A little over 20 years ago, when he was still a teenager, Lin Guangpeng tried heroin that his friends had brought to a party near his home in the south-western province of Yunnan. Soon addicted, Mr Lin—not his real name—spent many of the subsequent years behind bars, including several long stretches in detention centres for drug users. He says wardens in these “compulsory isolation detoxification” facilities put him to work in prison factories. Such places are meant to heal your body, he says (inmates are pictured exercising). But they “damage your soul”.

China is tough on drugs. Many traffickers are among the thousands of people executed annually. Sometimes they are paraded beforehand at public sentencing rallies. Attendees at these grim spectacles include busloads of schoolchildren. Drug users may be punished on the spot by police. Many are locked up in centres like the ones where Mr Lin was sent, often for stretches of two to three years without trial. In 2017 about 320,000 people spent time in such camps, says China’s anti-narcotics agency. That is about 36,000 fewer than in 2016 but about 120,000 more than in 2012.

China’s strong-arm approach to drug addiction does not work

By World Coalition against the Death Penalty

We, The participants of the 7th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, organized in Brussels from February 26 to March 1st, 2019, by the organization Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort (ECPM) under the sponsorship of Belgium, the European Union, European Parliament, Swiss Confederation and Norway, in partnership with the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, hereby: adopt the present declaration following four days of intense debates, exchanges of experiences, testimonies, cultural events;

We welcome the abolitionist movement's expansion in a world where more than 2/3 of countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice and where 121 countries, the highest number ever, voted in favor of the UNGA moratorium resolution in December 2018; the abolition of the death penalty in 3 countries since the Oslo World Congress in 2016: abolition for ordinary crimes in Burkina Faso and Guatemala and abolition for all crimes in Guinea, as well as the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in the USA, that found the death penalty unconstitutional; the revision of catechism of the Catholic Church stating that the death penalty is ‘inadmissible’; the commitments taken during the opening ceremony of the 7th Congress by the Gambia to abolish the death penalty in its constitution, by the Republic of the Congo and Guinea to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and to support the draft Additional Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights for abolition, by Burkina Faso to extend the abolition of the death penalty from ordinary crimes to all crimes, and by Morocco to reform the penal code to reduce the number of crimes punishable by death;

However, we are concerned that the retention of the death penalty is used as a pretext by some governments such as Egypt, where 9 people were executed on 20 February, to counter-terrorism and mute dissenting voices; that 56 countries and territories are retentionists, such as China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the USA and that in many cases the death penalty is applied arbitrarily; that retentionist countries continue to sentence to death and execute juveniles, such as Iran, and people with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, including Japan and Taiwan; that it is applied in a way that disproportionately impacts people from ethnic, racial, or religious minorities or from disadvantaged socio-economic background, or on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender-based discrimination; that conditions on death row violate human dignity and are a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Final declaration of the 7th World congress against the death penalty

Although Roma people now compose the majority of the clients of many harm reduction services in many countries from the Baltic to the Balkans, racial justice as an issue is very rarely addressed by the harm reduction community in the region.

“What can parents do if their kid is drug dependent?” This question has been asked of me on various occasions. By reporters on the radio, by politicians at parliamentary committee meetings, and by teachers in schools. I have never felt so incapable and helpless to answer this question as when Roma parents asked me in one of the so called segregated settlements (some call them gypsy ghettos) in rural eastern Hungary. We were sitting in a crowded room full of men and women who previously told us that almost half of the teens in their community use synthetic cannabinoid products, dubbed “spice” in Western Europe and sold as “herbal” or “bio” on the Hungarian black market.

These names are misleading: they contain synthetic substances produced in labs in China and India and imported to Europe in powder form through the global online drug market. This powder is dissolved in acidic liquids and then sprayed onto herbs or tobacco. Unlike the natural plant, synthetic cannabinoids have more intense effects on the user and dependence develops easier and faster even among middle class kids – not to mention marginalised young people.

The colour of drug use in central eastern Europe

Human rights defenders from Colombia and Europe formally asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the ongoing killing of social leaders in the South American country on Friday.

Social leaders, accompanied by opposition politicians, delivered the report to the ICC in The Hague, the Netherlands, in which they formally asked the court to open investigations into the systematic murders and who is behind them.

Local police said some 500 people from across Europe showed up at the ICC headquarters.

According to the organizations, Colombia’s failure to adequately investigate and try those behind the assassinations allows for international intervention.

The Colombian state is not itself competent to investigate the killings themselves, due to conflicts of interests, illegal elements active within state institutions, and a “clear lack of political will,” according to the report handed to the ICC.

ICC asked to formally investigate mass killings of social leaders in Colombia

The Delegation of the European Union (EU) issues the following statement in agreement with the Embassies of France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania and the UK High Commission, the Embassies of Norway and Switzerland, as well as the High Commissions of Canada and Australia.

The Government of Sri Lanka has recently taken measures towards resuming executions and bringing an end to Sri Lanka's 43-year moratorium on the death penalty as part of its stepped up anti-drug policy. While acknowledging that combatting the proliferation of drugs is a serious challenge for countries around the world, and that action to counter the illicit drug trade is important and necessary, the evidence does not support the argument that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. We are ready to share our experiences in addressing the threat posed by drugs.

More than two-thirds of countries around the world, with a variety of legal systems, traditions, cultures and religious backgrounds, have either abolished the death penalty or do not practise it. The death penalty is an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity.

We call on the Sri Lankan Government to maintain its moratorium on the death penalty in line with its vote at the 73rd United Nations General Assembly in December 2018.

European Union joint statement on the death penalty in Sri Lanka

Ottawa estimates roughly 10,000 Canadians will apply to get free pardons for their cannabis-possession convictions if the government passes a bill that gives redress to those left with criminal records from the decades of prohibition of the drug.

Scott Bardsley, spokesman for the Public Safety Minister, said his department has extrapolated statistics from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), which handles drug-crime cases, and found upward of 250,000 convictions over the years for people caught having less than 30 grams of cannabis. But people in only about 4 per cent of those cases are expected to apply for the expedited pardons proposed under Bill C-93, which was tabled in the House of Commons two weeks ago.

Mr. Bardsley said most aren’t expected to apply for reasons that include: They have died, they have already received a pardon or they have other criminal charges on their record.

 New cannabis-amnesty bill could pardon 10,000 people, Ottawa says

A Police Statement of Support for Drug Policy Reform, launched at the UN in Vienna last week, said policy should aim to reduce risk and provide more humane responses.

The statement, initiated by Neil Woods, a former police officer who is now chair of LEAP UK (Law Enforcement Action Partnership), highlights the harm caused by drugs and calls for an end to the war on drugs. In its place, the statement argues that policy should concentrate on reducing risks, providing more humane responses, and lead to better health outcomes for the whole community.

The statement said that many “would argue further that not only have we consistently failed to achieve any significant beneficial outcomes from these policies, but that this approach has in fact been counter-productive”.

It said that police have been at the frontline of the “war on drugs” and that many have been weary of the poor health outcomes for all involved.

Additionally, many police are concerned about being automatically placed against everyday citizens while the system creates opportunities for corruption, generates profit for criminal and leads to violence.

While undermining human rights, the current model has failed to diminish the supply ad availability of drugs.

International call by police officers to reform drug policies

Last week, the Home Office and Public Health England published the results of a new inquiry into the increase in crack cocaine use in England. It makes for difficult reading for anyone who thinks current drug policies are effective.

The report confirms what the United Nations says in its most recent status reports: that the global production of both cocaine and heroin has grown dramatically in recent years. This has a number of knock-on effects. It increases the supply, thereby incentivising dealers to expand their markets; it also leads to increased purity – the purity of crack in the UK, for instance, doubled from 2013-16. This means that dealers now compete on price, and that more dangerous products are more attractive to users.

We are now seeing crack suppliers engaging in the kind of two-for-one and happy hour promotions that many of us will recognise from the alcohol market. Competition is leading to demand stimulation that is both sophisticated and ruthless. In targeting people already using heroin, suppliers are creating new levels of demand for crack – which users report has shifted from an occasional ‘treat’ to the norm. All of this demand is serviced through efficient supply networks with little disruption from the police. One respondent describes it as being easier, and quicker, to buy crack than ordering a pizza – something that the Global Drug Survey has also observed.

Crack cocaine and the case for regulation

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSIONS: Friday 26 April 2019

Eligible Countries: Myanmar, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos

Release, the UK’s centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law, is proud to invite applications to the 2019 South East Asian Fellowship Program on Drug Policy. Fellows will be hosted at Release in London, UK. This program supports those working in sectors related to drug policy in order to increase their understanding of international drug policy reform issues, to improve their advocacy skills, and to enhance their capacity in working with the media on drug policy. The fellowship seeks to increase the capacity of emerging and new leaders in drug policy in the Asian region, including people not necessarily working full-time on drug-related issues.

The objectives of the fellowship are for the participants to:

increase their knowledge of global drug policy issues on a region by region approach;

increase their understanding of the international drug control system and conflicts with other United Nations priorities;

have a greater awareness of the drug policy reform landscape and key figures within that movement;

establish links with those working in drug policy, particularly in the UK;

build and develop their communications skills, including for media interviews, press releases, press databases, public speaking;

have an understanding of the tools for debate, so that they can confidently challenge anti-reform positions;

improve their confidence as drug policy advocates both through participation in the program and through ongoing support from the host organization.

This two-week program will be based with the drug policy organization Release in London, United Kingdom. Release is the UK’s centre of expertise on drugs and drugs law – providing free and confidential specialist advice to the public and professionals. Release also aims to raise awareness of how UK and international drug policy affects those who use drugs in our society. Release has had significant success in both service delivery and campaign work. In particular, the organization has been very effective in engaging traditional and social media as a forum to promote drug policy reform within the UK and further afield.

The program includes the following topics:

Overarching issues relevant to drug policy

Overview of international human rights in the context of drug policy

There will also be an opportunity to meet key drug policy organizations, experts and leading policy advocates based in the UK.

Successful candidates will have a track-record of public engagement in human rights, law, or relevant government experience. Ideally their work should intersect with the issue of drug policy and/or human rights. Priority will be given to these applicants. However, we also welcome applications from those working in drug policy reform or another relevant field (e.g., public health) at the local, national or international levels.

Previous fellows have worked in drug policy NGOs, at law enforcement agencies, in national governments, in health care facilities, and at universities, among other organizations. Please note that before receiving the fellowship, finalists will be asked to present a letter from their employer agreeing to their two-week participation in the course.

Applicants must have a strong command of the English language to participate in the course.

We are particularly interested in applicants from Myanmar, the Philippines, and Malaysia. Prospective candidates from Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos are also encouraged to apply.

: the purpose of this program is to promote the capacities of both new advocates and individuals who are emerging leaders in drug policy reform.

To be considered for the program, applicants should submit the following documents in English as .doc or .pdf attachments, together to one email by 

Application – Please complete the application form below. Note that the applicant is asked to address all prompts, including providing short-answer responses to four questions.

Curriculum Vitae (CV) – The CV should specify the applicant’s academic and professional background, including a detailed description of previous employment, a list of academic and policy projects in which the applicant has been involved, public engagement record, and honours (including scholarships and fellowships). The CV should not exceed four pages.

Writing sample (optional) – The sample must be in English and should demonstrate the candidate’s expertise in a field related to drug policy. The writing sample should not exceed two pages.

South East Asian Fellowship Program on Drug Policy 2019

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.

Drug courts pose dangers of punitive approaches encroaching on medical and health care matters, UN Experts say

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

States should stop arbitrary detentions for drug offences, say UN rights experts

Drug control efforts across the world are a threat to human dignity and the right to life.

In 2017, more than 70,000 people died from a drug overdose in the US. Among the reasons for these deaths are the lack of access to health and harm-reduction services, as well as the fear of legal repression, which often dissuades people who use drugs from asking for help.

More than two-thirds of these deaths were linked to opioids. At the same time, millions of people across Africa have been unable to access opioids for pain relief because of decades of fear of these drugs being diverted to the illegal, recreational market, forcing people there to endure – and often die in – serious pain.

In the Philippines, thousands of people have been killed extrajudicially in a brutal anti-drug campaign that began in 2016. And in Colombia, two years after a historic peace agreement, and the promise of better livelihoods, rural communities are braced for a return to crop eradication by aerial spraying with the chemical glyphosate.

These stories reflect just some of the harmful consequences of drug control. But why are these violations still taking place? In several declarations and documents, governments have committed to “respecting, protecting and promoting all human rights, fundamental freedoms and the inherent dignity of all individuals” in the development and implementation of drug policies. What is happening in Colombia, in Africa, in the Philippines and in the US tells us that something is very wrong with this global commitment.

News