466. I would like to support the statement made by South Africa, I think we have all learned a lot about this topic, with our discussions here at the TRIPS Council. As mentioned by my colleague from South Africa, competition law does not endanger IP rights, in fact, it reinforces them when it provides a level playing field among competitors. I would like to comment on two topics that were mentioned by the delegations of the US and the EU. The first is on the effect of patents on access to medicines. The patent issue, as argued in this and other fora, is one of the central elements to broader issues regarding access to medicines. The broader approach on access to medicines is rightly done by WHO, but the mandate of this Council is intellectual property, so I think this is fully under the purview of the TRIPS Council to discuss this.
467. The second comment that I would like to make is about the WHO Essential Medicines List. It is factually correct to say that the number of non-patented medicines or the Essential Medicines List is much higher than those benefiting from patent protection. But despite this fact, governmental, cooperative and out-of-pocket expenses are proportionally much higher for the patented medicines on the Essential Medicines List. On top of that, WHO has historically preferred the inclusion of nonpatented medicines with equivalent therapeutic value, precisely because they are cheaper. In conclusion, I would like to thank all the delegations who have made statements under this agenda item. We hope to revert to it at the next session of the TRIPS Council.
