162. The representative of Brazil referred to his interventions at the Council's last meeting of the TRIPS Council, and added that, according to Article 1.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, Members were free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of the Agreement within their own systems and practice. He did not support the EC proposal of searching for a coordinated response to enforcement, including the promotion of best practices and the monitoring of operational performance of national agencies in charge of combating counterfeiting and piracy. Regarding border measures, he failed to see the need to revise Article 51 of the Agreement, as implicitly suggested by the European Communities. Article 51 already contemplated the possibility of suspending the release into free circulation of counterfeit and pirated goods by customs authorities at the request of right holders.
163. The TRIPS Agreement had to be seen as an agreement in its entirety. All articles were relevant and should be addressed on a demand-driven basis for those Members seeking technical cooperation. Members who wished to raise issues relating to IPR enforcement should do so under the existing review mechanisms in the Agreement. Exchange of information on national laws and measures concerning enforcement were currently under discussion in other forums, such as the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement and the WCO. The TRIPS Council already faced important challenges relating to the outstanding implementation issues under the Doha Round negotiations. His delegation was therefore not prepared to engage in an in-depth discussion on enforcement and supported China's proposal not to make this issue a permanent agenda item for the Council.
