76. The representative of Mexico said that her delegation had followed the debates in connection with Article 27.3(b) in the Council with great interest. In relation to the exemption from patentability, Mexico believed that Article 27.3(b) represented a very delicate balance. Indeed, Article 27.3(b) showed how difficult negotiations had been during the Uruguay Round in reaching consensus on the protection of biotechnological inventions. The complexity and the ramifications of protection for these inventions went beyond the domain of intellectual property, since, for instance, human life, food safety, social, ethical and even religious issues were involved. Mexico was open to continuing with this exercise, if the Council deemed it appropriate, but believed that it was important in the review process for the Council to be careful to maintain the delicate balance that the negotiations had managed to achieve. Furthermore, in connection with the question of the sui generis mechanism of protection for plant varieties, she said that Mexico had acceded to UPOV in 1997 and had incorporated substantive provisions of that Convention in its national laws and regulations while at the same time faithfully complying with the requirements of Article 27.3(b) as currently drafted. Mexico agreed with those Members that had expressed the view that the UPOV mechanism was an effective sui generis mechanism for the protection of plant varieties in accordance with Article 27.3(b). In Mexico's view, the UPOV system could also provide a useful benchmark for the review exercise given that it had been adopted by a large number of Members. The UPOV system was in any event less sui generis than other mechanisms intended to protect plant varieties. Therefore, Mexico was open to continuing with this exercise and to studying other systems which might be presented by Members as a means of protecting plant varieties, this should not be interpreted as meaning that Mexico was ready to consider fundamental or radical changes to the provisions of Article 27.3(b), that would imply additional requirements to the measures that many Members, including Mexico, had adopted to comply with their obligations under this provision. As to how the Council should proceed with this exercise, she was grateful for the proposals made today. Mexico acknowledged that the suggestion of working on the basis of an illustrative list would be useful in making debates on these subjects, which were extremely complex, more systematic. However, for the same reason, the Mexican delegation wanted to have more time to think about this and reserved its position for the time being. Experts in the capital should first analyse the suggested list of topics for discussion, in particular as to whether the elements listed should be dealt with under Article 27.3(b) or perhaps in some other context.
