21. The representative of Venezuela also called for an update on IP/C/W/345 as soon as possible. The representative said that a paragraph 6 solution would have to take note of the need for the transfer of technology as well. According to document IP/C/W/345, there were 27 countries with advanced pharmaceutical industries with R&D and innovation capabilities and 14 countries that had the capacity to reproduce therapeutic ingredients and final products. The rest of the world, including Venezuela, only produced final products or did not have a pharmaceutical industry at all. Any solution found under paragraph 6 should, therefore, promote the development of production capabilities in these countries, cover all products related to public health and should not be restricted to the illustrative list. Members should have the ability to decide what constituted a national emergency or other situations of extreme urgency. Turning to the legal mechanisms proposed as a solution, she said that her country preferred an authoritative interpretation under Article 30. The other options, namely a moratorium or a waiver, should not be considered as solutions per se but could be complementary to an interpretation of Article 30. A moratorium or a waiver, if agreed upon, should only be applicable for a limited period of time. These proposals were also linked to systems of notification and follow-up process in the WTO which were additional burdens of compliance on developing countries.
22. Referring to the Swiss non-paper, she said that the first paragraph placed a limitation on many developing countries and unduly narrowed the set of beneficiary countries. The first paragraph also drew an inappropriate distinction between diseases that caused public health problems and those that did not. In paragraph 2, a case-by-case approach was recommended by Switzerland to decide on the issue of beneficiary importing countries. The representative of Venezuela said that she did not support such a proposal as it amounted to limitations and unnecessary distinctions. Finally, in her view the last paragraph, part C on legal mechanisms, expressed no intention to ensure access to medicines and promotion of public health.
