3. The representative of Brazil said that the item on enforcement had now been put on the agenda of the Council a number of times by a group of developed countries. His delegation had stated at each occasion it's view, namely that the submissions made under the heading of enforcement did not fall within the mandate of the Council. He agreed with China that there was a considerable degree of duplication of efforts in these submissions, not only with WIPO but also with initiatives regarding border measures that were being taken in the World Customs Organization (WCO) and Interpol. He agreed that the issue should not be discussed in an isolated fashion. References to enforcement in the TRIPS Agreement were of a lesser nature in terms of commitments for Members and those references appeared in a broader context which was respectful of the freedom of Members to implement their obligations in the most suitable way in light of their national priorities and national legislative systems. The proposed discussion could hinder the scope of application of Articles 1.1 and Article 40 of the Agreement, which both applied to this matter. Other elements of the debate, which were interrelated with this matter, but did not appear in the submissions on enforcement, were the issues of intellectual property and social economic development, the interrelationship of IPRs and transfer of technology and the issue of anti-competitive practices. Just because a group of countries had repeatedly put this item on the agenda of the Council, it should not be assumed that there was any agreement among Members that this constituted a permanent item on the agenda. There was no such agreement and his delegation did not support such a view.
