178. The representative of Brazil said that he had not said that the issue should not be discussed in the Council, since it was addressed by WIPO. Other delegations had mentioned the need to avoid duplication. His delegation had merely pointed to the fact that the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement was taking care of certain issues under its competence regarding IPR enforcement in general. Many participants had sent national experts to discuss concerns regarding enforcement, including many issues regulated by the TRIPS Agreement. The allegation by the European Communities that his delegation refused to participate in that particular Committee was not correct. The Executive Secretary of the National Committee on Combating Piracy had presented national experiences at the last meeting of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement. Many different, new perspectives on measures that countries could take to combat piracy had been presented in WIPO, and it would be duplicative to repeat this in the Council.
179. He said that the Council was not empowered to enforce the TRIPS Agreement as such in Member countries. His delegation was strongly opposed to creating any diversion of functions within the WTO or fragmenting the competence of the dispute settlement mechanism, for example by tasking the TRIPS Council to examine the fulfilment of certain TRIPS provisions in an isolated manner. If Members believed that other Members were not complying with the TRIPS Agreement, they could use the WTO dispute settlement mechanism for that purpose.
180. The TRIPS Agreement contained many provisions on public interest flexibilities and exceptions to rights that, in his view, should also be adequately enforced by Members. Moving ahead in the direction of the EC proposal would lead to an imbalance, given that these provisions were not covered by the EC proposal. This was not acceptable to his delegation.
