140. The representative of Argentina considered the African Group proposal as a substantive and positive contribution which could help to conclude work on the amendment to the TRIPS Agreement within the set timeframe. Nothing in paragraph 11 of the Decision required a transposition without changes. It merely asked for the amendment to be based on the appropriate parts of the Decision. This had been part of the balance struck in 2003. Her delegation concurred with the comments contained in paragraph 10 of document IP/C/W/440 submitted by the African Group. The Decision requested additional and excessive information. In particular, the limitations in paragraph 2(b)(i) could prevent industry from supplying pharmaceutical products under the system. Paragraph 2(b) imposed stricter requirements than for trade of weapons or toxic products and would not be in line with usual commercial practice. Paragraph 2(c) created an additional obligation, modifying the practice in implementing the Agreement. In addition, the establishment of regional patent systems had nothing to do with the Doha Declaration.
141. She said that the Chairman's Statement should not be part of the amendment. It had been a unilateral statement which had not received general endorsement. Turning to the legal form of the amendment, she said that using a footnote was neither the right approach nor provided a safe legal basis for the straightforward interpretation of Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement. Members needed clarity in carrying out activities which were not permitted at present. In the absence of any precedent regarding such amendments, it was not advisable to rely on the footnote approach.
