The Street Lawyers provide free legal aid services, as part of an integrated low-threshold outreach harm reduction initiative, to people who use drugs, homeless people and street-based sex workers in Denmark.

Street Lawyers (Abogados de la Calle) ofrecen apoyo legal gratuito, como parte de una iniciativa de reducción integral de daños proveedora de servicios de fácil acceso para las personas que usa drogas, personas vagabundas y trabajadoras del sexo de la calle en Dinamarca.

Street Lawyers (les Avocats des Rues) offrent des services d'assistance juridique gratuits au Danemark, dans le cadre d'une approche intégrée à bas seuil visant à sensibiliser les usagers de drogues, les SDF et les travailleurs du sexe sur la réduction des risques.

Gadejuristen (The Street Lawyers)

Les experts de la société civile, préoccupés par le nouvel agenda et le plan d'action, tournent le dos à « l’approche équilibrée » de l'UE en matière de politiques des drogues. Pour en savoir plus, en anglais, veuillez lire les informations ci-dessous.

The following letter was drafted by a coalition of 29 civil society organisations and community networks in the European Union. The letter urges the German Presidency to propose to the EU Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) that the current draft EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025 be rejected, and measures are taken to ensure an appropriate and inclusive strategic development process for the next EU drugs strategy.

We are writing regarding the proposed EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025, published by the European Commission on 24 July 2020 (the “2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda”, or the “Agenda”). We have serious concerns regarding both the process for its development as well as with the substance of the document and urge the German Presidency to propose to the EU Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) that this draft cannot be accepted, and to outline an appropriate and inclusive strategic development process for the next EU drugs strategy.

The formulation of the 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda through a unilateral Communication of the European Commission without consultation with EU Member States and other relevant EU actors, including civil society is deeply problematic. If the HDG accepts this document as it stands, a worrying procedural precedent will be set. To date, the ‘EU’s drugs strategies and action plans are developed through a rigorous process that allows Member States to work together on the development of strategic approaches. This involves a series of negotiations, evaluations and compromises so that consensus can be reached in the form of a new strategy document.’ The 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda appears to be the result of a hasty, opaque and non-participatory policy-making process, and represents a drastic departure from agreed EU policies. The lack of appropriate consultation and engagement inevitably means that the different experiences and views of EU Member States and other relevant EU actors have less weight in the new document. It fails to adopt a balanced, integrated, and multidisciplinary approach to drug matters; it is not rooted on human rights, public health, and the key international drug policy documents; and it envisages a diminished role for civil society and affected communities.

The European Union has been a global leader in advancing a balanced, integrated, and multidisciplinary approach to drug policies. The 2005 and 2013 EU Drugs Strategies established a consolidated framework that has become a ‘central guiding model’ for national-level drug strategies across the EU. However, the 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda proposes -in its own words- a ‘paradigm-shift’. It disproportionately focuses EU policy on law enforcement and supply control, to the detriment of the priority previously given to public health, human rights, international cooperation, and scientific research and evaluation. If implemented, it will signal a diminished support for evidence-based drug treatment and harm reduction services, and it will weaken the voice of the EU in international drugs fora, where it has been a key global actor in defending the balanced, rights-based approach adopted by the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document.

In spite of the EU’s commitment to seek the ‘active and meaningful participation and involvement of civil society’ in the ‘development and implementation of drug policies’, the participation of civil society in the preparation of the 2021-25 Drugs Agenda has been deeply flawed. European NGOs were only allowed to provide input to the Agenda with the publication of the Road Map, on 10 June 2020, with no other opportunity to feed in the process, besides a call between the Commission and certain CSFD members in April. It should be borne in mind that the Road Map is a document of just over two pages that does not allow for a genuine understanding of, or feedback on, the Agenda. No draft of the Agenda was ever shared.

Furthermore, the European Commission disregarded the overwhelming majority of the 27 submissions sent by European NGOs, which urged the EU to retain the balanced and multidisciplinary approach that characterized the 2005 and 2013 EU Drugs Strategies. The fact that the deadline for submitting feedback was 15 July 2020, a mere nine days before the publication of the Communication, suggests that the consultation was not undertaken in the spirit of genuine inquiry, and that the Agenda was at least near completion when the Road Map was published.

Crucially, although the external evaluation of the 2013 EU Drugs Strategy was finalised in April 2020, the evaluation was not published or otherwise shared with civil society until three months later, on 24 July 2020, thus depriving stakeholders of crucial information when providing feedback to the Road Map. This is important, as there would appear to be a significant disconnect between the Agenda and the external evaluation. For instance, the evaluation consistently found that the 2013 Strategy had ‘sparked a considerable amount of progress’ in the cross-cutting areas of coordination, international cooperation, and monitoring, research and evaluation, which are precisely the areas now removed from the Agenda.

In addition to the grave concerns regarding the process and procedure, we felt it is important to bring your attention the key flaws in the draft Agenda:

. Although the Agenda explicitly claims to seek an ‘integrated, balanced, and multidisciplinary approach’ to drug policies, the draft is not balanced, as over half of its eight priority areas concern security and supply control interventions, with the rest distributed between prisons, prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. Public health measures aimed at reducing the harms that can be associated to drug use have been relegated from the first priority of the 2013 Drugs Strategy to the end of the new Agenda. The cross-cutting themes of coordination, international cooperation, and information and research, which have been successfully developed since 2013 to materialise the multidisciplinary and integrated approach, have been dropped. The many references to the balanced approach across the operative parts of the 2013 Strategy, for instance as the basis for increased coordination across all actors, interventions at the CND, and international cooperation, have also disappeared.

Deprioritising human rights and public health.

 Human rights have practically disappeared from the draft Agenda, which contains no reference to the relevant international or regional human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, there is no mention of the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy, a critical document developed with the leading support of Germany that lays down, for the first time, a set of clear and comprehensive international standards for articulating rights-based responses to illegal drug economies. In contrast, the 2013 EU Drugs Strategy explicitly referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights, amongst others, and human rights were mentioned several times in the section on international cooperation. Public health has been relegated from the first policy field in the 2013 Strategy to the last priority areas of the Agenda, and has been replaced by ‘drug-related security’ as the first goal of the document.

Dropping support for key international documents.

 Equally surprising is the little attention paid to the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document - only a footnote in the preambular part of the Agenda, and a mention in the Action Plan, outside its priority areas -, even though it has been consistently described by the EU as ‘the most comprehensive policy agreement of the international community and a milestone in the discussions on international drug policy’. It is also inexplicable that the Agenda would completely fail to reference the 2018 UN System Common Position on Drugs, a watershed document championed by the EU and EU Member States, as it establishes for the first time a coherent position across all UN entities on key topics like decriminalisation and harm reduction.

Reducing the space for civil society and people who use drugs.

 Whereas the 2013 EU Drugs Strategy contained a commitment to promote and encourage ‘the active and meaningful participation and involvement of civil society’, the EU Drugs Agenda only mentions ‘engagement’ with the CSFD. Involvement with civil society beyond the CSFD has been omitted, and there is no reference to engaging with people who use drugs and clients of drug services, which the 2013 Strategy did.

Weakening the external dimensions of drug policy.

 The 2021-25 Drugs Agenda risks weakening the external action of the EU in bilateral and multilateral drugs fora, as it does not set clear guidelines for EU coordinated intervention, and it does not provide strong support for the key international documents that the EU has been forcefully defending and promoting in the last years. For instance, the Agenda does not provide any concrete principle or guideline for intervening at the CND, even though it is arguably the centre of the international drug control system, and the role of the EU there is more important than ever. This contrasts greatly with the 2013 Drugs Strategy, which committed the EU to a ‘strong voice’ in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, with the aim of promoting the balanced approach. Another case in point is the only reference to alternative development in the whole Agenda, which can be found under the heading ‘dismantling drug production’, and is not deemed to warrant even one of the 24 priority areas set in the document. This is especially surprising considering that the 2018 Council Conclusions adopted exclusively on this topic committed the EU to a ‘leading role (…) in the funding and implementation of alternative development’, and stated clearly that the success of alternative development goes ‘beyond an exclusive focus on illicit drug crop monitoring’.

 In spite of the EU’s leading role in fostering scientific knowledge and research on drug markets and drug use through the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), the 2021-25 EU Drugs Agenda has dropped the cross-cutting theme on monitoring, research and evaluation, and science-based drug policies are scarcely mentioned in the operative parts of the document. Again, this makes a striking contrast with the 2013 Drugs Strategy, which featured a whole theme on research and evaluation for ‘a better understanding of all aspects of the drug phenomenon’, and provided a role for the EMCDDA in supply reduction, international cooperation, and the overall implementation of the document, among others.

 Although the 2021-25 Drugs Agenda explicitly seeks to reduce drug-related stigma, the European Commission press release accompanying the publication of the proposed Agenda was deeply stigmatising, as it puts drug policies at the same level as child abuse and firearms trafficking. Furthermore, the Agenda contains some instances of stigmatising language (‘substance abuse’ and ‘substance misuse’) that did not exist in the 2013 Drugs Strategy.

In light of the above and following established practices for the development of previous EU drugs strategies, we urge you, as the Council Presidency, to take political leadership and encourage the HDG to reject the draft proposed by the European Commission. A new process for strategy development should ensure that the new document reflects in a balanced manner the existing EU and the latest international commitments (in particular the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document), the views of the EU Member States and all the relevant actors within the EU institutions, and engages meaningfully with civil society.

We would also be grateful if you could share this letter with your HDG colleagues before the 9 September meeting.
We remain at your disposal for any further discussion on this matter, and look forward to our continued cooperation on this and other topics during the German Presidency.

Les experts en matière de politiques des drogues font part de leurs préoccupations concernant le projet d'agenda et de plan d'action contre les stupéfiants de l'UE 2021-2025 - Lettre ouverte

Lever le moratoire mis en place il y a 43 ans serait un grand pas en arrière pour le respect des droits humains. Pour en savoir plus, en anglais, veuillez lire les informations ci-dessous.

LONDON [27 JUNE 2019] – Harm Reduction International and almost 120 human rights organisations from around the world – including Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists – published open letters today calling on the United Nations’ major drug control bodies to intervene and help stop Sri Lanka’s move to resume executions after 43 years.

President Maithripala Sirisena signed the execution warrants this week for four people convicted of drug-related offences.

The letters – sent to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) – underscore that the death penalty for drug offences violates international human rights law. The signatories state that “Remaining silent as Sri Lanka puts an end to a 43-year de facto moratorium on executions would strike a blow to the INCB’s and UNODC’s commitments to human rights compliance as a core principle of international drug policy.”

Giada Girelli, human rights analyst at Harm Reduction International, said: “There is simply no evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against the drug trade. President Sirisena’s move is a gross violation of human rights – UN bodies must urge authorities in Sri Lanka to reverse this and work to consign the death penalty to the history books.”

Harm Reduction International’s latest research shows that global executions for drug offences fell by almost 90% from 2015-18, in large part because of judicial reforms in Iran. Of the 35 countries that retain the death penalty for drug offences, only four carried out executions in 2018 (China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Singapore).

Une centaine de groupes de défense des droits humains exhortent l’ONU à exiger l’annulation des exécutions pour délits de drogue au Sri Lanka

LONDRES (2 août 2016) – La société civile du monde entier, y compris d’éminentes ONG de défense des droits humains, demande aux autorités chargées du contrôle des drogues aux Nations Unies de prendre des mesures immédiates pour mettre fin aux exécutions arbitraires de personnes suspectées d’avoir commis des délits liés à la drogue aux Philippines. Depuis le 10 mai 2016, plus de 700 personnes ont été assassinées par la police et la milice aux Philippines pour leur implication supposée dans l’usage ou le trafic de drogues. Ceci, suite la campagne du Président Duterte, récemment élu à la tête du pays, pour éradiquer la criminalité dans les six prochains mois.

Jusqu’à présent cependant, l’Office des Nations Unies contre la Drogue et le Crime (ONUDC) et l’Organe International de Contrôle des Stupéfiants (OICS) – les agences des Nations Unies responsables de la lutte anti-drogue au niveau mondial – ont omis de condamner les Philippines pour ces flagrantes violations des droits humains commises au nom de la guerre contre la drogue.

Ce sont 329 organisations non-gouvernementales qui envoient aujourd’hui une lettre ouverte au directeur général de l’ONUDC, M. Yury Fedotov, et au président de l’OICS, M. Werner Sipp, afin de leur demander de prendre des mesures immédiates pour de mettre un terme à ces exécutions arbitraires.

« Nous appelons les organes des Nations Unies chargés du contrôle mondial des drogues de condamner publiquement ces atrocités aux Philippines. Ces assassinats insensés ne peuvent être justifiés par des mesures de contrôle des drogues », affirmait Ann Fordham, directrice générale du Consortium International sur les Politiques des Drogues (IDPC). « Leur silence est inacceptable alors que des personnes sont assassinées en pleine rue jour après jour », poursuit-elle.

La lettre ouverte invite l’ONUDC et l’OICS à appeler Président Duterte à :

Mettre immédiatement fin aux incitations à tuer les personnes suspectées de consommer de la drogue ou d’être impliquées dans le trafic de drogues,

Respecter les obligations internationales relatives aux droits humains, telles que les droits à la vie, à la santé, à un procès juste et équitable, établis au sein des traités relatifs aux droits de humains signés par les Philippines,

Promouvoir des services de traitement et de réduction des risques fondées sur des preuves et le volontariat pour les usagers de drogues, de manière à remplacer le traitement forcé dans des camps militaires, et enfin

Ne pas réinstaurer la peine de mort pour les délits liés à la drogue.

Pour toute question, veuillez contacter :

Gloria Lai (en Anglais, basée en Thaïlande)

Marie Nougier (en Français, basée en Angleterre)

Senior Research and Communications Officer

*******************************************

Données clés sur la crise de la politique des drogues aux Philippines:

Le Président Rodrigo Duterte a été élu président le 30 Mai 2016 et a débuté son mandat présidentiel le 30 Juin. Il a lancé une guerre contre la drogue dans le cadre de laquelle la police et les citoyens étaient encouragés à tuer usagers et trafiquants de drogues

704 personnes ont été tuées entre le 10 Mai et le 29 Juillet 2016 (ABS CBN News)

Le Secrétaire d’Affaires en Communication Martin Andanar a par ailleurs déclaré que 60 000 usagers de drogues dépendants s’étaient rendus à la police (Daily Mail).

Déclarations par des groupes internationaux travaillant sur les droits humains:

Amnesty International, 10 Mai: Philippines: Le nouveau président doit rompre le cycle de violations de droits humains, et non pas l’aggraver

Amnesty International, 30 Juin: Philippines: Le Président Duterte doit rompre le cycle de violations des droits humains

Human Rights Watch, 25 Juillet: Les messages mitigés du Président Duterte sur les droits aux Philippines

Human Rights Watch, 12 Juillet: Les autorités philippines ignorent la forte augmentation des meurtres liés à la drogue

Déclarations par des groupes locaux travaillant sur les droits humains:

Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates & Citizen’s Council for Human Rights, 14 Juillet: Arrêtez le massacre, demandent les défenseurs de droits humains à Duterte

Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates & Citizen’s Council for Human Rights, 14 Juillet: Exécutions extra-judiciaires: Normaliser la criminalité sous l’égide de la paix et de la sécurité

Déclarations par des groupes travaillant sur la politique des drogues:

Drug Policy Alliance, 25 Juillet: Lors de son discours inaugural, le président tient sa promesse de tuer en masse les usagers et dealers de drogues en appelant la population à se montrer sans pitié

Asian Network of People Who Use Drugs & International Network of People Who Use Drugs, Juillet: Philippines: Un appel pour mettre fin aux exécutions, à la pauvreté et à l’exclusion

Plus de 300 ONG appellent les Nations Unies à prendre des mesures immédiates pour mettre fin aux centaines d’exécutions arbitraires de personnes suspectées de délits de drogue aux Philippines

En perspective du sommet des Nations Unies sur la drogue, des groupes de la société civile des quatre coins du monde ont publié une déclaration condamnant les gouvernements de ne pas reconnaître les conséquences dévastatrices des politiques punitives et répressivesen matière de drogue.


Dans une déclaration commune intitulée "Ungass 2016 : entre diplomatie et déni" promue par l'IDPC (International Drug Policy Consortium), quelque 200 ONG appellent les gouvernements à tenir compte de toutes les approches possibles pour sortir des politiques répressives et punitives en matière de drogues. Elles demandent que les gouvernements s'engagent fermement en faveur des droits humains, de la paix et de la santé au moment où ceux-ci se retrouvent à Vienne pour préparer le rapport final de l'UNGASS 2016.

Elles craignent en effet que les progrès constatés dans certains pays ne soient pas reconnus, voire complètement ignorés, et que l'UNGASS n'accouche d'une coquille vide.

Le directeur exécutif de l'IDPC, Ann Fordham, avoue qu'il est encore temps de sauver le processus avant la session de New-York, mais il faut que les gouvernements soient honnêtes envers eux-mêmes sur ce qui fonctionne et sur ce qui ne fonctionne pas, partant du fait que la guerre contre la drogue s'est révélée être un cuisant échec.

Abonnez-vous à l'Alerte mensuelle de l'IDPC pour recevoir des informations relatives à la politique des drogues.

Déclaration de la société civile - Le document final de l'UNGASS: Diplomatie ou négation de la réalité?

La première salle d'injection au Danemark sanctionnée par le public a ouvert à Copenhague le 2 octobre avec 7 cabines d'injection. Deux autres salles pourraient également ouvrir leurs portes à Odense et Aarhus.Pour en savoir plus, en anglais, veuillez lire les informations ci-dessous.

The first public sanctioned safer injecting facility in Denmark opened in Copenhagen on the 2nd of October with 7 injection booths. At least one more such facility, which will have booths both for injecting and for crack and heroin smoking, is on its way, although this other facility will not be ready to open until August 2013. Two more facilities might also open in Odense and Aarhus.

A few days later this month, the opposition party in Denmark proposed establishing a crisis centre for people who use drugs and need medication and other services urgently (inspired by “Onsite” in Vancouver). The government has declared its willingness to discuss this proposal.

Finally, a week ago the Minister of Health declared that the Danish government now supports and will fund a Naloxone programme, which will be starting at the beginning of 2013.

These are highly positive developments in terms of development, political endorsement and financial support for evidence-based harm reduction services in Denmark.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

Développements dans le domaine des politiques en matière de drogues au Danemark: en route vers la réduction des risques 

Le Parlement danois a voté en faveur de la légalisation des salles de consommation. Pour en savoir plus, en anglais, veuillez lire les informations ci-dessous.

________________________________________________________________________________

The Danish parliament has voted in favour of legalising the operation of supervised consumption rooms.

A majority of Danish MPs have voted in favour of a bill that makes it legal to consume controlled drugs within supervised facilities that the law classifies as “safe drug consumption rooms”. Denmark is the first country to have passed legislation to regulate the operation of such facilities. The decision was supported by 63 MPs, with 43 voting against and one MP abstaining. These safe drug consumption rooms are not only open for drug injectors but allow other forms of use as well, such as smoking, which is less risky than injection.

According to harm reduction activists, consumption rooms have never been illegal in Denmark. “In a constitutional state, what is not specifically illegal, is simply legal,” said Nanna Gotfredsen, the head of Street Lawyers (join them on Facebook!), an NGO which has been advocating for safe consumption rooms for several years. However, the new law puts an ends to any debate as to the legality of such facilities, which will be able to operate with governmental support from 1st July, when the law comes into effect.

Watch the HCLU's 2009 movie about the Street Lawyers of Coppenhagen:

Gadejuristen (The Street Lawyers)

Région

Traductions

Contenu associé

Les experts en matière de politiques des drogues font part de leurs préoccupations concernant le projet d'agenda et de plan d'action contre les stupéfiants de l'UE 2021-2025 - Lettre ouverte

Une centaine de groupes de défense des droits humains exhortent l’ONU à exiger l’annulation des exécutions pour délits de drogue au Sri Lanka

Plus de 300 ONG appellent les Nations Unies à prendre des mesures immédiates pour mettre fin aux centaines d’exécutions arbitraires de personnes suspectées de délits de drogue aux Philippines

Déclaration de la société civile - Le document final de l'UNGASS: Diplomatie ou négation de la réalité?

Développements dans le domaine des politiques en matière de drogues au Danemark: en route vers la réduction des risques

Le Danemark légalise les salles de consommation