental transfers. From the administrative point of view, that was certainly an argument to be taken into account, as the President of the PCOB had himself conceded. Secondly, the Advisory Committee had referred to overlapping and duplication between the Division of Narcotic Drugs and the joint secretariat. Naturally, where two bodies dealt with the same subjects, there was bound to be a degree of overlapping; it was for the Conference to consider whether there was at present so much overlapping and duplication as to necessitate a unified secretariat. The duties of the PCOB as laid down in the two conventions of 1925 and 1931 were for the most part quite specific and if any overlapping occurred, it was largely in connexion with the illicit traffic—a question he would take up later. Thirdly, the Advisory Committee had suggested that a single secretariat would be more economical and efficient. Naturally, that was a point which the Conference would have to consider. It might, however, also take into account the statement made by the President of the PCOB that for over thirty years the Board had had a small staff of nine. If the two secretariats were combined, it might be possible to effect some savings at the supervisory level, but it was doubtful if any large savings could be effected immediately. As the representative of India had pointed out, even if there were to be a single secretariat, it would be necessary as a matter of administrative convenience for a section of that secretariat to deal with matters affecting the PCOB and DSB. It would also be administratively desirable to have a measure of stability in that section and to avoid staff changes at frequent intervals. Again, if there was Twenty-fifth plenary meeting — 28 February 1961 117 a combined secretariat, a situation might arise in which the chief officer of the Board would be discharging a dual function as the Secretary-General's representative in the International Narcotics Commission, where he would be dealing with representatives of governments, and as head of the Board's secretariat. It was for the Conference to determine whether such a situation would be in the interests of the efficient working of the narcotics control system, as envisaged in the Convention. While the present Director of the Division of Narcotic Drugs could well discharge those functions, there was no certainty that the services of such a person could be secured in the future. Lastly, it had been suggested that arrangements on the lines of article 20 of the 1925 Convention would make appropriate geographical distribution difficult to achieve. It was, of course, axiomatic that the smaller a unit, the more difficult it was to achieve equitable geographical distribution. It was, however, his assumption that that principle was intended to be applied to the secretariat as a whole, rather than to individual units. If he was mistaken in that assumption, there would of course be an overwhelming argument in favour of establishing a single secretariat. So far as the budgetary aspects of the question were concerned, the Advisory Committee had indicated that no difficulties had been encountered under the existing arrangement (paras. 18-21). There was, perhaps, some feeling that the present system might to some extent diminish the SecretaryGeneral's responsibilities or weaken his position. If that were so, he would draw attention to the statement made by the President of the PCOB at the 17th plenary meeting that if the Conference should express a preference for the status quo, it would be possible to introduce provisions designed to reduce possible inconveniences to the Secretary-General to a minimum. He had gone on to suggest some adjustments that might be made. The main point to consider was whether the arrangement for a single secretariat would adversely affect the position of the future Board. It seemed to be generally agreed that there was a need for an independent Board, and he therefore felt confident that the Conference would take no action that would impair the efficient functioning of the future Board. Finally, he had some brief comments on points of detail referred to in the statement of the Executive Secretary. In the first place, he could not agree with the parallel he had drawn between the PCOB and the WHO Expert Committee on Addiction-producing Drugs. The position of the WHO Expert Committee vis-a-vis WHO was entirely different from the relationship of the PCOB to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Surely the position of the Board was much stronger than that of the WHO Committee in that two distinct categories of duties were provided for in the Convention, one being entrusted to the Commission and one to the Board. On the other hand there was no such demarcation of functions between WHO and the Expert Committee, which merely carried out the tasks entrusted to it by WHO. The Executive Secretary had suggested that the work of the joint secretariat of the PCOB and DSB was of a more routine character than that of the United Nations and WHO, which was concerned with the whole field of narcotics control. It was true that, inasmuch as the PCOB secretariat carried out directives, its work was largely mechanical and not of a policy-making character, but he hardly felt that was sufficient justification for describing its work as routine. The Executive Secretary had said that there was some duplication in the field of the illicit traffic. He would point out, however, that the same set of statistics might be employed by two separate bodies for somewhat different purposes. In the case of information on the illicit traffic, for instance, the PCOB was concerned with such information only in relation to its duties under the conventions, while the Commission had to evolve a policy applicable to a number of governments. He had endeavoured to clarify certain points, since the question of administration was of vital importance to the future control system. He hoped that the Conference would bear in mind that if a rigid provision was included regarding a single secretariat, it might be difficult to change the arrangement in the future. Accordingly, it might be advisable to draft a more flexible provision leaving the Secretary-General free to make such arrangements as he considered best for the efficient functioning of the Board and the Commission and, if necessary, to revert to the existing system, which had the merit of being tried and of having proved satisfactory. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said there appeared to be a consensus in the Conference on the following five principles: there should be a single secretariat; the unified secretariat should be provided by the United Nations Secretariat; it should be a part of the United Nations Secretariat; at the administrative level, it should be subordinated to the United Nations Secretariat; and at the technical level, it should be subordinated to the Commission or the Board. His delegation was prepared to accept those five principles. In his view, the proper procedure would be to refer the proposed amendments to an ad hoc committee. He would comment on matters of detail in the Committee. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) said that his delegation was still not convinced that the Board required a separate secretariat. Mr. Krishnamoorthy had suggested that a more flexible provision might be drafted to permit the Secretary-General to make such arrangements as he considered best. But surely, such a provision would be vague rather than flexible, and would merely give rise to additional difficulties. The Conference should take a clear-cut decision on articles 12 and 24. On the question of the Board's independence, his delegation failed to see how the freedom of action of the members of the Board, who were persons of high standing and reputation, could be restricted by the establishment of a single secretariat. His delegation would support the four-power amendment (E/CONF.34/L.10). 118 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary) shared Mr. Krishnamoorthy's view that the problems raised by articles 12 and 24 called for an impartial approach. The dichotomy arising from the arrangements laid down in article 20 of the 1925 Convention meant that the representatives of the Secretariat had the invidious task of pointing out when positions taken by the secretariat of the PCOB were not in accordance with views of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council or the SecretaryGeneral; the same arrangements put the representatives of the PCOB in the position of opposing arguments, for instance, of the Advisory Committee. Fortunately, all concerned had excellent personal relationships. Also the United Nations Secretariat had received many instructions from the General Assembly and the Council concerning concentration of efforts and resources, and, as the relevant part of the Secretariat, the Division had the duty to co-ordinate, as far as possible, activities and instructions under the Charter and under the treaties. A number of representatives had been impressed by the argument that "no man could serve two masters". But the report of the fifth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (E/1889/Rev.l, para. 115), which had introduced the argument, had omitted an essential part of the quotation. The masters in the quotation were God and Mammon, and that was not the choice in the particular case. In fact, it was common for units in international secretariats to serve more than one body. The United Nations Division of Human Rights, for instance, provided services for the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, the Commission on the Status of Women, the Economic and Social Council and the Third Committee of the General Assembly. Those bodies had frequently held differing opinions, to a much greater extent, indeed, than the Commission and the PCOB, which had had no significant differences during the United Nations period. The members of the bodies using the services of the Division of Human Rights would agree that the secretariat arrangements had provided an element of continuity and had tended to decrease rather than increase the differences of opinion between the various bodies. Agreement with the principle of the Board's independence was not in question; it was secured primarily by article 13 of the Single Convention. If the four-power amendment (E/CONF.34/L.10) was adopted, the Secretary-General would undoubtedly consult the Board concerning the arrangements for services; and the Board would, of course, need some staff to serve it on a continuous basis. The question of the payment of indemnities to the existing staff of the PCOB, to which reference had been made by the Turkish representative at the preceding meeting, would not arise, since all the members of the joint secretariat had permanent contracts, and as the adoption of the Single Convention would increase the workload of the secretariat, there would in fact be no displacement problem. In his statement at the 21st plenary meeting, he had mentioned certain specific points mainly because they had been raised in document E/CONF.34/8. Most of the points he had raised then had been brought to the attention of the PCOB on previous occasions: that concerning the illicit traffic, for example, had been discussed often at PCOB meetings. Other instances of duplication and overlapping which he had not mentioned then concerned miscellaneous correspondence, missions, and administration of the international control system of import and export authorizations under chapter V of the 1925 Convention. It was the Division's view that overlapping of that sort was inherent in the constitutional position established by article 20. The joint secretariat of the PCOB and DSB itself had said: "In our experience, the overwhelming disadvantage of the existing international instruments and the system they set up had been their complexity. The texts are involved and contradictory; the administrative machinery which has been set up is too complicated and gives rise to overlapping," The principle of geographical distribution admittedly was bound to be of limited application in a small unit like the Board's secretariat. However, if it were adrninistered in the same way as the rest of the United Nations Secretariat, a more equitable geographical distribution might then be achieved. Eleven nationalities from all major regions of the world concerned were represented in the sixteen professional posts of the Division of Narcotic Drugs, and seven other nationalities had been represented in the Division since 1947, whereas all the staff members in the joint secretariat were from one continent. Turning to the matter of the WHO Expert Committee on Addiction-producing Drugs, he explained that he had not intended to draw a complete parallel between that body and the PCOB, but simply to point out that that committee in effect took decisions under the Convention which had important commercial implications and that it accordingly had "semi-judicial" functions. The PRESIDENT suggested that the amendments might be put to the vote forthwith. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that his delegation had joined the Indian delegation in proposing a compromise amendment (E/CONF.34/L.16) which would safeguard the independence of the Board and at the same time would not contravene the principles outlined by the representative of the USSR. In his view, therefore, it would be unfortunate to put the amendments to the vote immediately; he hoped that a unanimous decision would be achieved by further consultation. The articles should not be referred to an ad hoc committee, however; it would be best to try to work out a solution in plenary. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) said that his delegation had taken note of General Assembly resolution 1587 (XV) and of the report of the Advisory Committee. Since the Commission on Narcotic Drugs had been able to function satisfactorily with the services provided by the United Nations Secretariat, there was no reason why the future Board should not do the same. His delegation would vote for the four-power amendment which gave effect to the Advisory Committee's recommendation—that the Single Convention should limit Twenty-fifth {denary meeting — 28 February 1961 119 itself to providing that all necessary secretariat services should be furnished to the Commission and the Board by the Secretary-General (A/4603, para. 17). Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) hoped that the articles would not be referred to an ad hoc committee; the matter might indeed be settled by putting the amendments to the vote immediately. There was in fact little difference between the two amendments; what was spelled out in the one was implicit in the other. Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan) wished to assure Mr. Krishnamoorthy that, in sponsoring the four-power amendment, his delegation had not acted in a partisan spirit. His delegation had rather given weight to the Advisory Committee's report strongly supporting the establishment of a single secretariat; it had taken note of the fact that the conditions prevailing when the 1925 Convention had been drawn up no longer existed; it had also been influenced by the fact that the independence of the Board would be safeguarded by article 13 of the Single Convention. The long discussion which had taken place had left his delegation all the more convinced that a single secretariat would operate most effectively. No useful purpose would be served by referring the article to an ad hoc committee. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) agreed that the articles should not be referred to an ad hoc committee. He asked whether the word "those" in the four-power amendment had any special significance. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) replied that "those" merely meant "those services". Mr. RODRIGUEZ FABREGAT (Uruguay) said that there was a difference not only of wording but of substance between the four-power amendment and the two-power amendment. He supported the former, which stated clearly that there should be a single secretariat, mainly because he was utterly opposed to the establishment of independent units to carry out tasks that should be the responsibility of the United Nations Secretariat as a whole. In paragraph 1 of document E/CONF. 34/8, the PCOB and DSB stated that the independence of the Board followed from the nature of its functions, which were basically control functions and devoid of any political character. The last sentence of the same paragraph stated that the Board's effective independence was laid down in article 20 of the 1925 Convention. In that connexion, he wished to make two points. First, his delegation had always maintained that, within the United Nations, it was not possible entirely to separate technical from political functions because the decisions taken involved the responsibility of governments. It strongly opposed the idea that delegations could express views on technical matters without engaging the political responsibility of their governments, and the same rule applied to secretariats. The United Nations was a world body and should be considered as a unit; to allow the Board's secretariat to function as an independent unit would be an undesirable division of secretariat tasks and tantamount to making the Board a nonUnited Nations organ. Secondly, a great deal had happened since 1925. The second world war had been followed by the establishment of the United Nations, the guardian of the Charter, which embodied the principles of the new world order. The responsibilities of the organization were world-wide and its secretariat should not be divided into small separate units. Rules which had worked in 1925 no longer applied. The two-power amendment seemed unsatisfactory. First, it was not clear how staff appointed by the Secretary-General could be responsible to anyone but him; and yet the amendment stated that the Board's secretariat would be responsible solely to the Board in technical matters. Secondly, did the words "while serving it in technical matters" imply that the secretariat would have other, possibly political, functions? Thirdly, if so, to what authority would the Board's secretariat be responsible in the exercise of those other functions? He was not challenging the principle of the independence of the Board, which everyone recognized as necessary if it was to carry out its task satisfactorily; but he could not vote for any proposal which would deprive the United Nations of any of its functions. He would vote for the four-power amendment, on the understanding that the secretariat services of the Commission and the Board to be furnished by the SecretaryGeneral would be adapted to the nature of the tasks to be carried out by each. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that there was very little difference between the four-power amendment and that which his delegation had sponsored. Both provided that the secretariat of the Board should be furnished by the Secretary-General, a principle on which all delegations were agreed. The only criticisms made of the two-power amendment related to the second sentence, and they were probably due to a misunderstanding. All that the sponsors had had in mind was the same kind of dual responsibility of secretariat members as occurred within national civil services. Although appointed by the central authorities, every civil servant was responsible also to the ministry or authority for which he worked. The Secretary-General would obviously have full control of his staff, but the secretariat of the Board would be responsible to the Board in technical matters. What the sponsors had intended to convey by the second sentence was that in administrative matters, the Board's secretariat would be responsible to the Secretary-General, although it would be responsible to the Board while serving it in technical matters. The duties to be carried out by the secretariats of the Commission and the Board were obviously different because of the different nature of the two bodies, but in both cases the staff concerned would be responsible administratively to the Secretary-General. There was so little divergence between the two amendments that the Conference could easily reach agreement without a vote. Mr. Archibald JOHNSON (Liberia) said that the statement just made by the Indian representative had removed many of his own misgivings with regard to the two-power amendment. Both the amendments had 120 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs been so thoroughly discussed that they should be referred to an ad hoc committee. Mr. NICOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that he was somewhat puzzled by the fact that, although both amendments provided for a single secretariat, delegations were still discussing the pros and cons of such a secretariat. After such an exhaustive discussion, the only way to clarify the attitude of the Conference was to put the principle of a single secretariat to the vote. The PRESIDENT pointed out that the four-power amendment had been submitted to meet a point made in the first sentence of paragraph 17 of the Advisory Committee's report. The two-power amendment, on the other hand, contained other ideas. Mr. KHRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) pointed out that although the fourpower amendment embodied the idea of a single secretariat, expressed in the first sentence of paragraph 17 of the Advisory Committee's report, that sentence had to be read in conjunction with the second sentence of the same paragraph. For that reason, more than a mere decision of principle was involved. The twopower amendment introduced another idea, the independence of the Board's secretariat in technical matters. The Conference should take a desision on those two quite different ideas. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary) pointed out that the idea of a separate secretariat for the Board had been mentioned by the Advisory Committee, but only as a second best and subject to specific amendments of the provisions of article 24 (report, para. 16). However, as the Indian representative had stated, under both proposals the Secretary-General was to provide the secretariat for the Board. The PRESIDENT asked the Conference to decide whether the amendments should be put to the vote immediately. By 40 votes to 6, with 6 abstentions, the Conference decided that the amendments should be put to the vote. The PRESIDENT put the four-power amendment to the vote. The amendment (EjCONF.34jL.10) was adopted by 35 votes to 4, with 14 abstentions. Article 7 (Constitutional position and continuity of functions of the Commission) Article 10 (Decisions and recommendations of the Commission) Article 11 (Functions of the Commission) Article 13 (Composition of the Board) Article 14 (Terms of office of members of the Board) Article 15 (Privileges, immunities and remuneration of members of the Board) Article 16 (Rules of procedure of the Board) Article 19 (Functions of the Board) Article 23 (Reports of the Board to the Council and parties) (Resumed from the 20th and 21st plenary meetings) The PRESIDENT suggested that articles 7, 10, 11, 13 to 16, 19 and 23, should be referred to an ad hoc committee composed of Afghanistan, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Republic of Korea, Liberia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Yugoslavia. It was so agreed. The meeting rose at 1.25 p.m. TWENTY-SIXTH PLENARY MEETING Monday, 6 March 1961, at 11.15 a.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l) (continued) The PRESIDENT said that the Conference would consider next chapter JX (Measures against illicit traffickers), consisting of articles 44, 45 and 46. Article 44 (International co-operation) The PRESIDENT drew attention to the amendment submitted by the United Kingdom (E/CONF.34/C.4/ L.4/Rev.l). Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary) said that chapter IX of the draft Single Convention was very largely taken from the 1936 Convention. That instrument had been ratified by fewer States than any other treaty relating to narcotic drugs, one reason being that it was primarily based on European continental law, which made it difficult for the common law countries to accept. The new draft attempted to reconcile the two systems; and it was most important that the wording of that part of the Convention should be fairly flexible. In that regard, he drew attention to the Secretariat's note on drafting and terminology (E/CONF.34/C.6/L.4). As means of combating the internationally organized illicit traffic, penal law and procedure should be governed by three considerations. Firstly, the penalties should be effective—in other words, they should not be mere fines, for example, which did not in themselves constitute a sufficiently effective penalty. The idea of what penalties were "effective" varied from country to country. Secondly, all forms of participation in the offence (such as incitement, encouraging others to enter into a conspiracy, etc.) should be duly covered and the offence should be punished at the earliest possible stage ("preparatory acts"), although the legal system of a number of countries often made early action difficult. Nevertheless, the punishment of an offence at its inception would have a deterrent effect and would prevent the act from being Twenty-sixth plenary meeting — 6 March 1961 121 completed. Thirdly, the offender should not escape prosecution because a court lacked jurisdiction on purely technical grounds; in other words, offences committed abroad should be punished to the fullest extent possible. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom), introducing his delegation's amendment, which merged articles 44 and 25, said that paragraph 1 was taken from article 25, with the addition of a provision relating to communication between the special administrations. Paragraph 2 reproduced paragraph 1 of article 44. Paragraph 3 dealt with co-ordination among the administrations responsible for implementing the provisions of the Convention in terms that were more acceptable than those of the 1936 Convention. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) said that the 1936 Convention, on which articles 44 and 45 were based, had been ratified by only twenty-seven countries, first, because it had been regarded as infringing national sovereignty in the matter of penal law, and secondly, because of a belief that provisions of that kind should be sufficiently flexible to be generally acceptable but not too vague. Those objections had been taken into account in the drafting of articles 44 and 45 of the draft, and his delegation hoped that the majority of the countries represented at the Conference would be able to accept those articles. If not, it would be better to provide for international regulation of only the most serious offences, without attempting to cover the less important ones. On the other hand, if the provisions of articles 44 and 45 should prove acceptable to the majority of delegations, the other countries should be given the opportunity of making reservations thereto. He drew attention to the comment of the International Criminal Police Organization (E/CONF.34/1, ad article 44) to the effect that the draft did not take sufficient account of the three fundamental principles underlying the 1936 Convention, without which international co-operation could not be effective: co-ordination of preventive action at the national level, direct co-ordination between the agencies responsible for co-ordination, and the speediest possible transmittal of the legal papers required for prosecuting offenders. His delegation thought that that comment was sound. Prevention and enforcement should be placed on the same plane. He hoped that the Conference would take due account of the comments of the ICPO, which had already proved very valuable during the First Inter-American Meeting on the Illicit Traffic in Cocaine and Cocoa Leaves, held at Rio de Janeiro in 1960, and that the future Single Convention would make it impossible for traffickers to take any further advantage of differences between the various legal systems in order to escape the law. With regard to article 45, he said that all the acts enumerated in paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), were punishable offences under Brazilian law. The penalties involving fine and imprisonment combined were still considered lenient, but efforts were being made to introduce stricter legislation. Mr. BANERJI (India) supported the United Kingdom amendment, but suggested that the words "having due regard to its constitutional, legal and administrative systems" should be added at the beginning of paragraph 1. His delegation also fully endorsed the comments of the ICPO to which the Brazilian representative had referred. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that the French delegation had given its views on the question under discussion at the third plenary meeting. It would have no objection to the new text if it had the same scope as the corresponding provisions in existing instruments, but that did not seem to be the case. The Single Convention should provide for a variety of preventive measures to ensure that narcotics were used only for medical and scientific purposes. Wherever the Convention was not applied or observed, the illicit supply of drugs to addicts would have to be curbed. As the Australian representative had pointed out, the intelligence and the power of rings of smugglers, who had vast financial resources and ever more rapid and effective means of telecommunication and transportation, could not be over-estimated. In order to combat them with weapons at least as effective, the enforcement services should have specialized police at their disposal, and their activities should be centralized and co-ordinated on both the national and international levels. Those bodies should be able to communicate quickly with each other in order to break up gangs of traffickers, even in other continents, instead of merely being able to make isolated seizures. The most important principles regarding the centralization of services, direct communications and the transmittal of legal papers had been removed from the draft Convention. It would have been preferable to retain articles 11, 12 and 13 of the 1936 Convention. Moreover, the list of offences in article 45 should include the offence committed by individuals who channelled funds derived from the illicit traffic from the country of purchase to the country of sale. Those individuals were only very rarely brought to justice, although they were the kingpins of the international traffic. The ICPO's observations were useful to the extent that they re-emphasized some of those principles, but they were inadequate. The French delegation could not support the United Kingdom amendment which, while simplifying the text, greatly weakened it. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) said he unreservedly supported the United Kingdom amendment because he considered that article 25 should be amalgamated with article 44. However, in paragraph 1 of that amendment, it might perhaps be wise to add the words "including specialized personnel" after the words "special administration" so as to make the text more explicit. Those words would mean that the special administration should include specialized police and customs officers, as well as scientists specializing in drugs. Mr. NEPOTE (International Criminal Police Organization), speaking at the invitation of the President, said that the ICPO was keenly interested in the draft Convention, particularly in the articles on the illicit traffic, and had taken part in the drafting of the 1936 Convention. In a debate on action against the illicit traffic, it was natural to think of the role of the law enforcement 122 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs agencies, and the discussions in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the large seizures which the enforcement agencies continued to make showed that, despite past, efforts, the illicit traffic was still a matter of grave concern. He would comment on various specific points when the various articles concerning the illicit traffic were considered; at the moment he wished merely to outline the general position taken by his organization. That position was based on two main considerations: first, the illicit traffic in drugs was difficult to control because it was essentially international and the operations of some traffickers were world-wide in scope; secondly, it was an organized traffic involving a highly developed criminal organization and the participation of hardened criminals with vast resources and contacts in international criminal circles everywhere. It was therefore essential that the enforcement agencies should not be hampered by national frontiers and should have a broad field of action. In order to be effective, the enforcement agencies had to have specialized staff and had to be able to communicate directly with each other. In addition, the principles governing their operations had to be laid down in the international agreements, which were the basis on which the police and the courts had to act. For that reason the ICPO was pleased to note that some of the principles laid down in the 1936 Convention were reproduced in the draft Single Convention, in particular those concerning the punishment, extradition and prosecution of offenders. It regretted, however, the absence of two fundamental principles vital to the effective working of the enforcement agencies: direct international co-operation between those agencies and the rapid transmittal of the legal papers required for the prosecution of offenders. As the Conference was endeavouring to simplify the texts and avoid unduly detailed provisions, it was not suggested that articles 11 to 13 of the 1936 Convention should be reproduced in the Single Convention. An article in general terms setting out those two principles might, however, be included. He drew attention to the suggestions of the ICPO (E/CONF.34/1) and said that he would be happy to explain ICPO's specific objections in that connexion. He hoped that the suggestions would be taken up in formal proposals to the Conference. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that he supported the United Kingdom amendment, which was brief and specific. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that while the United Kingdom amendment was on the whole satisfactory, he would propose the deletion of the words "and shall facilitate direct communication between this administration and the special administrations of other countries" at the end of paragraph 1 in order to avoid duplication with paragraph 2. The paragraph was not concerned with the enforcement agencies, but with the special administration to be maintained by each party to ensure the control of narcotic drugs within its territory. Paragraph 2 also presented a difficulty; if a party was not a member of one of the competent international organizations referred to in that paragraph, it was questionable whether it would be bound, under that provision, to co-operate with the organization in question without being a member of it. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) considered that the United Kingdom amendment was wholly satisfactory, but said that he could not support the Indian sub-amendment since anything that gave the impression of an escape clause should be eliminated from the text. The Greek representative's sub-amendment did not appear to be essential, since the special administration referred to in paragraph 1 of the United Kingdom amendment would be composed of specialized personnel in all the countries. The PRESIDENT said that the ad hoc committee dealing with article 25 had deferred consideration of that article until the Conference had discussed article 44. An ad hoc committee would be necessary to deal with articles 45 and 46 regarding penal provisions. He proposed that the two ad hoc committees should be requested to consider articles 25 and 44 jointly. If that suggestion was adopted, the United Kingdom amendment and the various sub-amendments would be referred to those committees. It was so agreed. In reply to a question from Dr. MABILEAU (France), the PRESIDENT said that the ad hoc committees would take into account all the proposals and suggestions which had been put forward, including those of the ICPO. Article 45 (Penal provisions) The PRESIDENT drew attention to the amendments to article 45 submitted by the Netherlands (E/CONF.34/ L.5/Rev.l) and Chile (E/CONF.34/L.13). Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that, while realizing that adequate penal provisions were essential for suppressing the illicit traffic, he thought it would be difficult to draft such provisions in precise terms because of the constitutional and legal differences existing between the various countries. The provisions would have to be drafted in general terms, which, far from weakening the Convention, would strengthen it by making it acceptable to a larger number of countries. After all, it was because of the differences he had mentioned that so few countries had ratified the 1936 Convention. As it would not be appropriate at that stage to submit a redraft of article 45, he proposed that the article as it stood should be taken as the basis of discussion, although it was obviously unnecessarily detailed. It would be enough to draw attention to the difficulties raised by the differences between the various constitutional and legal systems so that the ad hoc committee could bear them in mind and present a clear report that would enable the drafting committee to draft a generally acceptable provision. Mr. BOULONOIS (Netherlands) said that article 45 was both one of the most important and one of the most controversial articles in the draft Convention. The parties should of course make every effort to fight the Twenty-sixth plenary meeting 6 March 1961 123 illicit traffic and provide for effective penal sanctions to enforce the Convention. To be effective, however, the Convention should be acceptable to as many States as possible, and hence allowance had to be made for the differences in the criminal law of the various countries. His delegation could not accept the binding character of some provisions of article 45, which were inconsistent with Netherlands criminal law and with the treaties between the Netherlands and other countries concerning extradiction and mutual assistance in judicial matters. In the case of paragraph 1, only sub-paragraph (a) was acceptable to the Netherlands, although even its application might create difficulties as the offences listed might be committed simultaneously by the same person. With regard to sub-paragraph (b), he said that conspiracy to commit an offence was not punishable under Netherlands law except in the case of the most serious offences. Conspiracy was only punishable if the offence had begun to be executed. The Netherlands had made a reservation on that subject in signing the Convention of 1936 and would make a similar reservation with regard to the new draft provision. Moreover, his delegation considered that sub-paragraph (c) was outside the scope of the Convention. In the case of paragraph 2, it had difficulties concerning sub-paragraph (a) since no such obligation existed in Netherlands criminal law. Sub-paragraph (b) was likewise unacceptable because under Netherlands criminal law recidivism was only taken into account if there was a specific provision to that effect. His delegation hoped that the Convention would include a provision regarding international assistance in judicial matters. It believed that law in general, and international law in particular, was developing constantly and that, in the narrow field of the control of narcotic drugs, no method or principle should be laid down which might impede the development of law. For that reason it proposed a redraft of article 45 (E/CONF. 34/ L.5/Rev.l), based on the general obligation contained in article 4, paragraph 2(c) ; that obligation appeared in paragraph 1 of the new version. Mr. ELLENBOGEN (United States of America) said that the basic principles of criminal law called for certain changes in article 45. In paragraph 1 (b) the words "intentional participation" should be deleted since they were superfluous, a criminal offence including intent by definition. In the United States, intentional participation was not a crime unless it was equivalent to conspiracy to commit or an attempt to commit an offence. He defined the term "attempt" as used in United States criminal law. At the moment, attempts to commit only some of the offences mentioned in paragraph 1 (a) were punishable under United States law and new legislation would therefore have to be enacted in respect of the others. Nevertheless, his delegation was not opposed to the clause. He went on to propose that the clause dealing with "preparatory acts" (paragraph 1 (c)) should be deleted. As in the case of intentional participation, preparatory acts were punishable in the United States only if they were equivalent to conspiracy or an attempt to commit an offence. The clause in question would probably obscure the meaning of those terms, and in any case the initial phrase of paragraph 1 would release the United States from the obligation to comply with it. He proposed that in paragraph 2 (b) the words "and judgements of sentence thereon" should be inserted after the word "offences" and that the words "and shall be deemed to be prior convictions for the purpose of punishment and sentence" should be added to the end of the paragraph. The idea expressed in the clause was not foreign to the penal system of the United States, but that system required that there should be a final judgement of guilt, or, in other words, there must be a sentence before a conviction could be deemed proof of the commission of a prior offence or of recidivism. If the provision was amended as he had proposed, his delegation could accept it. He proposed that paragraph 2 (c) should be deleted. In United States law, a person could not be prosecuted except within the borders of the State or of the territory in which the offence had been committed. To prosecute a person elsewhere would not be conducive to the best administration of justice and might prevent him, for financial or other reasons, from obtaining witnesses and evidence. No doubt legislation could be enacted to permit the application of the paragraph, but it was contrary to the general United States theory of criminal jurisdiction and seemed incompatible with the spirit of justice. If the provisions on extradition were satisfactory, a clause such as paragraph 2 (c) was superfluous. The paragraph would be less objectionable if it applied only to nationals of the State in which the offender was found. But even with that reservation, it would be better to omit it. In his delegation's opinion, the following phrase should be inserted in paragraph 3 after the words "paragraph 1 (c)": "if criminal under the laws of the parties". Under various extradition treaties to which the United States was a party, narcotics offences were already recognized as extradition crimes; but that was not the general rule and the United States Government could see no objection—quite the contrary—to amending those treaties in the manner provided for in paragraph 3. However, new legislation would probably be necessary, not only in the United States but also in other countries, to declare the acts specified in paragraph 1 punishable offences. It would therefore have to be clearly indicated that those offences would constitute extraditable offences only if they were punishable under national law. Lastly, he proposed that the passage in paragraph 3 beginning with the words "and that the party" should be deleted. Since extradition treaties had binding force, the obligation to extradite should not be subject to any reservation which might deprive it of all effect. Furthermore, such a reservation might be considered applicable to the provisions concerning narcotic offences in extradition treaties already in force. It would therefore be better to omit the passage. Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) said that, under Act No. 11005, Peru had introduced a special procedure and set up a special body to curb the traffic in narcotic drugs. Under 124 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs the Act all the offences referred to in article 45, paragraph 1, were punishable by terms of imprisonment ranging from two to fifteen years. Deportation or deprivation of civic rights might be imposed as accessory penalties, as appropriate. The Act had set up a National Executive Council which functioned as an independent court, to combat the traffic in narcotic drugs. His delegation therefore supported article 45, which was in conformity with its national legislation. Commenting on the Netherlands amendment he said that he preferred paragraph 1 of the third draft, since it took into account the constitutional limitations of the parties; the form of the third draft was also preferable, since all offences were punishable. It would be better to list the various crimes first and then lay down the corresponding penalties. In paragraph 2 (a) (ii) of the Netherlands amendment, the expression "any uncompleted form" was not clear. Did it refer to aiding and abetting, to an attempt to commit an offence or to an unsuccessful offence? The point should be made clear. Paragraph 2 (b) was also unsatisfactory. It stated that "the most appropriate party" would try the offences specified in sub-paragraph (a), thus raising the question of national competence and of jurisdiction. The rules governing competence were based on treaties. Paragraph 3 of the third draft was preferable. Paragraph 2 (c) of the Netherlands amendment was intended to modify existing extradition treaties so that they would automatically cover all serious offences punishable under the Convention. To achieve that purpose, the States concerned would have to conclude a fresh agreement, which would be feasible in the case of bilateral treaties, but would present difficulties in the case of multilateral treaties. The third draft included preparatory acts among the extraditable offences. It was intended to cover particularly cases where a State did not consider extradition necessary. The rule of reciprocity and the principle of non-extradition of nationals should not, however, be disregarded. Paragraph 2(c) of the Netherlands amendment provided, also, that all the offences in question should be grounds for extradition in countries which did not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty. As far as paragraph 2 (d) of the amendment was concerned, he said that no measure could be accepted which tended, even in the absence of any extradition procedure, to extend the purely territorial application of criminal law. For all those reasons, his delegation would support the Chilean amendment (E/CONF.34/L.13). In order to eliminate drug addiction and the illicit traffic, States had to adopt very severe measures. Consequently, crimes had to be punished at every stage of execution. That included intentional participation and preparatory acts, which were punishable in Peru. He could not, therefore, support the United States proposals concerning paragraph 1 (b) and (c). The meeting rose at 1.5 p.m. TWENTY-SEVENTH PLENARY MEETING Monday, 6 March 1961, at 3.5 p.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l) ( continued) Article 45 (Penal provisions) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to continue its debate on chapter IX (Measures against illicit traffickers). He drew attention to the amendments to article 45 submitted by the Netherlands (E/CONF.34/L.5/Rev.l) and Chile (E/CONF.34/L.13). Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary), in reply to a question asked by the representative of France, gave particulars of the ratification of the earlier conventions: 1925 Convention, 65 countries; 1931 Convention, 76 countries; 1936 Convention, 27 countries; 1948 Convention, 57 countries; 1953 Protocol, 38 countries. Mr. SHARP (New Zealand) said that he would confine his remarks to those provisions in article 45 which posed problems of principle from his delegation's point of view. One such provision was paragraph 2 (c). Since the criminal jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts was confined almost exclusively to acts which occurred in New Zealand territory, that provision could not be carried into effect in New Zealand without an amendment of the law to accord to the courts a special extra-territorial jurisdiction to try persons in respect of drug offences committed abroad. New Zealand was extremely reluctant to take such action, but even if it were prepared to enact legislation departing from its well-established principles, the use of the word "shall" in the expression "shall be prosecuted" would present almost insuperable difficulties. Since, under New Zealand's judicial system, the onus of proof rested upon the prosecution and since in the case of drug offences committed abroad the evidence and witnesses would probably not be readily available, it would be impossible to give an assurance that all such offenders would be prosecuted. He would therefore prefer the word "shall" to be amended to "may", since it would be difficult to prosecute without legally admissible evidence. Nevertheless, if the qualifying introductory passage of paragraph 2 could be interpreted to mean that States whose normal criminal jurisdiction was territorial in character and which objected to extending that jurisdiction to cover drug offences committed abroad were not in fact bound to comply with the terms of subparagraph (c), then of course that sub-paragraph would present no problem. The New Zealand delegation would, however, like to feel certain about the obligations involved. The PRESIDENT remarked that, obviously, the law varied so greatly from one country to another that it would scarcely be possible to devise a terminology Twenty-seventh plenary meeting — 6 March 1961 125 that would exactly fit the terms of every legal system. Accordingly, it would be better to attempt to find a neutral terminology that would allow each country to apply its own rules. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that his delegation could not unfortunately accept the amendment proposed by the Netherlands delegation (E/CONF.34/ L.5/Rev. 1). The provision that the offences in question should be deemed to be included in the extradition treaties existing between the parties would have an undesirable retroactive effect. He considered that the original draft of article 45 took more account of the legal systems prevailing in individual countries and he would therefore prefer to retain the text with the inclusion of the Chilean amendment (E/CONF.34/L.13). Mr. VERTES (Hungary) said that article 45 was an extremely important part of the Single Convention, since it provided for effective measures by the parties to punish narcotics offenders. Of course, the mere application of punitive measures would not suffice to prevent the commission of offences in a given country. However, the severity of such measures should act as a deterrent that would be of considerable assistance in the world-wide anti-narcotics campaign. It was likewise important to ensure that the Convention provided for penalties in respect of all offences. Thus, paragraph 2(a)(ii) of the Netherlands amendment, which referred to any uncompleted form of the offences and any form of participation therein, should also mention instigation or incitement to commit an offence. Instigation should be declared a severely punishable offence, since it was the cause of annual increases in the number of addicts, especially among young people. He also drew attention to the Hungarian statement (footnote 43 to article 45, paragraph 2) that the State where the offence was committed should first and foremost have the right to prosecute the offender. Such a provision was particularly important, since offences connected with the illicit traffic in drugs belonged to the category known as "transit" offences, which were usually committed during brief visits to a country, after which the offender immediately left for another country. His delegation considered that the Convention should specify which of the States concerned should be competent to institute proceedings against the offender and then settle the question of extradition. The Hungarian proposal was based on a territorial principle generally recognized in the theory of international criminal law — namely, that the State in whose territory an offence was committed should have the right to prosecute, and that the State in whose territory the offender was found should take proceedings only if the former State had not asked for his extradition. Apart from the legal principle involved, the suggestion also had practical advantages in that evidence was more readily available in the country in which an offence was committed. The Hungarian delegation further considered that extradition should be compulsory, so that offenders could be effectively brought to justice. Since extradition was a common procedure, a provision to that effect might usefully be inserted in the Convention, especially in view of its deterrent effect. There seemed, in fact, to be no reason why the Convention should not include such a provision, which would not prevent the parties from concluding bilateral extradition treaties if they so wished. His delegation would be glad to hear the views of other delegations on the two suggestions he had made, which were interrelated and which, if adopted, would greatly strengthen international co-operation in the campaign against the abuse of drugs. Mr. NEPOTE (International Criminal Police Organization), speaking at the invitation of the President, said that his organization had two suggestions to make concerning article 45. The first was that financial and banking operations connected with the illicit traffic in drugs should be included in the list of punishable offences. It was most important to provide for the punishment of offenders who, though not handling the drugs themselves, financed the transactions by various procedures. Secondly, it would be useful to provide for the prompt transmission of the documents at the letter-of-request stage. Perhaps it might be possible to incorporate the relevant provisions of the 1936 Convention in the new Convention. Mr. ADJEPONG (Ghana) said that article 45 was acceptable to his delegation except for paragraph 2(b) and (c), which required some modification. Concerning paragraph 2 (b), his delegation considered that no limitation should be imposed on the powers of national courts, which should be free to use their discretion in deciding the offences to be taken into account. With regard to paragraph 2 (c), he said that the term "serious offences" should be more precisely defined. Furthermore, in the absence of any specific criterion, it was not clear how an authority could decide whether or not an offender might escape prosecution. Such a provision might enable an authority to prosecute on the flimsiest pretexts. No country could, however, release its nationals for trial in another country without the assurance that they would be given a fair trial. Mr. RIOSECO (Chile) said that his delegation was in general agreement with both the substance and the drafting of article 45, with the exception of paragraph 4. That paragraph should be drafted in more explicit terms, and accordingly Chile had submitted an amendment which should remove all ambiguity. He thanked those delegations which had already signified their support of the Chilean amendment, and especially the representatives of Peru and Yugoslavia. He hoped that it would be given favourable consideration in the drafting committee. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that, on the whole, article 45 was acceptable to his delegation as it stood. He thought, however, that the qualifying phrase "to the extent permitted by domestic law" in 126 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. paragraph 1 (c) should also be included in paragraph 1 (b). He endorsed the views expressed by those members who had warned of the dangers of trying to adapt the drafting of the article to fit all national legal systems or philosophies. The article had been drafted to take into account as many points of view as possible. If it were altered to suit the needs of some countries, difficulties might be created for other countries or groups of countries. He hoped therefore that, before the article was discussed in the ad hoc committee, all delegations would pay close attention to the various provisos contained in the article and especially to the phrase "within the framework of their existing legal systems and criminal jurisdiction and subject to their constitutional limitations" in paragraph 2. If due account were taken of those provisos, many delegations would find their difficulties eliminated. Mr. GAE (India) said that article 45 was acceptable in principle to his delegation, although it contained certain inconsistencies which should be remedied. It was based on similar provisions in the 1936 Convention, only paragraphs 4 and 5 being new. Paragraph 5 was obviously intended to establish the principle that all the provisions of the article were to be considered in the light of municipal law; the intention was made even clearer by the opening words of paragraph 1 "Subject to their constitutional limitations" and the proviso "within the framework of their existing legal systems and criminal jurisdiction and subject to their constitutional limitations" at the beginning of paragraph 2. The words "to the extent permitted by domestic law" appeared at the beginning of paragraph 1 (c), but they did not apply to paragraph 1 (b), which, as the United Kingdom representative had pointed out, was an obvious lacuna. The object of the different provisos he had mentioned was clearly to make the article recommendatory rather than mandatory, but the object was not stated expressly. He therefore proposed the insertion, by way of a preamble to the article, of the following text: "The provisions contained in this article are subject to the constitutional limitations of the parties and within the framework of their legal systems and criminal jurisdictions." His delegation had no difficulty in accepting the substance of all the provisions of paragraph 1, which were fully in harmony with Indian law. Under that law, both offences and attempted offences were punishable and the penalties had recently been increased from one to three years' imprisonment, a severer penalty being imposed in cases of recidivism. It had already been pointed out that, although the offence was committed by an agent, the prime responsibility for the offence was often imputable to some principal, who evaded justice. He fully sympathized with the desire to make the principal punishable on the same footing as the offender. He therefore proposed the addition of the following provision to paragraph 1: "Whoever causes an offence under this article to be committed shall be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence." He had some misgivings about the distinction made in paragraph 1 (b) and (c) between attempts to commit an offence and preparatory acts, which was not in harmony with Indian legal practice. He would prefer it to be deleted, but if it was retained, it should be in the form of a recommendation, which would leave the parties free to decide what preparatory ,acts should be considered punishable offences and in what circumstances. The end of paragraph 1, relating to the punishment of serious offences, was entirely acceptable to his delegation. He had serious objections to paragraph 2(c), which was contrary to the normal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an offender should be punished in the country where the crime was committed. Under Indian law, it would not ordinarily be possible to punish an alien in India for a crime committed outside the country. He expressed the hope that that provision would be deleted. However, if the majority considered that it should be retained, a compromise might be reached in the ad hoc committee. His objection to the existence of a proviso in paragraph 1 (c) but not in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) applied to the beginning of paragraph 3, also dealing with extradition crimes. There could be no reason for such a distinction, as he had already pointed out; the point was covered by his first amendment. The remaining provisions of paragraph 3 were acceptable in the form of a recommendation. At present, the offences mentioned in article 45 were not extraditable crimes under Indian law and if the provision was mandatory, his delegation would be obliged to reserve its right to make further statements on the matter. The points that had been raised should be very carefully discussed by the ad hoc committee. He was giving careful thought to the comments that had been made and to the Netherlands amendment, which appeared to contain some valuable ideas. Mr. ARVESEN (Norway) said that Norwegian law distinguished preparatory acts from attempts to commit an offence, and classified conspiracy to commit an offence as a preparatory act. The distinction was of real importance, since preparatory acts were not punishable offences under Norwegian law, whereas attempts to commit an offence usually were. Thus, his delegation would have to make reservations regarding some of the provisions of article 45, particularly regarding paragraph 1 (b). On the other hand, under paragraph 2 (a) (ii) of the Netherlands amendment, the parties themselves would determine the extent to which "any uncompleted form" of the offences referred to in the preceding sub-paragraph was liable to punishment under their own penal systems. The wording of that Netherlands amendment provided a constructive solution to a delicate legal problem, and was so neutral as to be acceptable to most delegations. He therefore supported that amendment in principle. Mr. AZARAKHSH (Iran) said that not all national laws were based exclusively either on the Roman or on the Anglo-Saxon systems, and that it was difficult Twenty-seventh plenary meeting — 6 March 1961 127 to adapt the provisions of article 45 to the legal systems of all countries. As far as Iran was concerned, the article presented no difficulties since, under Iranian narcotics legislation, provision was made for severe penalties for illicit traffic offences. In fact, the adoption of the Convention would provide a welcome opportunity to enact appropriate provisions for the eradication of narcotics smuggling, a source of supplies for addicts. If in any respect the article did not coincide with Iranian law, the Iranian Government was prepared to introduce a measure bringing the national law into line with the Convention. Mr. BOULONOIS (Netherlands) said that in view of some of the comments made during the discussion, he would attempt to clarify the principles underlying the Netherlands amendment. As he had explained at the preceding meeting, article 45 in the third draft included some provisions which were not in keeping with Netherlands criminal law: for instance, paragraph 1 (b), paragraph 2(a), (b) and (c). Therefore his delegation had prepared a redraft which would avoid such discrepancies between the provisions of the Convention and domestic law, and which should be acceptable to all countries. The preamble of the amendment was based on article 4, paragraph 2 (c), which was a most suitable introduction for an article on penal provisions. Paragraph 2(a)(i ) of the amendment was the same as paragraph 1 (a) of the third draft. Paragraph 2 (a) (ii) was so worded that it did not require the parties to impose penalties in respect of any uncompleted form of narcotics offences or any form of participation therein. The expression "any uncompleted form of the offences" covered the conspiracy to commit and attempts to commit an offence mentioned in paragraph 1 (b) of the third draft. The words "under their existing penal systems" in paragraph 2 (a) (i) had been included to avoid any discrepancy between municipal law and the provisions of the Convention. However, his delegation was also interested in the United Kingdom suggestion that the problem might be solved by inserting the phrase "to the extent permitted by domestic law" in the provision dealing with intentional participation in and conspiracy to commit narcotics offences. Paragraph 2(b) of the Netherlands amendment had been introduced because of the increasing importance of mutual judicial assistance in the fight against narcotics offences. Paragraph 2 (c) of the amendment had been drafted because many extradition treaties contained provisions concerning narcotics offences and consequently it seemed desirable to require the parties to insert the most serious of the narcotics offences enumerated in the Single Convention as extradition crimes in such treaties. It was not advisable to specify in the Convention which narcotics offences were to be considered serious offences, for there were many differences in the provisions of extradition treaties. Preferably, the expression "serious offences" should be interpreted by the national authorities responsible for giving effect to the Single Convention. Although under the second sentence of the relevant clause of the amendment the parties were required to insert narcotics offences as extradition crimes in treaties to be concluded in the future, his delegation did not hold strong views on that point. The third sentence of that sub-paragraph dealt with the case in which parties did not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty, and sub-paragraph (d) with that in which extradition for some serious offence was not possible or did not take place. Paragraph 3 of the amendment merely reproduced article 45, paragraph 5, of the third draft. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) suggested that the words "conspiracy to commit" should be deleted from paragraph 1 (b) of article 45 of the third draft. Paragraph 1 (c), referring to preparatory acts, went too far and should also be deleted. His delegation had serious objections to paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of the third draft. Lastly, the Federal Republic of Germany had made two suggestions regarding paragraph 2(c) and paragraph 3 (E/CONF.34/1/Add.l) which should be considered by the appropriate ad hoc committee. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) said that paragraph 2 (a) and (b) should form part of the Single Convention, for they would increase the severity of penalties for narcotics offences. While realizing that it would be difficult to incorporate those provisions in many legal systems, he wished to stress that narcotics offences were entirely distinctive, first, because they were the source of other crimes, inasmuch as addicts committed other crimes to satisfy their craving, and secondly, because in almost all cases they had international effects. Such offences should be classed as "special crimes", as was the case in many countries. The Convention, so far from merely codifying existing law, should call for the enactment of new legislation by all parties; merely granting the parties permission to do more than what was demanded under the Single Convention, if they wished, was not enough. The Netherlands amendment had a good deal of merit. In particular, his delegation supported the use of the expression "any uncompleted form of the offences", for it covered preparatory acts and was also so broad that the national authorities could interpret it freely. On the other hand, his delegation believed that the word "serious" in paragraph 2 (c) of the amendment should be deleted. From the strictly legal viewpoint, it would be preferable to specify how serious an offence had to be in order to be classed as extraditable. However, such an explicit definition might prevent countries from making certain offences extradiction crimes; his delegation would, therefore, prefer to delete the word "serious" and leave the matter open. Moreover, the words "penalized under sub-paragraph (a)" would identify the offences adequately, so that the word "serious" was not required. Mr. BOULONOIS (Netherlands) accepted the subamendment suggested by the representative of Greece. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) said he found it difficult to understand why article 45 had given rise to so much controversy. While his government could not apply some of the provisions in article 45 of the third draft, it was willing to rely on the general reservation in paragraph 5. Moreover, there were specific provisos in 128 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs paragraph 1 (c), paragraphs 2 and 3. His delegation supported the United Kingdom suggestion that the limiting clause at the beginning of paragraph 1 (c) should be repeated at the beginning of sub-paragraph 1 (b). If that suggestion was adopted, his delegation would find article 45 acceptable in principle. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that he could not share the apprehensions expressed about article 45 even by countries which were parties to the 1936 Convention. The article as it stood was very cautious and took account of the differences between national legislations. The representative of Interpol had raised a very interesting and important question, that of the financial transactions connected with the illicit traffic. If a formal proposal embodying that point was put forward, the French delegation would be happy to support it. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the main areas of difficulty regarding article 45 were clear and could be discussed in detail in the ad hoc committee. His own delegation had difficulty in accepting paragraph 3 as it stood. For it to be acceptable to his government, the extradition procedure would have to be made subject to the constitutional limitations, legal system and existing law of Canada, but there should be no serious objection to that. Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) said that paragraph 1(c) was unsatisfactory, as preparatory acts could not be considered as offences. He proposed that in the final part of paragraph 1 the word "offences" in the expression "punishable offences" should be omitted. Article 46 (Seizure and confiscation) Mr. CURRAN (Canada) recalled that during the discussion on article 34 at the 9th, 10th and 11th plenary meetings several delegations had said that there was no need for a separate article on the disposal of confiscated opium and poppy straw and that article 46 could be framed to cover the seizure and confiscation of all drugs moving in the illicit traffic. The fate of article 46 was therefore bound up with that of article 34. Two delegations had objected to the provision in article 34 that confiscated opium and poppy straw should be destroyed. He thought that it was for the confiscating government to decide on the use to be made of any drugs seized in the illicit traffic. If a government decided to use them in the country for medical and scientific purposes, the amounts should appear in the country's estimates. If they were destroyed, the destruction should be reported. In Canada, the only drug seized in the illicit traffic was heroin, for which it had no use; consequently, all seized heroin was destroyed, but he realized that the position was not the same for other drugs and in other countries. The PRESIDENT suggested that articles 34 and 46 might be referred directly to the drafting committee. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that some discussion in an ad hoc committee would be advisable, as some points of substance were involved. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) thought that the two articles should be amalgamated, but that it was purely a drafting matter. Mr. BARONA (Mexico) said that he supported, in principle, the amalgamation of the two articles, provided that none of the useful parts of article 46 was omitted, in particular the reference to equipment in paragraph 1. That term would cover both the equipment of illicit laboratories and vehicles used for the illicit transport of drugs and it was essential that both should be liable to seizure and confiscation. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) pointed out that the ad hoc committee dealing with articles 31 to 34 had already decided to delete article 34 on the understanding that suitable adjustments were made in article 46. (E/CONF 34/13). He did not think it necessary for that committee to meet again on the question. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) said that paragraph 1 of article 46 should be redrafted. As it stood, it gave the impression that it was to have the force of law, whereas what was intended was that parties to the Convention would bind themselves to set up the necessary procedure for seizures, if it did not already exist. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that there were points not only of drafting but of substance in both article 45 and 46. Both should therefore be referred to an ad hoc committee. He agreed that article 46 should cover seizures of all drugs and their use by governments, subject to the estimates system. In his view, it would be better not to place destruction first on the list of the three possible methods of disposal fisted in paragraph 2 of article 46. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that his delegation had submitted an amendment (E/CONF.34/C.5/ L.5) to article 32, regarding exports of confiscated opium, which should be borne in mind in the redrafting of article 46. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that the Conference should decide the question of principle whether seized drugs should be destroyed or not. He agreed with the Canadian representative that their destruction should not be obligatory if the government concerned could find a legal use for them. Once the question of principle had been settled, article 46 could be referred to the drafting committee. The PRESIDENT pointed out that other means of disposal were mentioned in paragraph 2 of article 46, so that the decision of principle could not be taken on just one point. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that, as it stood, article 46 left so much latitude to governments with regard to disposal that it was practically meaningless. It should either make destruction of seized drugs mandatory or lay down specific conditions under which they could be used. However, he did not wish to press the point. Twenty-eighth plenary meeting — 8 March 1961 129 Mr. NEPOTE (International Criminal Police Organization) said that as drafted paragraph 1 did not convey the idea that seizure was obligatory. He thought that that idea should be stated expressly. The PRESIDENT said that at the previous meeting it had been decided that the ad hoc committee dealing with article 44 should co-operate with the ad hoc committee dealing with article 25, so that the two articles should be considered together. He suggested that articles 44, 45 and 46 should be referred to an ad hoc committee composed of Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Congo (Leopoldville), Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. It was so agreed. The meeting rose at 5.5. p.m. TWENTY-EIGHTH PLENARY MEETING Wednesday, 8 March 1961, at 3.10 p.m. President: Mr. SCHURMANN (Netherlands) Tribute to the memory of Mr. Govind Ballabh Pant On the proposal of the Chairman, the Conference stood in silence in memory of Mr. Govind Ballabh Pant. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that the people and Government of India greatly appreciated the sympathy expressed by the Conference in connexion with the death of Mr. Govind Ballabh Pant. Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9) (continued) The PRESIDENT invited debate on the report of the ad hoc committee which had been appointed to deal with articles 4, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the draft Convention (E/CONF.34/14 and Corr. I). 1 Article 26 (Information to be furnished to the SecretaryGeneral). The PRESIDENT said that, in the absence of any objection, he would assume that the Conference accepted the ad hoc committee's recommendation that the passage "including particulars of each case of illicit traffic... illicit traffickers" should be added at the end of paragraph 1 (c). Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said he wished to make a general statement with 1 For previous discussion on these articles, see 17th and 18th plenary meetings. reference to all the articles of the draft Convention which, like article 26, purported to vest functions in the Secretary-General. In his delegation's view, it would be more accurate to vest such functions in the Secretariat. In international agreements, rights, powers and functions were vested in the parties, the organs of the United Nations or the specialized agencies, but never in specific persons. Article 7 of the United Nations Charter stated that the Secretariat was one of the principal organs of the United Nations, whereas Article 97 described the Secretary-General as an administrative officer. Obviously, it would be more appropriate to vest the functions to be exercised under the Convention in the Secretariat as one of the principal organs of the United Nations. Moreover, as the Convention would be in force for a long time to come, its provisions should refer to the organs of the United Nations and not to particular officers; they would thus remain applicable regardless of any changes in the internal structure of the United Nations. The PRESIDENT asked the representative of the USSR whether he wished to make a formal proposal on that point. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) replied that he had merely wished to state the views of his delegation. Article 27 (Statistical returns to be furnished to the Board) The PRESIDENT asked the members to vote on the ad hoc committee's recommendation that the words "as approved by the Commission" in paragraph 1 should be deleted. By 33 votes to none, with 7 abstentions, the Conference decided that the words in question should be deleted. Mr. BANERJI (India) recalled that, when the ad hoc committee had decided to recommend the deletion of paragraph 1 (a), his delegation had reserved its right to raise the question again in the plenary. The Indian delegation still considered that statistics of areas cultivated for the production of the opium poppy constituted useful information, which a party would possess in any event if it carried out its obligations under article 31. He failed to see why there should be any difficulty in furnishing the Board with such information. As it was desirable that countries which had been furnishing the information should continue to do so, he proposed that the provision should be redrafted in the form of a recommendation. Mr. AZARAKHSH (Iran) said that articles 27 and 28 of the third draft provided that the parties should furnish to the Board statistical returns in respect of the area cultivated for the production of drugs and the average yield in the preceding five years. The ad hoc committee's decision to recommend the deletion of paragraph 1 (a) both in article 27 and in article 28 had been based on a misinterpretation of the statement which the representative of the PCOB had made concerning the usefulness of those provisions. In his delegation's view, the statistics of acreage cultivated and 130 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs average yield in preceding years were not only the best but the only means to control and check the quantity of opium produced in a particular region. If the Board was deprived of that information, it would become a mere statistical agency, whose sole activity would be the collection and publication of figures. It was true that the yield of the opium poppy harvest varied with climatic changes, but the Board, by taking into account the average yield in preceding years, could estimate approximately the quantity of opium which should be obtained from the area cultivated. National opium control laws were based on that principle. For instance, in Turkey, Act. No. 7368 of 24 July 1959 (E/NL.1959/ 85-86) established special procedures for determining whether the failure of a producer to deliver the quantity of opium estimated was really due to climatic conditions. If such information was unquestionably useful at the national level, it should surely be considered equally useful at the international level. Moreover, those countries in which cultivators of the opium poppy were licensed already had information on the areas cultivated for the production of opium and could easily furnish the relevant statistics to the Board. On the other hand, refusal to furnish such easily gathered statistics, which were without any political significance, could only arouse suspicion, particularly in view of the large illicit traffic in opium. The Board should be given the tools to establish real control of opium production. As Mr. May had said in the Bulletin on Narcotics (vol. VII, No. 1, p. 3), "Limitation of the use of dangerous drugs to medical and scientific needs is the guiding rule of the present system of international control. However, opium ... , although subject to some measures of international control, [is] not subject to this basic rule. This represents a serious gap which the Commission set out to close when it undertook to elaborate the draft Single Convention." It would be unfortunate indeed if all the effective measures proposed in the third draft were deleted one by one. While some countries spoke constantly of satisafctory national control, others were suffering severely from illicit imports of opium. The retention of the provisions in question was therefore necessary to protect public health and combat the illicit traffic. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that the Board did not need statistics concerning areas cultivated for the production of drugs. Very different yields could be produced from the same areas. The statistics would be even less useful if they were submitted by some States and not by others, under the recommendatory provision suggested by the Indian representative. He agreed with the Iranian representative that article 27, paragraph 1 (a) had no political implications; nevertheless, it imposed an unnecessary obligation on governments. Therefore, he associated his delegation with the majority of the ad hoc committee which had recommended its deletion. Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) recalled that when the paragraph had first been discussed in the ad hoc committee, the impression had been given that the Board could dispense with information on areas cultivated for the production of opium. Later, however, it had been made clear that, from the Board's point of view, it was desirable to have as much information as possible. The Board's reasons for taking a different view concerning statistics and estimates on cannabis and coca leaves had been set out in document E/CONF.34/1. The information requested in the paragraph in question had also been required in the 1953 Protocol, which was concerned with the control of raw materials. The paragraph had been criticized on two grounds: that the information would not be useful to the Board and that it would be difficult for parties to furnish. However, the usefulness of the information could not be questioned. The average yield in the preceding five years would be taken into account for the purpose of reducing uncertainties to a minimum, and in any case the Board would not be likely to rush to conclusions without regard to climatic variations in a particular country. And since, under article 31, all areas in which poppy cultivation was permitted had to be designated, and all cultivators licensed, parties should have no difficulty in providing the statistics. With reference to the Indian proposal for a recommendatory provision, he pointed out that the information requested in the paragraph had not been submitted in the past. The only instrument requiring the submission of such information was the 1953 Protocol, which had not yet come into force. He wished to stress that if the information was not furnished, the control system would be incomplete. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that his delegation's statements on the question under discussion should be regarded as entirely objective, since the USSR had no serious drug addiction problem and did not permit illicit trade or traffic in narcotics. His delegation would not oppose the Indian suggestion that any party which so wished might submit acreage statistics to the Board, but it supported the ad hoc committee's recommendation that paragraph 1 (a) should be deleted. The USSR favoured strict national control of narcotic drugs, while at the same time supporting all international control measures which would facilitate the fight against drug addiction and the illicit traffic. The Board should be given the information really necessary for the exercise of its control functions, but States should not be burdened with formal obligations to submit information of a secondary character, which the Board could very well do without. At the first meeting of the ad hoc committee, the representative of the PCOB had stated that, while the Board would of course be glad to receive as much information as possible, the deletion of paragraph 1 (a) would not handicap its work. His delegation agreed that the parties should furnish information on the quantities they had produced, and on the quantities they intended to produce, and it believed that that information would enable the Board to exercise control over the level of opium production. On the other hand, it was convinced that information about the areas cultivated for the production of opium would be of no practical value to the Board's work. Since the yield Twenty-eighth plenary meeting — 8 March 1961 131 obtained from a particular area varied greatly with the climatic conditions, the Board could not determine, on the basis of acreage statistics, whether a low yield in a particular year was due to the illicit traffic or to climate. It had been argued that the information requested would be useful to countries in which there was a large illicit traffic, but his delegation failed to see what use such countries would have for statistics of the acreage cultivated in other States. The preparation of such information would undoubtedly be a useless waste of time and labour. Consequently, his delegation supported the ad hoc committee's recommendation that article 27, paragraph 1 (a), and also the corresponding passage in article 28, paragraph 1 (a), should be deleted. Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) said he could not see the object of the recommendatory provision proposed by the Indian delegation: either the information was useful, or it was not. He was inclined to agree with the representative of the USSR that statistics concerning areas cultivated for the production of opium would be valueless^ Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) said, in reply to the Soviet representative, that if all the summary records were read as a whole, it would be found that his position had remained unchanged. In the ad hoc committee he had, in fact, pointed out that, for the Board, the data in question would be a safeguard, because they would enable it to keep abreast of new production and also estimate over-production, but that if the Conference should decide to omit paragraph 1 (a), the Board would not be handicapped because information would still be available to it. He considered such information most necessary and agreed with the representative of Pakistan that it should not be furnished on an optional basis. Having himself been in charge of that kind of work in India, which had the ideal control system, he had some knowledge of the procedure used for the control of opium production. He knew that once an area was licensed and production was supervised continuously until the crop was collected, information about the yield was available in government records. Consequently, from the practical point of view, he was not convinced that such information was difficult to supply. As to the possibility that the Board might draw erroneous conclusions from the information, he said that, as he had pointed out before, the Board could be relied upon to make due allowance for climatic conditions. Even in such countries as India, the yield came within a certain margin and it was easy to determine which areas had a high or a low yield and thereby judge the accuracy of the production figures communicated. Moreover, all producing countries knew by the middle of the season whether there would be a good crop in a particular year or not. Therefore, while the climatic conditions would be uncertain, the yield could always be related to those conditions and reliable conclusions reached. If the information were not furnished, it would be harder to control opium production where opium was grown over a large area. A large number of supervisory personnel would be required to ensure that where a low yield was reported, there had been no leakage. If the Board had two sets of figures to go by—concerning the quantity of estimated production and the quantity of opium actually grown—it could tell from comparing the two whether the production figures were correct. If the yield was lower than could be explained by climatic conditions, it would be inferred that a leakage had occurred. But if no estimates were communicated at all, the Board would be unable to verify the actual production figures and check the illicit traffic. Opium should be treated on a different basis from the other drugs, and he hoped that the Conference would take account of the need to retain paragraph 1 (a). Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) said that his delegation associated itself with the remarks made by the representative of the PCOB. The paragraph should be retained and the recommendation of the ad hoc committee should be rejected. The statistical information in question might be very useful, even though its absence would not handicap the Board. Mr. ESTRELLA (Peru) said that while he agreed that the essential purpose of the Conference was to provide effective guarantees for narcotics control, due account should also be taken of the practical value of any information to be submitted. He therefore considered that the ad hoc committee's recommendation to delete the provisions in question was fully justified. Mr. VERTES (Hungary) agreed with the representatives of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union that the provision was superfluous. Such a broad provision would necessitate the submission of information on all areas cultivated with the opium poppy, even if not cultivated specifically for the purpose of producing opium. While Hungary was not directly affected by the provision, since it grew poppies mainly for food, in all objectivity his delegation thought that the provision should be deleted, since the information in question would be of doubtful value. Moreover, any conclusions based on the figures for the average yield over the preceding five years, as provided in article 28, paragraph 1 (a), would be unreliable since the figures could not be authenticated and would depend on variations in climate. Mr. BOGOMOLETS (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that, as a scientist, he had been considerably surprised at the provision in article 27, paragraph 1 (a). He had consulted eminent colleagues in his country on the subject, including the President of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences, who had said that such data could not be of any practical significance for the purpose of assessing the quantities of the final product. Technological factors also had to be taken into account, for they varied from year to year and it was impossible to assess the final yield simply from a knowledge of the areas under cultivation. Moreover, a leading statistician in his country had indicated that estimates based on the average yield over the past five years would be statistically useless. He had to conclude therefore that the provision in question and also paragraph 1 (a) of article 28 were unscientific and should not be included in the Convention, which should be a scientifically sound document. 132 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Dr. MABILEAU (France) said that, before a vote was taken on the ad hoc committee's recommendation concerning paragraph 1 (a), it would be necessary to find a more satisfactory text. As it stood, it referred to "areas cultivated for the production of drugs". The Conference had decided that the word "drugs" meant both natural and synthetic drugs, but the provision in question could hardly have any bearing on synthetic drugs, nor did it relate to coca, cannabis or even poppy straw. It should therefore be made clear that it related exclusively to opium. So far as substance was concerned, his delegation had already expressed the view that, although it might be useful, the provision was certainly not vital, as was demonstrated by the mere fact that it had given rise to so much discussion. He would therefore support the majority view that emerged from the discussion. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that his delegation also considered that the provision should relate exclusively to opium production. It was clear both from the 1959 report of the Commission (14th session, E/3254 and Corr.l) on Narcotic Drugs and the table appended to the 1960 report of the PCOB that a number of countries were already supplying figures in hectares for areas under cultivation, together with the final production figures. There would seem to be no difficulty in supplying such information, and India was only suggesting that the existing situation should continue. If some countries experienced genuine difficulty in furnishing the statistics, they might be exempted. India's compromise suggestion was that if the form for the statistical returns were to include a column for areas in hectares, countries that had difficulty in submitting such figures might be free to leave that columne blank. While making that compromise suggestion, however, the delegation of India, like that of Pakistan, would prefer the provision to apply to all countries. It seemed to follow logically from the provision in article 31 that such information should be available. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that the proposed provision was of no real use, since the yield depended entirely on the climate, which varied from year to year. Turkey itself submitted statistical returns on acreages, but his delegation considered that there was no point in complicating the Convention unnecessarily and imposing an additional burden on the Board. The PRESIDENT said that the drafting difficulties involved in the use of the term "drugs" could be left for the drafting committee to settle. First, however, he would take a vote to decide whether the paragraph should be retained. The result of the vote was 20 in favour and 17 against, with 12 abstentions. The paragraph was not retained, having failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that he would submit a formal proposal for an optional clause on the subject dealt with in the paragraph. The recommendation of the ad hoc committee concerning paragraph 1 (c) was accepted. The recommendation of the ad hoc committee concerning paragraph 1(d) was accepted, the question of the definition of "consumption" being referred to the drafting committee. The recommendation of the ad hoc committee concerning paragraph 1(G) was accepted. The recommendations of the ad hoc committee concerning paragraph 2 (%.) (i) and (ii) were accepted. Paragraph reference 184 Mr. KALINKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that, in the ad hoc committee, the Indian proposal to delete paragraph 3 had been withdrawn. The USSR had supported that proposal and continued to be of the opinion that the paragraph should be deleted, as provision for the furnishing of such statistics was not necessary for the work of the Board. The Soviet delegation had no specific proposal to make on the subject, but wished its view to be placed on record. The recommendation of the ad hoc committee concerning paragraph 3 was accepted. Article 28 (Estimates of production and drug requirements) The Conference accepted the recommendation of the ad hoc committee that the words "as approved by the Commission" should be omitted from the introductory clause of paragraph 1. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia), referring to paragraph 1 (a), said it would be illogical to retain the phrase "the approximate quantities of drugs to be produced therefrom, based on the average yield in the preceding five years" in isolation, especially as paragraph 1 (a) of article 27 had been deleted. The provision was even more unnecessary than that in article 27, paragraph 1 (a), for the Board already had statistics at its disposal and, in any case, it was impossible to predict future production on the basis of the average yield of the preceding five years. The PRESIDENT agreed that it might be illogical to retain the phrase and suggested that the paragraph might be voted on as a whole. Mr. RAJ (India) remarked that paragraph 1 (a) of article 28 was intimately connected with article 27, paragraph 1 (a). It was true that the latter provision had been deleted, but it might be reintroduced in a modified form. He suggested that consideration of paragraph 1 (a) of article 28 should be postponed until that matter had been decided. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) agreed that, with the deletion of article 27, paragraph 1 (a), it would be necessary to delete all references to statistics on areas under cultivation. However, it would be useful for the Board to have estimates of opium production so as to be able to compare the figures with the actual production statistics. He therefore favoured the retention of the phrase mentioned by the Yugoslav representative, and suggested that the paragraph should be discussed in parts. Twenty-eighth plenary meeting — 8 March 1961 133 Mr. ACBA (Turkey) agreed with the representative of Yugoslavia. Approximate production figures were of little use because the yield depended on the climate and not on the plans of the producers. Moreover, approximate production could be calculated from the figures already available to the Board. He therefore favoured the deletion of the paragraph. Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) said that the Netherlands representative had been correct in pointing out that the first and third phrases of the paragraph were related to article 27, paragraph 1 (a) and should therefore be deleted. However, so far as the second phrase was concerned, he said that all countries had first to make an estimate before they started production. They all set themselves targets even though they might not always reach them. It was important for the Board to have those estimates for purposes of comparison and there was therefore nothing illogical in retaining the provision even if paragraph 1 (a) of article 27 had been deleted. The phrase in question might, therefore, be considered in isolation. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that the Conference had decided to delete paragraph 1 (a) in article 27 because the figures for areas cultivated served no useful purpose. If the provision for figures of areas under cultivation were deleted, there was little use in estimating quantities of drugs to be produced from the areas. It might be possible to calculate the average yields of preceding years, but that would be no help in determining production in future years because production in a given area varied from year to year. As the representative of Turkey had said, not only the Board but the producing countries themselves could not estimate future production. Mr. ACBA (Turkey), referring to the statement of the representative of the PCOB that it would be useful for the Board to have the figures for the average yield to compare with the actual production figures, asked what the Board would do if the figures did not correspond. In any case, it was impossible to make any estimate of yields until the crop was actually harvested. Therefore, approximate production estimates, based on the average for previous years, were unreliable. The PRESIDENT suggested that it would be preferable to vote on the various phrases of paragraph 1 (a) separately. He first invited the Conference to vote on the retention of the phrase "the areas (in hectares) to be cultivated for the production of drugs". The result of the vote was 18 in favour and 17 against, with 14 abstentions. The phrase was rejected, having failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to vote on the retention of the phrase "the approximate quantities of drugs to be produced therefrom, based on the average yield in the preceding five years". The result of the vote was 22 in favour and 15 against, with 12 abstentions. The phrase was rejected, having failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. The PRESIDENT pointed out that since the first two phrases had been rejected, it was unnecessary to take a vote on the concluding phrase. Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) recalled that he had raised a question relevant to article 28 in connexion with article 42, paragraph 1 (b). It was essential that the expression "within the limits of the total of the estimates" should be defined in article 28 in such a way that if a country did not include a figure for a certain drug in its estimates, that would mean that it had no need for that drug, not that it intended to use unlimited quantities of it. The actual wording might be left to the drafting committee. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) agreed that if no figure was reported, that should mean that the country's needs were nil. However, that was not always possible to foresee. A country might give no estimate for a certain drug out still find that certain quantities of the drug might be needed for legal consumption. A situation of that kind could arise in those countries in respect of which the Board was obliged to establish estimates when the countries themselves had failed to do so. It would therefore be unwise to provide in the Convention that if a country made no estimate for its requirements of a certain drug, it could have no requirements for that drug. Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHY (Permanent Central Opium Board) agreed that such a situation could arise in two ways. First, a new drug could come into use. Secondly, a country could discover that it needed to use an existing drug for which it had not submitted an estimate. In either case, a supplementary estimate should be sent to the Board, which was always very sympathetic in its consideration of such applications. Mr. RAJ (India) pointed out that both those cases were already provided for in the Convention. First, article 28, paragraph 3, provided for supplementary estimates and, secondly, article 29, paragraph 4 (b) (ii), provided for the emergency use of drugs. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that, after the explanation given by the representative of the PCOB, the proposal was quite acceptable to him. The PRESIDENT suggested that it should be referred to the drafting committee for formulation. It was so agreed. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) asked why the Committee recommended that in paragraph 4 parties should be asked to inform the Board of their reasons for using the methods in question. Mr. LANDE (Deputy Executive Secretary) said that that part of the Committee's report did not agree with the records. As could be seen from E/CONF.34/C.9/ SR.3, the Committee had proposed that the reasons for changes in the method should be given, not for using the method itself. The proposal had originally been made by the representative of Greece at the eighteenth plenary meeting The PRESIDENT pointed out that the word "using" 134 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in the second line of the relevant paragraph in the ad hoc committee's report should be replaced by the word "changing". Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that there did not seem to be any more reason for explaining the reasons for changing the method than those for adopting it. In both cases, the only answer could be that the country had chosen the method because it considered it the best. The PRESIDENT pointed out that, in explaining why it had changed its method, a country would also explain what it had found to be wrong with the method it had used previously and that information would be useful to the Board. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) said that it was precisely for that reason that he had made his original proposal. His government certainly would have no objection to explaining why it had chosen the method it was using. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that the provision would introduce an unnecessary complication and he would therefore vote against it. The PRESIDENT said that, as the proposal did not involve a deletion, he would invite the Conference to vote, not on the original text, but on the Committee's proposal that parties should inform the Board of the reasons for their changing the methods in question. The result of the vote was 24 in favour and 14 against, with 12 abstentions. The proposal was not adopted, having failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. The ad hoc committee's suggestion concerning the order of articles 27 and 28 was accepted. 2 Article 29 (Limitation of manufacture and importation) The ad hoc committee's suggestions concerning the drafting of paragraphs 2 and 4 (a) and (b) (ii) were accepted. Article 20 (Administration of the estimate system) Mr. KALINKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said he wished to raise a serious point of principle in connexion with paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 20, particularly paragraph 3. That paragraph empowered the Board to establish estimates in respect of States which failed to furnish their own estimates. That was an infringement of the sovereign rights of those countries and could be gravely detrimental to their interests. International agreements were an expression of the will of two or more countries and were freely entered into. Their provisions were therefore binding on the parties to them but not on third parties. That principle had been stated many times by the most eminent legal authorities. In his Traite de droit international, the eminent Russian jurist, F. de Martens, had stated that an 2 The Conference also accepted the Committee's recommendations concerning the definitions of "stocks", "special stocks" and "government purposes" in article 1 (discussed in commision with article 28, para. 1 (c). agreement was not valid if its provisions ran counter to the rights of third countries and could institute commitments only for the parties to it. The same view had been expressed by western jurists also. For instance, in his International Law, Charles Cheney Hyde had said that a State was not bound by the terms of a treaty that it had not accepted and that the rights of States could not be impaired by the provisions of a treaty to which it was not a party. He had added that an abundance of evidence sustained those conclusions. In Oppenheim's International Law (eighth ed. by H. Lauterpacht, § 522) it was stated that in virtue of the principle Pacta tertiis ned nocent nec prosunt, neither rights nor duties arose under a treaty for third States which were not parties to that treaty. The decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Eastern Carelia case, of 23 July 1923, was based on the same principle. Lastly, in his fifth report to the International Law Commission on the law of treaties (A/CN.4/130), 3 Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, the special rapporteur, declared that a State could not, in respect of a treaty to which it was not a party, (a) incur obligations or enjoy rights under the treaty, or (b) incur any liability or suffer any disability or detriment, or any diminution or deprivation of right, or be entitled to claim as of right any faculty, interest, benefit or advantage under the treaty. A number of inescapable conclusions were to be drawn from the theoretical premise for which he had just cited authority. First, as an agreement reflected a decision freely arrived at by the parties concerned only, it could not be binding on third parties which had not agreed to it. Secondly, the parties to an agreement had had an opportunity of framing its provisions to express their wishes but a third party had had no such opportunity; unless it voluntarily acceded to the agreement at a later date, it could not therefore be bound by it. Thirdly, international agreements were concluded between sovereign States on a basis of equality, but if they were extended to third parties without their consent, that would be a violation of the principle of the equality of States and therefore quite unacceptable, in principle or in practice. Fourthly, treaties were freely accepted instruments; to impose the will of the parties on a third country would be tantamount to forcing it to sign a treaty under duress. The obligations thus imposed could not, therefore, be binding. Fifthly, for an international agreement to be valid, it had to be signed and ratified by the contracting parties. A country which had neither signed nor ratified the agreement could not therefore be bound by it. It would be unjust to expect countries to fulfil obligations which they had not expressly accepted; it would also be most undesirable because it would weaken the signature and ratification procedure. Moreover, an international convention or agreement had to fulfil certain conditions, one of which was that it must not violate the rights of or lay obligations on third parties. If it did so, it was to that extent invalid. 3 Reprinted in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1960, vol. II (United Nations publication, Sales No. 60. V. 1. vol. II) pp. 69 et seq. See in particular the second chapter of Sir Gerald's draft code, art. 3. Twenty-ninth plenary meeting — 9 March 1961 135 Article 20 could be considered from another point of view, that of the functioning of the estimates system. It was article 2, paragraph 2, of the 1931 Convention that had first given the Supervisory Body the power to establish estimates for countries which had not submitted their own. The object then had been to ensure the proper functioning of the estimates system by making it universal. It was interesting to see what the DSB had done in the exercise of those powers. In Estimated World Requirements of Narcotic Drugs in 1961 (E/DSB/18), the DSB reported that estimates had been furnished by 106 countries and sixty-five non-metropolitan territories. On page xv of the same document, it reported that no estimates had been received from seven countries and that the estimates had therefore been established by the DSB. Those countries could be divided into two groups: first, Nepal, Yemen, Libya and the Republic of Somalia and, second, North Korea, the Mongolian People's Republic and North Viet-Nam. The reason why the countries in the first group had not submitted estimates was presumably that they did not possess a competent administration capable of making the necessary calculations, not that they did not wish to co-operate in the international control system. Instead of establishing estimates for them, the DSB would be better advised to assist the competent authorities in establishing their own estimates. The case of the second group of countries was rather different. The Board had addressed requests for estimates to those countries under the 1931 Convention, but they had not yet been invited to accede to that convention. That point had been made quite clear at a recent session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, when the USSR representative had asked the Director of the Division of Narcotic Drugs whether the text of the 1931 Convention had been communicated to the Mongolian People's Republic; the Director's reply had been that the text had never been sent. Thus, the Mongolian People's Republic had been given no opportunity to accede to the 1931 Convention, but the organs set up by that convention were entitled to request it to submit estimates failing which the DSB established the estimates. It would seem that a country which had not been invited to become a party to the Convention should not be forced to submit estimates. The practical question how such estimates would be arrived at by the new organs under the Single Convention should be given careful thought. The parties to the Convention would inform the Board of the methods they were using to calculate their estimates, on the basis of information supplied by their health services. But the Board would have no such data for countries which did not submit estimates, and it would have to proceed by analogy, a dangerous and unreliable method. As an illustration of errors in the estimates of the DSB he cited the case of exports of morphine from the USSR to the Mongolian People's Republic for the second quarter of 1957. The Board's estimate had been 800 grammes for that period; actually, the USSR had exported 4 kilogrammes to the Mongolian People's Republic. In August of the same year, the Board had written to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR informing him that the USSR's exports of morphine to the Mongolian People's Republic had exceeded the estimate. It had also written to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Mongolian People's Republic pointing out the difference between the estimate and its imports of morphine and requesting it to keep within its estimate. It was outrageous that a country which had not been invited to accede to the Convention should be called upon to comply with its provisions. Furthermore, in its foreign trade relations, the USSR was bound to consider the needs of the Mongolian People's Republic and take account of the fact that the morphine it was exporting would not go into the illicit traffic or be used by drug addicts, but would be used for legitimate medical and scientific purposes. Real needs were a better guide than the estimates established by the Board, which were necessarily incorrect and unreliable. The impossibility of establishing accurate estimates in such circumstances could be easily demonstrated. According to the last sentence of article 20, paragraph 3, the Board should establish such estimates in co-operation with the government concerned. But if the country concerned did not co-operate, the Board would be unable to obtain the information specified in article 28 on which to base its calculations. Under an alternative text for article 20, paragraph 3, which his delegation had drafted (E/CONF.34/L.23) the Board would establish estimates only for three groups of countries: first, countries parties to the Single Convention; secondly, countries which were not parties to the Convention but which were already furnishing estimates to the PCOB or the DSB; and, thirdly, for other States, not parties to the Convention, which agreed to furnish estimates at the Board's request. That would be a sensible procedure and would ensure that the estimates published by the Board were accurate. It would also make the Convention much more widely acceptable than it was in its present form. The meeting rose at 6.15 m.m. TWENTY-NINTH PLENARY MEETING Thursday, 9 March 1961, at 10.50 a.m. President: Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l) ( continued) Article 20 (Administration of the estimate system) ( continued) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to continue its debate on article 20, in the light of the report of the competent ad hoc committee (E/CONF.34/14, Corr.l). He also drew attention to the redraft of article 20, paragraph 3, suggested by the USSR (E/CONF.34/L.23). 136 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. BEVANS (United States of America) said that two questions arose in connexion with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the article : whether the provisions in question were contrary to the recognized rights of third countries under international law, and whether an effective convention could be drawn up to prevent the illicit traffic in drugs without including those provisions. His delegation considered that both questions should be answered in the negative. The provisions of the two paragraphs were in fact more a concession to third countries than an obligation imposed on them, since the paragraphs would enable those countries to import narcotics from and export them to parties. Paragraph 2 authorized and required the Board to request all States, whether or not they were parties, to furnish estimates. That procedure infringed no rule of international law and had in fact been in effect for more than thirty years. Paragraph 3 obligated only the Board and not nonparty countries. It provided only that a country might, if it wished, co-operate with the Board. There was no doubt that, in order to be effective, the Convention should provide for the application of the estimate system by all the countries of the world. Since 1925 the system had been recognized as one of the cornestones of the international control system and it could not be eliminated without risking the collapse of all control. Mr. VERTES (Hungary) wished to support the position taken by the Soviet delegation at the previous meeting. If a country could not obtain the necessary quantities of drugs because the estimate made by the Board fell below its actual needs, as had happened in the case of the Mongolian People's Republic, the consequences for public health in that country might be very serious. The main object of the Convention, after all, was to save human lives and to relieve pain. Replying to a question from Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom), Mr. KALINKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that the alternative wording of paragraph 3 suggested by his delegation (E/CONF.34/L.23) was not intented as a formal proposal, but as a formula which the Conference might usefully consider if it found that it could not accept paragraph 3 as it stood. Moreover, the text in no way conflicted with the principles contained in article 2, as adopted. His delegation agreed with the United States representative that article 20, paragraph 2, was in no way contrary to international law. Its objections were directed more towards paragraph 3, since, although the Board could quite properly request countries to furnish estimates, it could not, on the other hand, substitute itself for governments and establish those estimates itself, for it was not acquainted with the methods used by each country to prepare its statistics. His delegation was fully aware of the problems which might arise if paragraph 3 was simply deleted. That was why it had proposed a compromise text, since it considered the paragraph entirely unacceptable as it stood. The problem was particularly important for the countries which had never submitted estimates in the past and for those which had recently become independent. Guarantees should therefore be provided that there would be no inconsistencies or abuses such as had taken place, for example, in the case of the Mongolian People's Republic. Mr. BANERJI (India) pointed out that the article 2 which appeared in the report of the competent ad hoc committee (E/CONF.34/16) was almost identical with the text suggested by the Soviet representative. Moreover, the two articles were interdependent and it would therefore be preferable for the Conference to return to the point after it had taken a decision on article 22. The PRESIDENT said that representatives should have an opportunity to examine the text submitted by the Soviet Union at leisure. He proposed that the Conference should vote on article 20, subject to the possible reconsideration of paragraph 3. Subject to that reservation, article 20 was adopted unanimously. Article 21 (Administration of the statistical returns system) 1 The PRESIDENT pointed out that, according to the report of the ad hoc committee (E/CONF.34/14), the USSR delegation considered that paragraph 2 could only be properly considered in conjunction with article 48. He suggested that the Conference should return to that paragraph when it reconsidered article 20, paragraph 3. It was so agreed. The remainder of article 21 was adopted unanimously. Article 4 (Obligations of the parties) 1 The PRESIDENT, drawing attention to the report of the ad hoc committee (E/CONF.34/14 and Corr.l), put to the vote the proposal that paragraph 2 should be deleted. The proposal was adopted by 14 votes to none, with 5 abstentions. Article 27 (Statistical returns to be furnished to the Board) (resumed from the previous meeting) The PRESIDENT drew attention to the Indian delegation's amendment (E/CONF.34/L.22). Mr. BUVAILIK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said he interpreted the Indian amendment to mean that the furnishing of information other than that referred to in paragraph 1 (i) would be optional. In other words, a country would furnish such information only if it so desired. If that was the case, his delegation could accept the amendment. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) agreed that States should be left free to send or not to send such information. However, the phrase "as far as possible" was hardly satisfactory; obviously, it was not impossible for a country to provide the information, since each country knew very well how many hectares were under control. 1 Previously discussed at the 17th and 18th plenary meetings. Twenty-ninth plenary meeting — 9 March 1961 137 Mr. BANERJI (India) said that his delegation's amendment introduced an element of flexibility. The information in question should certainly be furnished if that was possible, since it would be very useful. But some countries might be genuinely unable to do so, for example, because they did not have or were not in a position to establish the necessary statistical machinery. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) considered that the Indian amendment would in no way improve the text, which remained as rigid as before. He suggested that the provision should declare it desirable that the statistics should be furnished. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) agreed) that, under the Indian amendment, all the parties to the Convention would be required to furnish statistics. He would agree to the Yugoslav representative's suggestion. Mr. BANERJI (India) said that, despite his preferences, he was prepared to accept that change as a compromise. Mr. BUVAILIK (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) said he could not agree to the suggestion of the Yugoslav representative because it would make the text even more rigid than the Indian amendment. To say "it is desirable that the parties should furnish... " would mean that the submission of information was no longer left to the initiative of the parties. Mr. GURINOVICH (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that at the previous meeting a majority of delegations had voted for the deletion of paragraph 1 (a). Yet, the Conference had before it an amended version of that clause. It was surely out of order to vote twice on the same question. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) did not think that the expression "it is desirable that " implied an obligation. There was a great difference of substance between an obligation and the expression of a desire. Mr. GURINOVICH (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) said that if the expression "it is desirable that" were included in the Convention, the parties which had not furnished such information would find themselves in a difficult situation; they would therefore be virtually obliged to supply it. In the future, countries would be guided solely by the actual text of the Convention. It was, therefore, important that it should be clear. Mr. MONTERO-BUSTAMANTE (Uruguay) supported the Yugoslav representative's suggestion. Moreover, whether it was an obligation or simply something desirable, the moral aspect should prevail. Mr. KALINKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) recalled that article 55 of the Convention dealt with the settlement of disputes and provided for arbitration in the event of difficulties of interpretation. However, it would be better if the text of the Convention were as clear as possible, in order to avoid such difficulties. It should therefore be established without doubt whether or not the Indian and Yugoslav amendments created an obligation. If the representative of India considered that his amendment should appear in the Convention, any idea of "desire" should be excluded and it should be incorporated in a resolution annexed to the Convention. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) supported that suggestion: it would enable the authors of the amendments to withdraw them; in any event, as had been said repeatedly, the information in question had only a marginal value—it was unnecessary, therefore, to prolong the debate on that point. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) agreed to withdraw his suggested sub-amendment. Mr. BANERJI (India) said he would be prepared to replace the word "shall" in his delegation's amendment by the word "may". The Indian amendment, as revised, was adopted by 25 votes to 1, with 23 abstentions. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) explained that he had abstained because he believed that the new provision served no useful purpose and should not appear in an international convention. Mr. KARIM (Pakistan) and U TIN MAUNG (Burma) said that they had abstained for the same reasons. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that it was for those reasons that he, too, had voted against the amendment. Article 27 as a whole was adopted by 44 votes to none, with 2 abstentions. Article 22 (Measures to ensure the execution of the provisions of the Convention ) (resumed from the 18th plenary meeting) The PRESIDENT drew attention to the report of the ad hoc committee appointed to deal with article 22 (E/CONF.34/16). Mr. GURINOVICH (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), speaking as chairman of the ad hoc committee, said that the committee had unanimously decided to take the United Kingdom amendment (E/CONF. 34/ C.10/L.3) as the basis of its work. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that during the ad hoc committee's discussion two modifications of substance had been made in the original United Kingdom text for article 22. Those were the passages underlined in the text reproduced in the report. The intention of the first modification was to ensure that the Board would not take any action on the basis of estimates which it had itself established. The second modification called for an explanation. The ad hoc committee had adopted the proposal on which that modification was based without realizing its full significance. The representative of the USSR had made a statement at the 28th plenary meeting which explained his attitude. It was apparent that the effect of the modification would be that the Board could not take any action against the parties to existing conventions or any other countries which had never submitted estimates to the PCOB since the initiation of the system, and that the future board, too, was to be prevented from taking 138 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs any action against States which, in the future, failed to provide it with estimates. The PCOB and the DSB would eventually cease to exist, but they would remain in being for some time after the new Convention came into force. If a State not a party to the Convention were to send them estimates, the provisions of article 22, paragraph 1, would become applicable to it. That was no doubt an arbitrary way of drawing a dividing line but the representative of the Soviet Union himself wanted one to be drawn; in his opinion, the distinction was between States which for various reasons were not in a position to furnish estimates, and those which could not become parties to the Convention and hence should not furnish them. The provision proposed by the USSR which had been endorsed by the Indian delegation and approved by the Committee, therefore gave an advantage to States which did not furnish estimates either to the PCOB or to the DSB for, knowing that the Board could take no action against them, they would have no incentive to change their attitude. A second objection to that modification was that the very hypothetical danger of an injustice towards the States which could not become parties was not a sufficient reason for leaving such a gap in the estimates system. Although at the moment some States could not become parties, it was to be hoped that the Convention would remain in force for a long time and that circumstances would change. Furthermore, if a country could become a party but did not do so, it would be a pity if the powers of the Board were limited solely in order to avoid an injustice. There was no reason why non-party States should refuse to co-operate. If they co-operated, the bar to the exercise of the Board's powers would automatically disappear. The Convention stressed the impartiality incumbent upon the Board. There was every reason to believe that it would always act with the greatest circumspection. If it had to make an inquiry into the situation in a non-party country, it would act with even more circumspection. If it discovered a situation which jeopardized the aims of the Convention, it was not right that it should be prevented from taking steps to remedy that situation. The USSR text would make it impossible even to ask for explanations. Lastly, it should not be forgotten that the severest measure the Board could take was to recommend an embargo, and that the parties were not even compelled to observe it. The USSR text was therefore unacceptable to the United Kingdom delegation, which would ask for a separate vote on the passage in question. Mr. KOCH (Denmark) agreed with the remarks of the representative of the United Kingdom. The Danish delegation had abstained from the vote in the ad hoc committee, because it had not had time to give full consideration to the implications of the USSR proposal. It had understood its purpose to be to limit the powers of the Board to the States parties to the Convention, or to those who co-operated with the Board by furnishing estimates. The reaction of the Danish delegation to the proposal had been mixed: on the one hand, it had felt that, if the Convention were to be effective, the Board should be able to apply the measures envisaged in article 22—which were in any case limited—on a universal basis; but, on the other hand, by reason of the sound principle that there could be no obligations without corresponding rights, it thought it would be difficult to impose obligations on non-party States which did not send estimates to the Board and did not enjoy any rights under the Convention. On examining the question more closely, however, his delegation had come to the conclusion that the principle was not applicable. The only obligation—a moral obligation— imposed by article 22 was to respect the aims of the Convention and those aims, which were to exercise control over drugs and to prevent illicit traffic, should be the aims of all States, whether or not they were parties to the Convention. It was therefore quite reasonable that the Board, if it found that any State was not conforming to those aims, should be able to take steps to remedy that dangerous situation. With regard to the rights of States, to which the representative of the USSR had referred the previous day, surely no State could claim to be exempt from giving explanations or from being the subject of an embargo recommendation. Any State could, on its own initiative, decide to apply an embargo against another State. Why should the parties to the Convention not enjoy that right? He therefore favoured a separate vote on the relevant part of article 22 as adopted by the ad hoc committee. Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) endorsed the views of the representative of Denmark. The modification in question had been submitted orally to the ad hoc committee and his delegation had not immediately realized the serious gap which might result in the estimates needed by the Board. He had therefore voted for the modification; but after a closer examination, he was obliged to reconsider his decision. Dr. MABILEAU (France) pointed out that the debate on the question in the ad hoc committee had been extremely confused; a vote had been taken before the possible effects of the USSR proposal had been clearly understood. For that reason, the French delegation had abstained from voting. After further study, it appeared that the amendment might imply that there were countries which, technically, did not wish to collaborate with the Board. A refusal to collaborate appeared highly improbable. The figures quoted by the Executive Secretary at the 27th plenary meeting indicated that almost all States were collaborating with the PCOB under the existing instruments. It was regrettable that, for reasons of a non-technical nature, certain States experienced difficulties, and thus deprived themselves of the technical services which the PCOB could provide. However, the provision under consideration should apply to all States and, for that reason, he supported the idea of a separate vote on the passage in question. Mr. WIECZOREK (Poland) agreed with the representative of Denmark that there could be no obligations without rights, but he did not agree that the obligations resulting from the Convention were of minor importance and could readily be applied to all States, whether or not they were parties to the Convention. Even if that Thirtieth plenary meeting — 9 March 1961 139" were so, the Convention could be binding only on those States which freely undertook to apply its provisions; any other requirement would be contrary to the principles of international law. Furthermore, all States were equal before the law and were therefore free to refuse to be bound by an instrument to which they were not parties. Meaningless formulae, which would prove ineffective, should therefore be avoided and, in the case of non-party States, the Conference should adopt only provisions which requested their collaboration. The text approved by the ad hoc committee was sufficiently flexible to enable States which later became parties to the Convention and non-party States to participate in the work of the Board and to collaborate with it. He therefore supported that text. Mr. ARVESEN (Norway) formally requested a separate vote on the following passages of sub-paragraph 1 (a) of article 22: "A party or" and "which not being a party ... " down to ".. . article 20 of this convention". He proposed the deletion of the passages in question. Mr. BANERJI (India) thought that the arguments just put forward had much to commend them. However, he thought that there was in fact a misunderstanding due to a fault in the drafting. The URSS proposal as endorsed by India had been based in the following consideration: there were three groups of countries: States parties; States which, not being parties, furnished estimates to the Board; and States which were not parties and which did not furnish estimates to the Board. For the first two categories of States, the obligation to provide information in the case envisaged in article 22 was absolute; but for the third category, which included only a small number of States, the provision of information was optional, which was logical inasmuch as article 48, in its existing form, debarred certain States from becoming parties to the Convention. It would not therefore be reasonable to impose obligations on them. Mr. BEVANS (United States of America) said that several references had been made to international law, but he was not clear precisely what had been meant. He quoted a text, the authority of which, he believed, was generally recognized: the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Article 38, paragraph 1 (b), of the Statute quoted as a source of international law "international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law". For thirty years, ever since the 1931 Convention, the PCOB had been asking for information from all States; the practice had therefore become international custom, which was a rule of law, and there were no grounds for discontinuing it. The meeting rose at 1.5 p.m. THIRTIETH PLENARY MEETING Thursday, 9 March 1961, at 3.10 p.m. President: Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l> (continued) Article 22 (Measures to ensure the execution of the provisions of the Convention) (continued) The PRESIDENT said that at the previous meeting the Norwegian delegation had proposed that the following words should be deleted from the underlined passage of article 22, paragraph 1 (a), as reproduced in the ad hoc committee's report (E/CONF.34/16): "a party or.. . which not being a party has been furnishing such estimates to the PCOB or the DSB as also any other country or territory not being a party which may in future furnish such information, upon being requested to do so, in accordance with article 20 of this Convention". If those words were deleted, the provision would then read: "... . by reason of the failure of any country or territory to carry out..." ' Mr. GURINOVICH (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) proposed that the words "any country or territory" in the underlined text should be put to the vote separately. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that the re-draft of article 22 which had been submitted by the United Kingdom to the ad hoc committee (E/CONF.34/C.10/ L.3) had been worded ".. . the failure of a country or territory to carry out... " The underlined text in the ad hoc committee's report had been substituted by the Committee on the basis of a proposal by the USSR, as modified by India. Thus, the Norwegian proposal was in effect a proposal to restore the original United Kingdom text. The vote should be divided into two parts, the first being on the retention of the words "any country or territory" and the second on the retention of the words added by the ad hoc committee, Mr. BANERJI (India) suggested the Conference should vote first on the entire underlined passage beginning with the word "party" and then, if that text was not adopted, on the words "any country or territory" as in the draft originally proposed by the United Kingdom. The PRESIDENT said that, as there was no objection, the vote would be taken in that form. He accordingly invited the Conference to vote on the retention of the underlined passage of paragraph 1 (a) beginning with the word "party". At the request of the Ukrainian representative, a vote was taken by roll-call. The Netherlands, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to vote first. In favour: Poland, Romania, Ukrainian Soviet Soci alist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 140 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Albania, Bulgaria, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, India. Against: Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Congo (Leopoldville), Denmark, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Greece, Holy See, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Mexico. Abstaining: Peru, Philippines, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Republic, Yugoslavia, Argentina, Chad, Guatemala, Indonesia, Israel, Liberia. The passage was rejected by 25 votes to 12, with 13 abstentions. Mr. GURINOVICH (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) pointed out that, as a result of the deletion on which the Conference had just decided, the text read ".. . by reason of the failure of a .. . to carry out the provisions of this convention,". He therefore proposed a text to fill that gap. Mr. FINGER (United States of America), speaking on a point of order, said that the Byelorussian proposal was out of order because the Conference had already started to vote in the manner proposed by the Indian representative. A vote should be taken on the reinstatement of the words "any country or territory" in paragraph 1 (a). After some discussion, the PRESIDENT ruled the Byelorussian proposal out of order under rule 41, paragraph 1, of the rules of procedure. He invited the Conference to vote on the restoration of the words "any country or territory". At the request of the Ukrainian representative, a vote was taken by roll-call. Mexico, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to vote first. In favour: Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Congo (Leopoldville), Denmark, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Greece, Guatemala, Holy See, Iran, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea. Against: Poland, Romania, Thailand, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorrussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary. Abstaining: Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Republic, Yugoslavia, Argentina, Cambodia, Chad, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Liberia. The words "any country or territory" were adopted by 30 votes to 11, with 11 abstentions. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) said that, if his delegation had had the slightest doubt that the provision as adopted might impose obligations on third parties, it would have voted against it. It had, however, always been of the opinion that the provisions of the Convention did not affect third parties or impose obligations on them without their consent. There were two aspects to that question, the legal one, which had been exhaustively discussed by the USSR representative at the 28th meeting, and the practical one. As the USSR representative had pointed out, in international as in private law, the source of contractual obligations was consent. It was therefore impossible for the parties to the Convention to impose obligations on third countries without their consent. There was another concept of international and private law which had relevance to the present issue. Parties to an agreement could enable third States to enjoy the benefits of the obligations which the parties had accepted or they could offer to such States the opportunity of accepting those advantages together with the concomitant obligations. A third country could either accept or reject the offer made to it. If it rejected the offer, it could incur no legal obligation, and no penalty for not accepting. The point he had just made was particularly pertinent to the situation which would exist when the Single Convention came into force. It would continue the existing control system, with its aim of ensuring that narcotic drugs were used for medical and scientific purposes only. In order to function properly, that system had to be complete and world-wide. The parties to the Convention, which were the main participants in the control system, could offer to non-parties the advantages of the system, leaving them free to co-operate or not, as they saw fit. If they declined, they incurred no obligation, but if they accepted, they would have to accept the obligations which went with the advantages of the system. If they accepted both the benefits and the obligations of the control system, they would be entitled to import and export drugs on the same footing as countries parties to the Convention, which would not otherwise be possible. His delegation was convinced that the provision was not in any way an infringement of the sovereign rights of States. If it had had any such doubt, it would have voted against the provision, for Mexico was jealous of its own sovereignty and respected the sovereignty of others. The important thing was that the control system should be watertight. The PRESIDENT put to the vote article 22 as proposed by the ad hoc committee (E/CONF.34/16), as amended. Article 22, as amended, was adopted by 35 votes to 8, with 6 abstentions. Article 20 (Administration of the estimate system) (resumed from the previous meeting) The PRESIDENT said that at the previous meeting it had been agreed that article 20, paragraph 3, might be reconsidered. He invited debate on that provision, for which the USSR had suggested a re-draft (E/CONF. 34/L.23). Mr. KALINKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) wished to explain why paragraph 3 of article 20 Thirtieth plenary meeting — 9 March 1961 141 as it stood was unacceptable to his delegation. As he had pointed out earlier, it was obvious from the drafting of the corresponding provision in the 1931 Convention —from which paragraph 3 had been taken—that its purpose had been to induce the largest possible number of States to accede to the Convention. However, the value of estimates established by the Board for States not parties to the Single Convention was extremely doubtful, for in the case of a State which had never submitted estimates in the past, the Board could base its estimates only on comparisons with the figures for other States. Such a procedure conflicted with the very purpose of the Convention. The provision in paragraph 3 would create considerable difficulties for the Soviet Union which, in its narcotics trade with the Republic of Mongolia, provided supplies based on that country's real needs and not on the Board's estimates of those needs. It would, indeed, make it very difficult for the USSR to participate in the Convention. In any case, even after the Single Convention came into force, countries which had been furnishing estimates to the DSB under the 1931 Convention would continue to do so, and there would therefore be no hiatus. In fact, over the past thirty years, practically all countries in the world had come to recognize the principle of furnishing estimates in accordance with the procedure laid down in the 1931 Convention. Far from encouraging more States to accede to the Convention, such a provision might actually discourage them and would constitute discrimination against those countries which, under article 48, were debarred from acceding to the Convention. Under the Soviet delegation's redraft for paragraph 3, the Board would be entitled to establish estimates in respect of: (a) the parties to the Single Convention which had not so far been furnishing estimates; and (b) States already furnishing estimates under the 1931 Convention whether or not they were parties to the Single Convention. However, the Board would not be authorized to establish estimates for States which were debarred from becoming parties to the new Convention. It would, in fact, be very difficult for the Board to do so, because while it would have no difficulty in calculating estimates for countries which had previously furnished estimates because it was familiar with their methods, it would have no information on the methods used by States which had not previously furnished such estimates. The Soviet delegation would be willing to submit its redraft as a formal amendment, if paragraph 3 as it stood were rejected. Mr. KRUYSSE (Netherlands) said that the provision in question was taken from the 1931 Convention and hence did not constitute an innovation. The estimates system, whereby a country was required to furnish an estimate before drugs could be exported to it, was of fundamental importance to the working of the Convention. Moreover, there was nothing discriminatory in the provision since it applied to both parties and non-parties alike and, in fact, the formal obligation imposed on the DSB by the 1931 Convention to establish estimates for countries which did not submit them made it possible for parties to trade with non-parties. In that connexion, he drew attention to article 42, paragraph 1, of the Single Convention. Moreover, it should be clearly understood that the Board was not exercising any right in establishing such estimates, but was fulfilling an obligation. According to the Soviet redraft, a certain category of State would apparently be excluded from the obligation of the Board to establish estimates. But if article 42, paragraph 1, were retained, the parties would be unable to export narcotics to the States in question. He was therefore opposed to the Soviet redraft. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that the control system had to be complete and world-wide. It was hard to see why any country should object to furnishing estimates of its drug requirements, which were necessary for the world-wide control of narcotics. Nor could he see why a country failing to send estimates should object to the Board—which was responsible for the control system—filling in the gap for the benefit of the parties. It was also strange that the provision should be regarded as discriminatory, when a country could itself easily correct the situation by informing the Board that it had not accurately estimated its requirements. It could either inform the Board directly or through the intermediary of another country. He agreed that there were certain countries which could in the future become parties of the Convention and should be encouraged to do so. However, any loopholes in the Convention would actually discourage them from acceding. It also seemed illogical to draw a dividing line so that the Board would not be entitled to establish estimates in the case of a country which had never furnished estimates at any time in the past, but would be entitled to do so in the case of a country which had perhaps once submitted an estimate many years before. His delegation, too, was opposed to the Soviet amendment. The PRESIDENT asked the Conference to decide by a vote whether paragraph 3 of article 20 should be retained. The result of the vote was 31 in favour, 8 against, with 8 abstentions. The paragraph was adopted, having obtained the required two-thirds majority. Article 20, as a whole was adopted. Article 21 (Administration of the statistical returns system) (resumed from the previous meeting) The PRESIDENT said that at the previous meeting it had been agreed that the decision on article 21, paragraph 2, would be held over pending the reconsideration of article 20, paragraph 3. In view of the vote just taken, he asked the Conference to decide by a vote whether paragraph 2 of article 21 should be retained. The result of the vote was 34 in favour, 8 against, with 3 abstentions. The paragraph was adopted, having obtained the required two-thirds majority. Article 21, as a whole, was adopted. The meeting rose at 5.15 p.m. 142 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs THIRTY-FIRST PLENARY MEETING Thursday, 16 March 1961, at 8.30 p.m. President: Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l) (continued) The PRESIDENT invited the Conference to consider the group of articles relating to the Commission and the Board (last considered at the 25th plenary meeting) in the light of the report of the ad hoc committee appointed to deal with those articles (E/CONF.34/17). Article 7 (Constitutional position and continuity of functions of the Commission) Mr. DANNER (Federal Republic of Germany) reiterated his view that the solution proposed by the ad hoc committee was not satisfactory, for it excluded countries which were not Members of the United Nations from the Commission. He supported the opinion of the Mexican representative as recorded in footnote 2 to the ad hoc committee's report (E/CONF.34/17); he, too, considered that the Commission should have its constitutional basis in the Single Convention. Mr. BERTSCHINGER (Switzerland) shared that view. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) also thought that the Commission should not be a functional commission of the Economic and Social Council, but should be established by the Convention. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia), supporting the Turkish representative, said that the constitution of the Commission should be laid down in the Convention. Mr. BANERJI (India), agreeing with the representatives of Mexico, Turkey and Yugoslavia, thought that the text proposed for article 5 should be taken to mean that the Commission's powers flowed legally from the Convention. Article 7 was deleted as suggested by the ad hoc Committee. Article 10 (Decisions and recommendations of the Commission) Subject to the correction of a drafting mistake, paragraph 1 as redrafted by the Committee was adopted. Paragraph 2 was deleted. Article 11 (Functions of the Commission) The introductory clause and paragraph (a,) of article 11 were adopted as redrafted by the Committee. Consideration of paragraph (b) was postponed until after article 54 had been discussed. Paragraph (c) (i) was deleted. Mr. RODIONOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) proposed that no decision should be taken on paragraph (c) (ii) for the time being. To amend the list of items in respect of which parties were required to furnish statistics and estimates in accordance with articles 27 and 28 was tantamount to amending the Convention itself. That being so, it would be better to leave the question in abeyance until the Conference considered article 54, which dealt with amendments. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia), Mr. CURRAN (Canada), and Mr. ACBA (Turkey) supported that view. The PRESIDENT suggested that consideration of the clause in question should be postponed until the discussion of article 54. It was so agreed. Paragraph (d) was deleted. Paragraphs (Q) and ($), as redrafted by the Committee, were adopted. Paragraph (h) was deleted. Paragraph (i) was adopted, subject to drafting changes, as suggested by the Committee. Paragraph (]) was deleted. Article 13 (Composition of the Board) The introductory clause of paragraph 1 was adopted as re-drafted by the Committee. Mr. BANERJI (India) observed that, when the ad hoc committee had considered paragraph 1 (a) and (b) it had not perhaps fully taken into account all the consequences of the changes it had finally suggested, as a result of which the increase in the number of seats to be filled by candidates nominated by WHO would be proportionately larger than that of seats to be filled by candidates nominated by States Members of the United Nations and by parties which were not Members. He had no fundamental objection to that; all that he wished to do was to point out that the object of increasing the membership of the Board had been to make it easier for experts from the smaller producing consuming countries to belong to it. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the Indian representative's remarks should be taken into account, since they related to the principle of equitable geographical representation, which was of great importance in that connexion. The representative of Afghanistan had proposed that the composition of the Board should be broadened so as to take into account the increase in the membership of the United Nations; it had been suggested at first that the Board should consist of thirteen members, but later that number had been reduced to eleven. Since the main task of members elected from the WHO list would be to give technical advice, their number could be fixed at two, and the number of members chosen from the list of persons nominated by countries should increase correspondingly. He did not wish to make a formal proposal, but he was inclined to think that equitable geographical representation should be the governing factor. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) and Mr. ACBA (Turkey) agreed with the representatives of India and Canada Thirty-first plenary meeting — 16 March 1961 143 and thought that it would be advisable to increase the number of seats allotted to candidates nominated by countries. Dr. HALBACH (World Health Organization) said that he realized that some people might consider an increase in the number of seats allotted to WHO candidates to be an infringement of the principle of equitable geographical representation. He pointed out, however, that, since WHO had more members than the United Nations, the principle of equitable geographical representation would be better served if three members of the Board were chosen from the list of persons nominated by WHO. Mr. YATES (Executive Secretary) said that perhaps there was a misunderstanding with regard to past elections. Since WHO candidates had to be put forward first, the Economic and Social Council to that extent had somewhat less latitude for ensuring equitable geographical distribution. It had to be borne in mind, however, that the persons nominated by WHO themselves represented different parts of the world. Dr. MABILEAU (France) thought that the issue raised no difficulty. In fact, WHO would necessarily provide a wider choice of candidates since its membership was larger than that of the United Nations. Paragraph 1 (a) and (b),as re-drafted by the Committee, was adopted. Paragraph 2 was deleted. Mr. CURRAN (Canada), referring to paragraph 3, said that in the ad hoc committee it had been emphasized that members of the Board should possess the necessary competence and impartiality. His delegation had pointed out that persons who, while not being specialists in narcotics control, nevertheless possessed general qualifications for membership of the Board, should not be debarred. Accordingly, the expression "technical competence" should not be construed in its narrowest sense. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that, by reason of the nature of the Convention, the members of the Board should be experts in narcotic drugs. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) entirely agreed. Paragraph 3 was adopted as amended by the Committee. Mr. ACBA (Turkey), referring to paragraph 4, said that his delegation had explained at length its view on the composition of the Board. It thought that the Board should include three representatives of producing countries, three representatives of manufacturing countries and one representative of consuming countries, as was stated in the amendment which it had submitted to the ad hoc committee (footnote 4 to the committee's report). Since the members of the Board would have to have a thorough knowledge of the subject, it should be laid down that specialists were to be appointed for each of those three groups. The Committee, however, had not accepted the Turkish amendment. Yet, it was useless to look for independent candidates, because the experts who made up the Council would not be able to forget their nationality entirely. It would be easier to elect people whose competence was recognized by the Economic and Social Council as, being experts, they would be able to solve the various problems which arose. If the Conference decided otherwise, he would ask for a roll-call vote on paragraph 4. In any case, if that paragraph was retained as drafted, his delegation would be obliged to make reservations when signing the Convention. He proposed that the paragraph should be amended in the manner proposed by his delegation in committee. In reply to a question, he said that he would not insist on any particular figure; it was the idea behind his proposal that mattered. The figures given in the Turkish amendment should be considered rather as indicating ratios and would ultimately depend on the total number of representatives on the Board. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) thought that to take a roll-call vote on paragraph 4 would be to over-simplify the matter. The Board's impartiality and effectiveness would hardly be assured by a fixed and rigid composition, for example, by stipulating that it must have three representatives of producing countries, three representatives of manufacturing countries and one representative of consuming countries. It was not clear, moreover, exactly what was a producing country. Was it a country that produced opium, or cannabis, or a manufacturing country? In any case, it was not a good idea to indicate the number of representatives of each vested interest in the paragraph. Mr. GREGORIADES (Greece) said that the Turkish amendment dealt with two questions, the number of representatives and their qualifications. When the paragraph had been considered for the first time in plenary, the Greek delegation had said that one of the qualifications of candidates for the Board should be a knowledge of the international treaties and instruments relating to the world drug trade. If the words "possessing knowledge of the worldwide situation of narcotics" in the Turkish amendment implied that candidates would have to be familiar with the international instruments governing the narcotics trade, he could accept the amendment. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that the experts elected to the Board should know the international treaties and instruments relating to the narcotics trade. The expression "producing countries" meant countries producing natural narcotics. Countries which produced synthetic substances were manufacturing countries. All members of the Conference were aware of the distinction, and that was why it was possible to classify the different countries as predominantly producing, manufacturing or consuming countries without risk of misunderstanding. It would be easy to find nationals of producing countries who fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4. They would be just as capable of being impartial as nationals of any other countries. All three categories had to be represented on the Board if it was to inspire confidence. That should be indicated in the Convention by specifying the kind of representatives who were to make up the Board. 144 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mr. BANERJI (India) said that the question was an important one. His delegation fully understood the Turkish delegation's point of view. India had, in fact, been a co-sponsor of the amendment in question. After consulting many other members of the committee, however, his delegation had come to the conclusion that if the amendment was accepted, the Economic and Social Council would be faced with serious difficulties. Although the Council's attention should be drawn to certain essential criteria to be observed in the election of the Board, the criteria should not be too numerous. The more such criteria were imposed on the Council, the more difficulty it would have in finding candidates. It would be preferable to maintain paragraph 4 as drafted, subject to the Committee's recommendation concerning a reference to the principle of equitable geographical distribution. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia), referring to the Turkish representative's statement that he was less concerned about the figures given in his amendment than about the idea of equitable distribution, said that if the committee's recommendation was adopted, the paragraph should satisfy the Turkish representative. He therefore asked whether the latter would withdraw his request for a roll-call vote. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that by virtue of paragraph 4 as drafted the Council was to give consideration to the importance of including on the Board persons "possessing a knowledge of the drug situation, both in the producing and in the manufacturing countries on the one hand, and in the consuming countries on the other hand". It would be better to stipulate that the producing, manufacturing and consuming countries should be considered separately and that an equitable distribution should be observed between those three categories. If the text was revised on those lines, he could accept the Yugoslav representative's view and would not insist on specific figures. Mr. TABIBI (Afghanistan) said that he too hoped that the Turkish representative would withdraw his proposal. Paragraph 4 as it stood met the requirements of the Turkish delegation and had the advantage of being flexible. He hoped that an increase in the membership of the Economic and Social Council would lead to a corresponding change in the structure of the Board. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) thought that the paragraph was quite clear. The effect of the Turkish amendment would be to "freeze" the control system, irrespective of the possible, and unforeseeable, developments in the narcotics situation. Natural drugs might well lose much of their importance. The Council should therefore be allowed the greatest possible latitude in the election of the Board. Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that, however the narcotics situation might develop, it was essential for the welfare of mankind that natural drugs should be brought under control and, consequently, that the Board should be adapted to present needs. The countries producing natural narcotics, which had made a remarkable contribution to the suppression of drug addiction, should be represented on the Board, paragraph 4 as it stood did not satisfy his delegation, which found the latitude given to the Council rather disturbing from those countries' point of view. Mr. VERTES (Hungary) drew attention to the definitions given in article 1 and particularly to those of "manufacture" and "production". The term "manufacture" could mean the production of natural alkaloids. Perhaps, therefore, it would be advisable to define "producing country" in terms distinguishing between countries which produced and manufactured natural drugs and those which manufactured synthetic drugs. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said that everyone knew what was meant by "producing countries". Any further discussion would be superfluous and it was time to take a vote on the Turkish amendment. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) proposed that, as a compromise, the words "both in the producing and the manufacturing countries on the one hand, and in the consuming countries, on the other hand" should be replaced by the words "in the producing, manufacturing and consuming countries". Mr. ACBA (Turkey) said that he was prepared to accept that formula. The PRESIDENT stated that he would consider the request for a roll-call vote to have been withdrawn. The drafting committee would take the proposal that had been made into account. Paragraph 4 was adopted as re-drafted by the Committee and subject to the proposed drafting change. Article 14 (Terms of office of members of the Board) Paragraph 1 was adopted as re-drafted by the ad hoc Committee. Paragraph 2, including the Committee's suggestion, was adopted. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 were adopted as re-drafted by the Committee. Article 15 (Privileges, immunities and remuneration of members of the Board) Paragraphs 1 and 2 were deleted. Paragraph 3 was adopted, as amended by the Committee and subject to the Committee's suggestion. Article 16 (Rules of procedure of the Board) The interpretation of paragraph 1 and the new paragraph 3 proposed by the Committee were adopted. Article 19 (Functions of the Board) Article 19 was deleted. Article 23 (Reports of the Board to the Council and parties) Article 23 as re-drafted by the Committee was adopted, subject to drafting changes. The meeting rose at 10.30 p.m. Thirty-second plenary meeting — 17 March 1961 145 THIRTY-SECOND PLENARY MEETING Friday, 17 March 1961, at 2,45 p.m. President: Mr. ASLAM (Pakistan) Consideration of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (third draft) (E/CN.7/AC.3/9 and Add.l) (continued) The PRESIDENT invited debate on the report of the ad hoc committee appointed to deal with chapter IX (Measures against illicit traffickers) (E/CONF.34/19). 1 Article 45 (Penal provisions) Mr. ARVESEN (Norway) said that the phrase "and any other action which in the opinion of the parties ... " in paragraph 1 as re-drafted by the ad hoc committee might be misinterpreted. In the article as it appeared in the third draft of the Convention it was clear that the acts listed in paragraph 1 (a) were punishable only if contrary to the provisions of the Convention. The new wording was ambiguous; the words "may be contrary to the provisions of this Convention" seemed to apply only to "any other action", whereas all the acts set out in the list were punishable. Furthermore, if those words applied to the whole list of acts, how would the parties express their opinion? Would they submit it to the Control Board, and would it be necessary to have the opinion of all parties or only of the majority? The drafting committee might perhaps improve the drafting by replacing the text which was in the plural, by "in the opinion of each party", or, if it was thought desirable to retain a guarantee clause, by adding a sub-paragraph (b). That did not seem to be necessary, however; the passage in question appeared to be primarily for the benefit of federal States. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) explained that the passage "and any other action... " had been added on the proposal of the USSR delegation after long and careful consideration; it had been thought that a list alone, even a detailed list, might be restrictive. The idea was not to authorize the Board or the Commission to decide what other actions might be deemed punishable offences under the legislation of each country. Such decisions were for each party to take. The formula had been adopted to simplify drafting. The drafting committee could no doubt change it to the singular to remove any ambiguity. Mr. RIOSECO (Chile) said that the re-draft was far more satisfactory than that in the third draft, as was evident, moreover, from the majority support it had received in the ad hoc committee. It had the advantage of being drafted in clear and precise terms. Some delegations which had supported the text in the third draft had endorsed the ad hoc committee's re-draft. He hoped that the Conference would adopt it unanimously. 1 This report deals only with articles 45 and 46. Article 44 is the subject of another report (E/CONF.34/20) and is discussed later in this meeting. Mr. Von SCHENCK (Switzerland), referring to paragraph 2(b), said that in the third draft narcotics offences were regarded as extraditable in accordance with existing extradition treaties. The ad hoc committee's re-draft did not make that obligation automatic. He proposed that after the words "it is desirable that", the words "the parties notify the Secretariat that they consider" should be added and that the words "be included" should be replaced by "as included". Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said there was one point which the drafting committee should specify: it was not quite clear whether the offences covered by paragraph 2(b) were those listed in paragraph 1 or whether they were simply offences of the same nature. In the last part of paragraph 2(b) it was stated that the parties would have the right to refuse extradition if they considered that the offence was not sufficiently serious. The intention therefore seemed to be to leave the decision to the parties. Dr. MABILEAU (France) drew attention to footnote 7, which indicated that the ad hoc committee had decided by a small majority to replace the word "severe" by the word "adequate" in paragraph 1. All delegations realized the difference in meaning between those words. It was obvious that offenders brought to trial were given adequate punishment. That was a matter of technical opinion based on a study of the pertinent penal laws. But within the range of penalties applicable for a specific offence it was left open to the judge to be severe or to be lenient. The antonym of "severe" was not "adequate", but "lenient". The word which the Convention should employ was therefore "severe". It did not at all imply cruelty or a reactionary penal system. Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) noted that paragraph 1 listed acts which were punishable offences, then specified that they must be committed intentionally and finally singled out serious offences. The word "intentionally" was, however, difficult to interpret. The impression might be given that offences committed by omission or by negligence were not punishable. Mr. CURRAN (Canada), in reply to the French representative, said that the severity of punishment depended on the law of the country and not on the judge, who acted in the light of the facts. The recommendation contained in paragraph 1 was addressed^ to legislators. With respect to the word "intentionally"' he said the implication was more that of "knowingly"* The drafting committee might be able to make the text somewhat clearer. Mr. LEDESMA (Argentina), referring to paragraph 2 (a) (iv), asked which law would apply when an offender was tried for an offence committed abroad: the law of the State in which he had committed the offence, or that of the State in which he was tried? Also, sub-paragraph (a) (i) involved the risk of a violation of the rule non bis in idem. Mr. WATTLES (Office of Legal Affairs), in reply to the first question of the Argentine representative, said that as the Convention did not state which law should apply, the choice would be for the country itself 146 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drags and would depend on whether or not its law authorized the application of foreign laws. In reply to the second question he said that the operation of the provision relating to a distinct offence was subject to the legal system and domestic law of each party, and consequently no party would be placed in the position of violating the principle that no person could be tried twice for the same offence. Mr. GAE (India) believed, unlike the French representative, that the word "adequate" was entirely appropriate. Without wishing to repeat the many arguments advanced in the ad hoc committee, he mentioned that it had been thought preferable to leave it to each State to decide what the adequate punishment should be. With regard to the financial operations mentioned in paragraph 2 (a) (ii), he said it should be made clear whether they related to the offences listed in paragraph 1 or only to preparatory acts. Lastly, sub-paragraph (a) (iv) involved the risk of an offender's being tried twice, in the country where he committed the offence and in the country where he was apprehended. It should be made quite clear that it must be one or the other. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the financial operations related to all offences and not only to preparatory acts. The drafting committee would endeavour to make that point clear and would also bear in mind the Indian representative's remark regarding sub-paragraph (a)(iv). Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) said he failed to see why a distinction was made between a State's constitutional limitations, its domestic law and its legal system; a country's contitutional provisions and domestic law together made up its legal system. Perhaps the reference was to existing treaties, but in that case it would be better to say "international legal system". Mr. WATTLES (Office of Legal Affairs) replied that the expression "legal system" was broader than "domestic law". It would not be proper to speak of the "international legal system" of an individual State, as the word "international" by definition meant pertaining to a number of States. Mr. De BAGGIO (United States of America) believed that paragraph 2 had been so watered down that it had lost all value. Unlike the corresponding article in the third draft, it did not impose any obligations. If the Conference's intention was that offenders should be extradited, it should say so. His delegation therefore formally proposed that the words "it is desirable that" at the beginning of paragraph 2 (b) should be deleted. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) assured the delegations which had not taken part in the work of the ad hoc committee that each clause of the text had been subjected to very careful scrutiny and that not a single word had been inserted lightly. So far as paragraph 2 was concerned he said many delegations had considered that it would be best not to impose on parties provisions having binding force, on the grounds that, if the provisions were at variance with the national constitution or legislation, or with treaties to which the States in question had acceded, that State would be unable to ratify the Convention, or would do so with reservations. Others had thought that the Convention should impose obligations, and yet others that recommendations were sufficient. In any event, article 45 should not be drafted to satisfy only a small number of countries, but should be flexible enough to gain the support of all. What mattered was to point out the obligations that should be assumed, the legislation that should be adopted, the punishment that should be imposed, etc., in order to indicate generally the ideal line of conduct. Mr. WIECZOREK (Poland) strongly supported those remarks. The text adopted had been carefully weighed. Paragraph 2 enabled States to act according to their national legal systems and their international commitments. To a certain extent, the Polish delegation agreed with the Swiss proposal that a party should inform the Secretariat if it wanted the offences mentioned in paragraph 1 and in paragraph 2 (a) (ii) to be considered automatically as extraditable offences, under the extradition treaties it had concluded. The Polish delegation would support any formal proposal to that end. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) agreed with the Canadian representative's arguments. In view of the introductory clause of paragraph 2, he saw no need to amend paragraph 2 (b) to protect the interests of countries. Mr. RABASA (Mexico) said he wished to comment on three important points. First, in answer to the Norwegian representative, he said that the United States and Mexican representatives had maintained in the ad hoc committee that paragraph 2 was explicit enough and would cause no constitutional problem for any country. A party which had signed an earlier treaty showed its intention of changing it by signing a new treaty amending the first. A country which had not signed an earlier treaty followed the same constitutional procedure. Since the parties could amend an earlier treaty, the words "It is desirable" in paragraph 2 (b) were unnecessary. The result of the ad hoc committee's vote on those words could not be regarded as reflecting the view of the majority; in any case, it was more a question of logic. Secondly, the ad hoc committee had decided, by 9 votes to 8, with 3 abstentions, to use the word "adequate", instead of "severe" which was used in the third draft. The French representative had proposed that the word "severe" should be restored. It was, of course, for the judge to decide on the severity of the punishment. The Convention should prescribe the degree of punishment to be applied. If the Convention was to end the illicit traffic and the use of narcotic drugs, severe penalties should be provided for breaches of the narcotics laws. Thirdly, the word "intentionally", which was not used in the third draft, was not very well chosen, for it was hard to make the distinction between intention and negligence. The word should stand only if penal responsibility were considered as a whole. Mr. LEDESMA (Argentina), referring to paragraph 2 Thirty-second plenary meeting 17 March 1961 147 (a) (iv), said the representative of the Office of Legal Affairs had explained that, if a person committed an offence in one country but was tried in another, the laws in the country in which he was would be applied if his extradition was unacceptable. But for that purpose there had to be a law in the country where the criminal was, laying down a penalty for the offence, although he had not committed the offence there. If such a law did not exist, the principle nulla poena sine lege would be violated. Mr. WATTLES (Office of Legal Affairs) said that one country's penal law was rarely applied in another. It would be for the courts to decide on the matter. In fact, so long as it applied its country's penal law, a court would not consider that the principle nulla poena sine lege was violated. Mr. RABASA (Mexico), in answer to the remarks of the representatives of Argentina and the Office of Legal Affairs, said that, from the international point of view, the jurisdiction of States was either territorial or personal; the personal jurisdiction applied to nationals everywhere and to ships. European and Latin American countries applied both systems. The AngloSaxon system was more restricted in its treatment of offences committed abroad. It might be decided that nationals would not be prosecuted if the offence had not been committed in the territory of the country of nationality. The origin of the personal jurisdiction was in Italian law, which contained the principle nulla poena sine lege, the principle that an offender must be within the jurisdiction of a court and the principle of nonconcurrence of sentences. Those principles were guaranteed by the provision "Subject to the constitutional limitations of a party, its legal system and domestic law". A country which wished to apply the provisions to its nationals could do so, but it was free not to do so if those provisions were not in conformity with its legal system. Dr. MABILEAU (France) said he appreciated the comments of the Canadian and Indian representatives on his request that the word "severe" should be restored, but he could not agree with their conclusions. He had spoken of severity in order to emphasize the difference between severity and lenience. But he agreed with the Canadian representative that one should assume that criminal law would develop. The Indian representative thought that the word "adequate" left the parties a greater choice of penalties, with allowance for customs and traditions. He asked for a vote, not on the text submitted by the ad hoc committee, but on the original unamended text of the third draft. Mr. MONTERO-BUSTAMANTE (Uruguay), speaking in connexion with paragraph 1, mentioned a particular case in which he had intervened personally. In a San Juan cafe, two Uruguayan sailors, as a joke, had offered to supply marijuana to two men whom they had brought on their ship for the purpose. As soon as one of the sailors had given them a package, he had been arrested, because the two "buyers" had been policemen. The package had contained only mate, a plant from which a harmless infusion was made. Yet the Uruguayan sailor had been accused of illicit traffic —although he (the speaker) himself had interceded for him with the Consul-General and the Ministry of Justice —and had been sentenced to a fine of $200 and to six months' imprisonment, an excessively harsh, and even unjust, sentence. The PRESIDENT asked whether the French representative wished to propose formally that the word "adequate" in paragraph 1 of the ad hoc committee's draft should be replaced by "severe". Dr. MABILEAU (France) confirmed his proposal. The PRESIDENT put the French representative's proposal to the vote. The result of the vote was 22 in favour and 16 against, with 12 abstentions. The proposal was not adopted, having failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. The PRESIDENT recalled that the Swiss representative had proposed that the ad hoc committee's draft should be amended by inserting the words "the parties notify the Secretariat that they consider" after the words "It is desirable that" in the first line of paragraph 2 (b) and that the words "be included" in the second line should be replaced by the words "as included". Mr. CURRAN (Canada) said that the difference between the two texts was so small that the proposal hardly introduced anything new. Mr. WATTLES (Office of Legal Affairs) thought that a few drafting changes would suffice to bring out the Swiss representative's intention, which was to enable countries which so wished to have their extradition treaties amended. The PRESIDENT put the Swiss proposal to the vote. The result of the vote was 8 in favour and 8 against, with 33 abstentions. The proposal was not adopted, having failed to obtain the required two-thirds majority. The PRESIDENT put to the vote the United States proposal that the words "It is desirable that" in paragraph 2 (b) should be deleted. The proposal was rejected by 18 votes to 11, with 21 abstentions. Mr. WIECZOREK (Poland), replying to a question by Mr. von SCHENCK (Switzerland), said that while he had made a suggestion concerning paragraph 2(b), he had not followed it through, expecting that it would be taken up and submitted as a formal proposal by other representatives. Mr. von SCHENCK (Switzerland) accordingly proposed that at the end of paragraph 2 the following passage should be added: "The parties may notify the secretariat that they consider the serious offences referred to in paragraph and in paragraph 12 (a) (ii) as included 148 United Nations Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as extradition crimes in any extradition treaty which has been or may be hereafter concluded by them." The proposal was adopted by 10 votes to 5, with 25 abstentions. Mr. CURTIS (Australia) said that under the rules of procedure an amendment to the Convention could be adopted although supported by only a few delegations since those who abstained were considered as not voting. It was important that the final text should reflect the majority view, and he had therefore voted against the Swiss proposal. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that he had abstained for the same reason. Furthermore, if a party to an extradition treaty did not wish to include the cases in question in the treaty, the commitment undertaken by the other party towards the Secretary-General under the provision just adopted might be an obstacle to signature of the treaty. He could not accept that possibility. The PRESIDENT considered that the inclusion of the sentence did not greatly alter the text of the Convention and did not commit the parties. Mr. CURRAN (Canada) agreed with the Australian representative. He too had cast a nagative vote, considering the principle underlying the proposal had been rejected by an earlier vote. Mr. BITTENCOURT (Brazil) shared that view. Furthermore, the proposal reiterated what was at the beginning of sub-paragraph (b), and was not really necessary. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) pointed out that the passage was similar in substance, if not in form, to that which the Conference had rejected earlier. He formally moved that the provision should be reconsidered and put to the vote again. Mr. von SCHENCK (Switzerland) expressed regret ] that the representative of Yugoslavia had not voiced his objections before the vote; he hoped that the drafting / committee would take note of the position. His proposal j had the advantage of simplifying the task of the parties, which would not have to notify anyone but the SecretaryGeneral of the inclusion in a treaty of the serious offences in question. Mr. BOULONOIS (Netherlands) explained that he had voted against the Swiss proposal because it exceeded the limits of the compromise which had been reached with great difficulty in the ad hoc committee. He pointed out that the word "Secretariat" in the sentence adopted should be replaced by "Secretary-General". Lastly, he observed that the report of the ad hoc committee did not mention the Netherlands proposal to delete the last words in article 45, paragraph 1, beginning with and including the word "particularly". Mr. CURRAN (Canada) agreed with the Netherlands representative the use of the word "Secretariat" would set an unfortunate precedent, for such communications were usually sent to the Secretary-General. The Conference decided by 27 votes to 8, with 14 abstentions, to reconsider the Swiss proposal which had been the subject of its preceding vote. Mr. von SCHENCK (Switzerland) said that he would like to delete the words "or may hereafter be" in the proposed provision. The PRESIDENT put to the vote the Swiss proposal, as amended. The proposal was rejected by 22 votes to 8, with 18 abstentions. Mr. NIKOLIC (Yugoslavia) said that he had voted in favour of the Swiss proposal because he thought that countries which wished to address such communications to the Secretary-General should not be prevented from doing so. The PRESIDENT put to the vote article 45 as a whole, as drafted by the ad hoc committee. Article 45 was adopted by 43 votes to none, with 2 abstentions. Article 46 (Seizure and confiscation) The PRESIDENT drew attention to the ad hoc committee's re-draft of article 46 (E/CONF.34/19). Mr. RAJ (India) recalled that the ad hoc committee had deleted article 46, paragraph 2, of the third draft, relating to the disposal or destruction of drugs seized or consfiscated, in the belief that it could be assumed that governments would take all necessary steps. However, there was no specific indication to that effect, which might be misleading to the layman; he therefore suggested that a paragraph should be added to article 46, reading: "Such drugs, after confiscation, may be disposed of in any lawful manner in accordance with the provisions of this Convention." Mr. WATTLES (Oflice of Legal affairs) pointed out that article 32 as approved by the appropriate ad hoc committee (E/CONF.34/13/Add.l), included a special provision concerning the manner in which the parties could dispose of the opium seized. At the same time it should be noted that the Convention did not limit the uses to which governments could put the seized drugs; thus the parties were free to act as they saw fit in that respect. For that reason it was perhaps not necessary to include in the Single Convention the paragraph proposed by India. Mr. RAJ (India) said that in the light of that explanation he would withdraw his amendment. The re-draft of article 46 wa&a dopted, subject to drafting changes. ' The PRESIDENT drew attention to the report of the joint committee of the ad hoc committees which had dealt with articles 25 and 44 (E/CONF.34/20) and to the re-draft of the two articles in question. Article 25 (Special administration) 2 Mr. BANERJI (India) referred to the footnote interpreting the expression "special administration". The re-draft of article 25 was adopted. 2 Previously discussed at the eighth plenary meeting. Thirty-second plenary meeting — 17 March 1961 149 >eration) 3 was adopted, with the intero the report. rial Criminal Police Organvitation of the President, 3 return to the headquarters :d to thank the Conference ing him to state his views. $6 Convention was excellent in force; article 44 of the ; a step forward and would departments. Interpol would )f the campaign against the it it could count on the help ntion. s own behalf and on behalf he representative of Interpol e) said that the application f the articles adopted during en the campaign against the the 1936 Convention, which /-seven countries, much had ow n i^wniyu**!^. ~,—jeld; he had hoped that that convention would be reproduced in its entirety in the draft Single Convention, but, since it was very detailed, it was difficult to adapt. However, it would be regrettable if the countries which had ratified it should be unable to continue their useful co-operation; for that reason the French delegation reserved the right to propose formally that the 1936 Convention should continue in force. Mr. von SCHENCK (Switzerland) endorsed those remarks. Mr. MAURTUA (Peru) said that he had accepted articles 25 and 44, establishing the criterion of relative effectiveness in the campaign against the illicit drug traffic. Preferably, however, international collaboration in that field should have been understood in a wider sense; under article 44, paragraph 4, the government of the prosecuting State should be capable of being represented in the State where the penalty was applied. Article 49 (Entry into force) The PRESIDENT, inviting debate on article 49, drew attention to the amendment submited by the USSR (E/CONF. 34/L. 20). Mr. WATTLES (Office of Legal Affairs) hoped that the Conference would take clear and definite decisions on the final clauses. Those provisions were of considerable importance for the depositary. The Secretary-General, who would be the depositary of the Single Convention, did not have to adopt a position regarding the substance of articles 49 to 57, but he would like the instructions given to him to be as clear as possible, so that they would not need any interpretation, as had sometimes been necessary in the past, and would not give rise to any protests. Previously discussed at the 26th plenary meeting. Mr. BOULONOIS (Netherlands) thought that chapter XI of the draft Convention was not very clear. The word "acceptance", which was used in article 49, should be avoided, as the Sixth Committee had suggested in 1949 (A/C.6/SR.200, A/C.6/SR.201). That word should also be deleted from the Chilean proposal for article 48, paragraph 2 (E/CONF.34/L.17). Mr. WIECZOREK (Poland) said that under article 49 as given in the third draft the entry into force of the Single Convention would depend on the deposit erf instruments of ratification by twenty-five States, including three from the list in paragraph 1 (a) and three from the list in paragraph 1 (b). It seemed illogical that certain countries which were concerned, if not with the production of drugs, at least with their consumptioni for legitimate purposes, should not be mentioned in the lists. A number of Latin American countries were in that category. Article 49 should be revised according to more specific and technical criteria. The USSR amendment (E/CONF. 34/L.20) provided a reasonable solution to the problem; it fully covered the current drug situation in the principal opium producing countries, the principal countries producing coca leaf and the manufacturing countries. He proposed therefore that the principles of the USSR draft should be incorporated in article 49. If his proposal was rejected, there would be no reason why the lists of countries should not include Hungary, which manufactured alkaloids, and Poland, which was concerned with the production of opium alkaloids and with the consumption of drugs for legitimate purposes; many other countries, too, might with good reason want to be included in the lists. Miss VELISKOVA (Czechoslovakia) supported the USSR amendment because it covered the position of producer and consumer countries and also because it tended to facilitate the ratification and entry into force of the Convention. Mr. GREEN (United Kingdom) said he had no objection in principle to the USSR amendment. However, he pointed out two basic differences between that text and the provision in the third draft. First, the number of ratifications required for the Convention to c©tne ist© force was increased. Secondly, the two lists of countries in article 49 of the third draft were replaced, in the USSR amendment, by three clauses stressing certain technical criteria; furthermore, the number given for opium producing countries appeared excessive in view of the fact that, according to the PCOB, only four countries answered the description in sub-paragraph (a) of the USSR amendment. Similarly, in the case of countries producing coca leaf, only four countries fulfilled the conditions specified in sub-paragraph (b). Lastly, with regard to the countries producing morphine or manufacturing other alkaloids from morphine, he said he had been unable to find fifteen countries fulfilling the conditions of sub-paragraph (c). The number of States in each of the sub-paragraphs would therefore have to be altered. In addition;, i t should be noted that list (b) in the third draft was very closely connected with the list of opium producers, given In article 32, on which the Conference had reached .a