260. The representative of Brazil said that the application of non-violation and situation complaints to the TRIPS Agreement was a matter of concern to Brazil. Unlike the other WTO Agreements, the TRIPS Agreement was sui generis: it was not designed to protect market access or the balance of tariff concessions, but rather it served to establish minimum standards of IP protection. Hence he considered that the application of non-violation and situation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement was not appropriate and could be problematic. For instance, it could prevent developing countries from successfully using the flexibilities contained in the Agreement, including those related to the protection of public health. The extension of the non-violation remedy to the TRIPS Agreement might also entail consequences for the predictability and security of the multilateral trading system. The uncertainties surrounding the remedy would make it harder for countries to rely on the text of the Agreement to define their rights and obligations. Moreover, it might give rise to incoherence among the WTO Agreements. Furthermore, such uncertainty was likely to increase further public concern over the impact of the TRIPS Agreement on important issues, such as public health, biodiversity protection and transfer of technology. For that reason, his position was in line with that of other Members who had suggested that, until they had found a definite solution, the moratorium should be extended for another two years.
