Los tribunales pretender ser una alternativa más "humana" a los enfoques penales tradicionales, pero suponen amenazas a estándares de derechos humanos. Más información, en inglés, está disponible abajo.

GENEVA (20 March 2019) - Drug treatment courts, or “drug courts,” are meant to offer court-supervised treatment for drug dependence to people who would otherwise go to prison for a drug-related offence. Evidence shows, however, that “in many States these courts have not achieved their intended results, have failed to conform to a public health approach, and do not tackle mistreatment and human rights violations that occur in treatment centres,” said two human rights experts* on the occasion of 62nd session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (Vienna, 14-22 March 2019).

The main appeal of drug courts is the claim that such courts reduce incarceration and recidivism, and represent a more “humane” approach to traditional criminal justice processes. However, in reality drug courts represent in several cases a threat to human rights standards, to procedural due process and to the health systems’ ability to address health issues around drugs. At the heart of their failure are a number of myths about how they operate and what they can accomplish.

“While drug courts offer “treatment instead of incarceration”, they are not health-care settings and cannot provide treatment; rather, they refer participants to treatment”, the experts said. Evidence shows that in many jurisdictions drug courts have failed to offer participants evidence-based treatment. Largely, judges have no oversight over what happens in treatment, and cannot assess the quality of services. Drug court operators are not trained medical personnel and often intervene inappropriately in medical decisions, also without oversight or accountability.

Research on the availability and quality of drug treatment through drug courts shows that at the most basic level, access to quality treatment is hampered by the inherent tension between a punitive criminal justice logic and therapeutic concern for participants as patients. Despite the stated intention of drug courts to treat people who use drugs as ill rather than deviant, participants are often punished for relapsing, for missing therapy appointments, or otherwise failing to follow court rules.

Reportedly, drug courts in several jurisdictions also prevent participants from accessing medically prescribed treatment for other chronic health problems. These interventions by justice personnel into the field of medicine and treatment, and often into the patient-doctor relationship, are not only unethical, but also dangerous.

“Delivery of essential health care through the justice system raises several concerns, and, more specifically, questions regarding patient confidentiality and autonomy, loyalty, privacy, and the ability of the patient to give meaningful consent to treatment”, said the UN experts.

The experts emphasised that “human rights concerns are particularly relevant for drug courts, as these courts usually blur the line between voluntary and coerced treatment. The criminalization of possession of drugs for personal consumption means that many persons who end up in drug courts do not suffer from substance use disorders and do not require treatment”. The criminal justice system’s conflation of drug possession and personal use with clinical need for care does nothing to ensure treatment for those who truly need it. Ultimately, people with substance use disorders who get treatment through the criminal justice system are still “criminals”, and the symptoms of their illness punished as if the illness itself were a crime.

“Implementing drug courts without investing in proper treatment means that a system of abuse is legitimized through its use by the courts”, concluded the UN experts. In countries where treatment is scarce, unaffordable, abusive or not evidence-based – the case in most of the world – it makes little sense to mandate treatment through courts. While there is consensus in the United Nations that there should be alternatives to criminal sanctions for some drug infractions, there is no policy that requires court-determined or court-supervised treatment, as an alternative mechanism.

The propensity for human rights violations in the context of drug courts is such that States should take cautions against the continued roll-out of drug courts in countries where oversight and monitoring mechanisms are absent, the human rights experts recommended.

, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; 

, Special Rapporteur on the right to health.

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

Los tribunales de drogas suponen el peligro de que los enfoques punitivos interfieran en temas médicos y de salud pública, dicen expertos de la ONU

Los estados deben poner en marcha inmediatamente medidas para acabar los la detención arbitraria sistemática que deriva de las leyes y políticas de drogas. Más información, en inglés, está disponible abajo.

Statement by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

GENEVA (20 March 2019) - The absolute prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty and the safeguards which are in place to guard against such instances apply to everyone, including those arrested, detained or charged with drug-related offences, as well as those undergoing compulsory rehabilitation programs for drug addiction. States must take immediate measures to address systematic instances of arbitrary detention as a consequence of drug control laws and policies, says a group of UN human rights experts*.

Arbitrary detention for drug offences or drug use can occur across criminal and administrative settings. "Administrative detention of people who use drugs justified on the basis of health grounds can lead to involuntary commitment or compulsory drug treatment that is inconsistent with both international drug control conventions and international human rights law", UN experts said.

Evidence shows that what is referred to as "treatment" in many treatment centers in fact includes painful, unmedicated withdrawal, beatings, military drills, verbal abuse, and sometimes scientific experimentation without informed consent. Forced labor, without pay or at extremely low wages is used as "rehabilitation," with detainees punished if work quotas are not met. These abuses are flagrant violations of the right to be free from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and punishment and the right to health. Reported human rights abuses in so-called drug treatment and rehabilitation centers ("rehabs"), established and run by private individuals or organizations in many countries, are disturbing development. They must be investigated and remedied.

Denial of medical treatment and/or absence of access to medical care in custodial settings may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Equally, subjecting persons to treatment or testing without their consent may constitute a violation of the right to physical integrity.

In 2012, twelve United Nations entities, including the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the World Health Organization, the UN Children’s Fund, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNAIDS1 called for the closure of drug detention centers and the release of the people detained there without delay. Despite this call, many States still continue to use such detention centres. As an alternative to compulsory drug detention and rehabilitation centres, States should make available voluntary, evidence-informed and rights-based health and social services in the community. Where a State is unable to close the centres rapidly, without undue delay, measures should be established immediately. Such measures should include a process to review the detention of those in the centres to ensure that there is no arbitrary detention and that any detention is conducted according to relevant international standards of due process and provides alternatives to imprisonment.

States should also establish judicial and other independent oversight and reporting over the review and closure process of the centres; and moratoria on further admission into compulsory drug detention and rehabilitation centres of people who use drugs; and should adopt gender-sensitive and evidence-based drug treatment services , including harm reduction programmes, for women in detention.

UN experts recalled that in the outcome document of the thirtieth special session of the General Assembly, on the world drug problem, all Member States of the United Nations committed to addressing and eliminating prison overcrowding and violence.

Some legal policies and practices lead to overcrowding of prisons and other places of deprivation of liberty, including tougher law and order approaches, mandatory use of pretrial detention, disproportionate lengths of sentence, frequent delays in the judicial system, poor monitoring of inmate status and release entitlement, and the failure to grant parole. States should considers measures to ease overcrowding include alternatives to deprivation of liberty, such as diversion, community service, and administrative and monetary sanctions.

The principle of proportionality, which must continue to be a guiding principle in drug-related matters. Criminalization of drug use or consumption should be avoided by all States. Custodial sentences may be imposed as a measure of last resort and should be applied proportionately to meet a pressing societal need. In order to meet the requirement of proportionate sentencing, States should revise their penal policies and drug legislation with the aim of reducing minimum and maximum penalties and decriminalizing the personal use of drugs and minor drug offences. These measures can contribute to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda of Sustainable Development Goals.

At every stage of the criminal justice system, members of vulnerable and marginalized groups who use drug, such, minorities, people of the African descent, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons are discriminated against, including facing arbitrary arrest and detention. States should take measures to prohibit discriminatory practices of arrest and detention of members of vulnerable and marginalized groups in the drug control efforts, UN experts said.

The comments by the UN Working Group of Arbitrary Detention come on the occasion of 62nd session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which will discuss the follow up to the thirteen special session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem held in 2016.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

comprises five independent experts from around the world: 

 (Republic of Korea) Chair-Rapporteur; 

 (Latvia), Vice-Chair on Communications; 

The Working Group is part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms. Special Procedures mandate-holders are independent human rights experts appointed by the Human Rights Council to address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. They are not UN staff and are independent from any government or organization. They serve in their individual capacity and do not receive a salary for their work.

Check the Database of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.

For more information, please contact: Ms Lucie Viersma (+41229289380 / lviersma@ohchr.org) or write to wgad@ohchr.org

Follow the UN’s independent human rights experts on Twitter @UN_SPExperts

1. http://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific//2012/03/drug-detention-centre/JC2310_Joint_Statement6March12FINAL_En.pdf

Los Estados deben cesar la detención arbitraria por delitos de drogas, dicen expertos de la ONU

El encarcelamiento de las mujeres involucradas en delitos de droga de bajo nivel no contribuye efectivamente a hacer frente al problema mundial de las drogas, sino que perpetúa un ciclo vicioso de marginalización que acrecienta injusticias. Más información, en inglés, está disponible abajo.

States around the world must address the specific concerns of women in drug policies, say UN human rights experts. The call by the UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice comes ahead of a high-level meeting on 14-15 March 2019 of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs:

“States must urgently take concrete measures to meet their commitments to ensuring women’s rights in drug policies and programmes. This cannot happen if issues and concerns that are specific to women remain invisible and neglected. In keeping with the Sustainable Development Goals, in which gender equality is a stand-alone goal as well as being incorporated in all other goals and targets, tackling the impact of drug policies on women deserves proper attention and visibility. Drug policies cannot be effective without addressing the root causes of structural inequality and discrimination which place women in a subordinate role in society, including in the family, often leading to experiences of violence, marginalisation and domination. Marginalisation of women, poverty, gender-based violence, lack of job opportunities and absence of social protection from the State, together with the need to support their family, can drive women into committing drug-related offences. The drastic rise in the number of women in prison globally is alarming. In some parts of the world this increase is mainly due to women being convicted of drug-related offences. Proportionally, more women than men are serving jail sentences in relation to drug offences. Despite their often low-level, non-violent and first-time involvement in such crimes, women are more exposed to health and safety risks and the risks of being caught as drug carriers and disproportionately punished. Women also face insurmountable barriers in enjoying their right to fair trial because of their inability to afford effective legal representation, judicial gender stereotyping and a lack of gender-sensitive administration of justice, which often do not take into account the mitigating circumstances, such as socio-economic deprivation or coercion and the generally low-level of criminality. The incarceration of women involved in low-level drug offences does not contribute effectively to addressing the world’s drug problem. Instead, it perpetuates a vicious cycle of victimisation, placing them in situations of further injustice. States must seize the important opportunity of this high-level meeting of the Commission on Narcotics to focus on women and draw on good practices from countries which have invested in providing them with support in the form of counselling, job opportunities, and access to services aimed at reducing harm and drug dependence. These drug policies and programmes must involve women at all stages of their development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. 

The UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice

 was created by the Human Rights Council in 2011 to identify, promote and exchange views, in consultation with States and others, on good practices related to the elimination of laws that discriminate against women. The Group is also tasked with developing a dialogue with States and others on laws that have a discriminatory impact where women are concerned. It is comprised of five independent experts: the Current Chair:

, please contact: Ms Hannah Wu (+41 22 917 9152 / 

 related to other UN independent experts, please contact

Mr. Jeremy Laurence, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+41 22 917 9383 / jlaurence@ohchr.org)

Follow news related to the UN’s independent human rights experts on Twitter @UN_SPExperts

Los derechos de las mujeres deben ser centrales en las políticas de drogas, dicen expertos de la ONU

Ayer, durante la audiencia sobre fumigación con glifosato, el presidente Iván Duque se la jugó por pedirle a la Corte Constitucional que module la sentencia que sacó en 2017, en la que le puso condiciones a la aspersión con ese químico. Pero, como anticipamos, estuvo muy solo en esa posición y además salió golpeado, porque quedó en evidencia que el gobierno tiene problemas con sus propias cifras.

El resultado global de la audiencia y de lo que dijeron las partes, es que ahora el glifosato es un tema políticamente más sensible.

Estas son las conclusiones que dejó la audiencia que seguimos en La Silla en este twiterazo en vivo.

Duque le mete más gasolina al glifosato

En las sesiones de este año de la Comisión de Estupefacientes en Viena, el foro político de Naciones Unidas en donde se debate el régimen internacional frente a las drogas, fueron presentadas, en un evento paralelo, las “Directrices internacionales sobre derechos humanos y política de drogas”.

Estas directrices, que fueron elaboradas bajo la coordinación del PNUD y del Centro Internacional de Derechos Humanos y Política de Drogas de la Universidad de Essex, representan una síntesis autorizada del marco jurídico de derechos humanos que los Estados deben respetar en sus políticas frente a las drogas.

La relevancia política de estas directrices es clara, pues las políticas frente a las drogas, especialmente aquellas fundadas en una interpretación punitivista extrema del régimen internacional de drogas, han sido una fuente muy grave de violaciones masivas a los derechos humanos en Colombia y en el mundo. A veces, esas violaciones son resultado directo de esas políticas, como cuando las autoridades criminalizan el uso ritual de ciertas sustancias psicoactivas por pueblos indígenas, con lo cual violentan sus derechos culturales. En otros casos, esas violaciones pueden no estar previstas en las leyes, pero son consecuencia de esas políticas, como sucede con el encarcelamiento masivo y desproporcionado de consumidores o de personas que, por necesidad económica, terminan involucradas en delitos menores de drogas.

Una de las razones que explican ese impacto negativo de las políticas de drogas ha sido que los Estados, al formular y ejecutar esas políticas, no suelen tomar en cuenta que tienen también obligaciones internacionales en derechos humanos, que deben igualmente cumplir. Es más, las autoridades a veces ni siquiera tienen claro cuáles son esas obligaciones. Sin embargo, a partir de estas directrices, los Estados no podrán aducir que no conocían sus obligaciones en derechos humanos en el campo de las drogas, puesto que este documento las sintetiza en forma muy clara y pedagógica. Y la sociedad civil podrá entonces exigir más fácilmente su cumplimiento por cuanto estas directrices tienen una cierta autoridad jurídica, que deriva al menos de dos factores:

Primero, por la manera como fueron elaboradas: las directrices son el resultado de un proceso incluyente de varios años que combinó investigación jurídica y consultas en distintas partes del mundo con representantes de Estados, de organizaciones internacionales como la OMS, comunidades afectadas y académicos especializados en estos temas.

Segundo, por la solidez del sustento jurídico con el cual fueron redactadas: cada una de las directrices está apoyada en normas y principios internacionales de derechos humanos contenidos en tratados, pronunciamientos de organismos internacionales de derechos humanos u otros documentos internacionales autorizados.

Estas directrices no son entonces una propuesta de unos académicos que imaginan cómo debería ser el marco jurídico de actuación de los Estados en política de drogas, sino que es un documento que, conforme al derecho internacional realmente existente, resume las obligaciones jurídicas concretas en derechos humanos que los Estados tienen hoy en este campo.

Por transparencia, aclaro que participé en algunas de las consultas para la elaboración de estas directrices, que creo que representan un paso muy importante para avanzar hacia políticas frente a las drogas más respetuosas de la dignidad humana. Algo esencial para todo el mundo, pero especialmente para países como Colombia.

Derechos humanos y política frente a las drogas

En 1945, la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) se fundó con la misión principal de preservar a las generaciones venideras del flagelo de la guerra y garantizar la vigencia de los derechos humanos. Sin embargo, hoy el lenguaje de la guerra sigue siendo parte del vocabulario coloquial de las naciones, desde el que han establecido sus políticas públicas en materias de drogas, que impactan a su vez en otras materias, tan trascendentes como la seguridad y la salud pública. Lo anterior, a costa del ideal del respeto irrestricto a los derechos humanos.

Desde el marco internacional, la estrategia de control de drogas se sustenta en tres tratados de la ONU que establecen medidas de control con los fines de garantizar la disponibilidad de sustancias psicoactivas para fines médicos y científicos, e incluyen disposiciones generales sobre su tráfico y consumo. No obstante, la experiencia demuestra que dichas convenciones han sido interpretadas e implementadas primordialmente desde el enfoque del combate a todos los aspectos de la producción, posesión y tráfico de las sustancias psicoactivas.

Por su parte, de la esfera internacional también emana el régimen de derechos humanos consolidado como una suerte de sistema que pretende garantizar la no repetición de atrocidades a la dignidad humana tales como las ocurridas en las grandes guerras mundiales. El Sistema Internacional de Derechos Humanos, está compuesto por varios tratados y convenciones que descansan sobre las premisas básicas de que “todos los seres humanos nacen libres e iguales en dignidad y derechos y, dotados como están de razón y conciencia”. “Todos los seres humanos”; incluidas las personas usuarias de drogas.

Política de control de drogas y derechos humanos; dos sistemas, una paradoja

Con motivo de la 26ª Conferencia Internacional sobre Reducción de Daños, que reúne a representantes de la sociedad civil y especialistas de todo el mundo en la ciudad de Porto, 334 ONG instan a la comunidad internacional a que enfrente la crisis global de salud y derechos humanos entre las personas que usan drogas.

Las últimas cifras sobre la epidemia del VIH, que acaba de publicar ONUSIDA, son alarmantes. Pese a que la incidencia del VIH a escala mundial disminuyó un 25 % entre 2010 y 2017, está aumentando entre las personas que se inyectan drogas. Fuera del África subsahariana, las personas que se inyectan drogas y sus parejas sexuales siguen representando aproximadamente la cuarta parte de todas las personas que contraen el VIH. Seis de cada diez personas que usan drogas en todo el mundo viven con hepatitis C, mientras que, solo en 2015, se notificaron 168 000 muertes por sobredosis entre personas usuarias de drogas.

Quedan poco más de 10 años, de aquí a 2030, para cumplir el compromiso de promover la salud y el bienestar, reducir las desigualdades y garantizar la igualdad de acceso a la justicia para todos y todas, tal como se consagra en los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS). Para lograr estos objetivos, se necesita con urgencia un liderazgo político reforzado en todos los niveles.

300+ ONG instan a los líderes mundiales a que enfrenten la crisis global de salud y derechos humanos entre las personas que usan drogas con motivo de la 26ª Conferencia Internacional sobre Reducción de Daños 