28. The representative of the European Communities pointed out that neither the mandate under Article 23.4 nor the one contained in the Doha Declaration concerning that provision was conditional upon any completion of the review of legislation under Article 24.2 or on further examination of the implementation of other provisions of Section 3. Article 23.4 did not refer to other provisions of Section 3, so it would be difficult to defend the argument that other work should be undertaken. As far as developed countries and many developing countries were concerned, they had looked for a considerable period at the way the TRIPS had been implemented, including in the area of geographical indications. He would, therefore, refer delegations who wished to know more about the implementation of Section 3 by a large number of WTO Members to look into the report prepared by the Secretariat (document IP/C/W/253) in the context of the review exercise under Article 24.2. Certainly delegates were also aware of numerous questions answered by Members within the framework of the Trade Policy Review Mechanism. He believed, therefore, that there was a lot of information available and looking at this information should not be a reason for delaying the work in this body. With regard to developing countries' concerns, he suggested that Members should look at the EC comparative table (document IP/C/W/259): it was simple, straightforward, objective and neutral, contrary to the table recently circulated by the United States (document TN/IP/W/1). For developing countries or LDCs which had difficulties regarding the implementation of Section 3 of the TRIPS Agreement, these difficulties could be addressed in technical assistance programmes undertaken by the EC and their Member States, by the WTO and WIPO. There was plenty of information to assist Members in their work on this issue.
