31. The representative of South Africa said that his delegation, before introducing his country's legislation on enforcement, wished to recall that the reason for the deferment of the review of this legislation had been that the South African authorities had not yet completed the preparatory work for the review which involved the answers to the questions on the Checklist on Issues of Enforcement (IP/C/5) as well as the questions asked by a few delegations. The difficulties faced were of an institutional nature and did not imply in any manner any lack of sensitivity to the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement and the TRIPS Council. As far as he knew, South Africa was the only developing country that had assumed full and immediate obligations in the areas of the TRIPS Agreement, and his delegation was proud of that. Nevertheless, because of the same difficulties referred to earlier, his delegation was not yet fully ready with the preparation of all the answers to the questions that had been posed by delegations in the review of legislation on enforcement. The Checklist of Issues on Enforcement had now been fully answered as had a part of the questions that had been asked by delegations during the review. The outstanding answers would be submitted as soon as possible.
32. The record of the statement made by the delegation of South Africa introducing its enforcement legislation, the questions put to it and the responses given (including certain written responses given after the meeting) will be circulated in document IP/Q4/ZAF/1.
