The Nikitin Case: Rule of Law?

Condette Jean-François. 252) MALPEL François Frédéric. In: , . Les recteurs d'académie en France de 1808 à 1940. Tome II, Dictionnaire biographique. Paris : Institut national de recherche pédagogique, 2006. p. 271. (Histoire biographique de l'enseignement, 12

The Impact of International Drug Policy on Access to Controlled Medicines: Russian

As member states of the United Nations take stock of the drug control system, a number of debates have emerged among governments about how to balance international drug laws with human rights, public health, alternatives to incarceration, and experimentation with regulation. This series intends to provide a primer on why governments must not turn a blind eye to pressing human rights and public health impacts of current drug policies.Every year, tens of millions of people suffer disease and pain because they lack access to controlled medicines—that is, medicines of which the distribution and use is regulated under the international drug conventions or national drug-control law. The availability of controlled medicines is limited by the persistence of myths, restrictive regulations, insufficient investment in the training of health professionals—resulting in weak understanding of pain relief and drug dependence—and related failure of supply and distribution systems.Governments and civil society should use the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs in April 2016 to highlight the negative impact of overregulation, and misunderstanding of drug dependence on access to controlled medicines, and should seek commitment to concrete action to address imbalance in the system. This report outlines the significant impact the international drug conventions have on access to controlled medicines, and sets out some recommendations for a meaningful debate at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) and beyond

The Impact of International Drug Policy on Access to Controlled Medicines: Spanish

As member states of the United Nations take stock of the drug control system, a number of debates have emerged among governments about how to balance international drug laws with human rights, public health, alternatives to incarceration, and experimentation with regulation. This series intends to provide a primer on why governments must not turn a blind eye to pressing human rights and public health impacts of current drug policies.Every year, tens of millions of people suffer disease and pain because they lack access to controlled medicines—that is, medicines of which the distribution and use is regulated under the international drug conventions or national drug-control law. The availability of controlled medicines is limited by the persistence of myths, restrictive regulations, insufficient investment in the training of health professionals—resulting in weak understanding of pain relief and drug dependence—and related failure of supply and distribution systems.Governments and civil society should use the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs in April 2016 to highlight the negative impact of overregulation, and misunderstanding of drug dependence on access to controlled medicines, and should seek commitment to concrete action to address imbalance in the system. This report outlines the significant impact the international drug conventions have on access to controlled medicines, and sets out some recommendations for a meaningful debate at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) and beyond

Twenty Mechanisms for Addressing Torture in Health Care

Health care settings should be places where human rights are realized. Yet, across the world, health systems often serve as venues of punishment, coercion, and violations of basic human rights, sometimes amounting to torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. This abuse is especially prevalent in the care of socially marginalized groups—people living with HIV, ethnic minorities, sexual and gender minorities, people who use drugs, and people with intellectual disabilities or mental health problems.There are many national, regional, and international mechanisms designed to promote government accountability and prevent torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, yet these mechanisms are rarely applied to health facilities. This manual describes 20 anti-torture mechanisms from the United Nations and African, European, and Inter-American human rights systems and provides illustrative examples on how to use these mechanisms to fight torture in health settings. For each mechanism, the manual explores mandate, procedure, possibilities for engagement, and prior work on torture in health care. The manual also includes a glossary of basic human rights terms.This manual is designed as a resource for organizations that advocate against abuse in health care—including international, regional, and national human rights organizations; groups focused on particular health care abuses; anti-torture groups; and the treaty bodies themselves

Access to pain treatment as a human right

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Almost five decades ago, governments around the world adopted the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs which, in addition to addressing the control of illicit narcotics, obligated countries to work towards universal access to the narcotic drugs necessary to alleviate pain and suffering. Yet, despite the existence of inexpensive and effective pain relief medicines, tens of millions of people around the world continue to suffer from moderate to severe pain each year without treatment.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Significant barriers to effective pain treatment include: the failure of many governments to put in place functioning drug supply systems; the failure to enact policies on pain treatment and palliative care; poor training of healthcare workers; the existence of unnecessarily restrictive drug control regulations and practices; fear among healthcare workers of legal sanctions for legitimate medical practice; and the inflated cost of pain treatment. These barriers can be understood not only as a failure to provide essential medicines and relieve suffering but also as human rights abuses.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>According to international human rights law, countries have to provide pain treatment medications as part of their core obligations under the right to health; failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that people who suffer pain have access to adequate pain treatment may result in the violation of the obligation to protect against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.</p

Incorporating Child Rights into Scheduling Decisions at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs

This paper focuses on the child rights implications of bringing new substances into the global drug control regime. Focusing on the examples of ketamine and khat, which in turn highlight the issues of access to medicines (SDG 3) and child labour (SDG 8), it outlines the process for placing substances under international control and the child rights implications of such decisions. To date, however, child rights law has not been featured in this procedure. While child rights law may not be determinative in terms of outcome, the chapter focuses on an important process in global drug policy governance. If decisions to place substances under international control within the drug control architecture of the United Nations engage the obligations of child rights treaties, then there is a strong case for formally taking the obligations arising under those treaties into account.Cet article s’intéresse aux conséquences, pour les droits de l’enfant, de l’introduction de nouvelles substances dans le régime mondial de contrôle des drogues. À partir des exemples de la kétamine et du khat qui soulèvent aussi les questions de l’accès aux médicaments (ODD 3) et du travail des enfants (ODD8), l’auteur analyse le processus de l’inclusion de substances nouvelles dans la liste de celles qui doivent être sous contrôle international, et les conséquences en termes de droits des enfants de ce type de décisions. À ce jour, la législation sur les droits de l’enfant n’a pas été prise en compte dans cette procédure et bien qu’elle ne présente pas de résultats déterminants, ce texte aborde un processus important de la gouvernance de la politique mondiale en matière de drogues. En effet, si les décisions d’inclure des substances dans le cadre de l’architecture de contrôle des drogues des Nations Unies entrainent des obligations au titre des traités sur les droits de l’enfant, il y a alors de fortes raisons de prendre officiellement en compte les obligations découlant de ces traités.Este artículo se centra en las implicaciones que tiene para los derechos de la infancia la incorporación de nuevas sustancias al sistema internacional de fiscalización de estupefacientes. Enfocándose en los ejemplos de la ketamina y el khat –lo que a su vez pone de relieve los temas del acceso a los medicamentos (ODS 3) y el trabajo infantil (ODS 8)–, este análisis esboza el procedimiento para someter las substancias a control internacional y las repercusiones de estas decisiones en los derechos de la infancia. Hasta la fecha, no obstante, ese procedimiento no contempla la legislación sobre los derechos de la infancia. Aunque dicha legislación puede no desempeñar un papel determinante en términos de resultados, este capítulo se concentra en lo que considera un procedimiento importante de la gobernanza en el ámbito de las políticas internacionales sobre drogas. Si las decisiones en cuanto a someter substancias al control internacional dentro de la estructura de fiscalización de las drogas de la ONU comprometen las obligaciones que emanan de los tratados de derechos de la infancia, entonces existe un argumento de peso para tomar en cuenta formalmente tales obligaciones

El acceso al tratamiento del dolor como derecho humano

Antecedentes: Casi diez años atrás, en 1961 varios países del mundo adoptaron la Convención Única sobre Estupefacientes, que además de referirse al tema del control de drogas ilícitas, exigía a los países trabajar en contribución del acceso universal de drogas ilícitas necesarias para aliviar el dolor y el sufrimiento. Sin embargo, a pesar de la existencia de medicamentos eficaces y de bajo costo para el alivio del dolor, millones de personas en todo el mundo siguen padeciendo, cada año, dolores moderados e intensos que no son tratados. Discusión: Algunos de los obstáculos importantes que impiden desarrollar un tratamiento eficaz del dolor son: el fracaso de muchos gobiernos para poner en marcha sistemas efectivos de suministro de medicamentos, el hecho de no promulgar políticas sobre el tratamiento del dolor y el cuidado paliativo, la deficiente formación de los profesionales de la salud, la existencia innecesaria de prácticas y regulaciones restrictivas de control de drogas, el miedo existente entre los profesionales de la salud sobre las sanciones legales existentes para la práctica médica legítima y el alto costo que tiene el tratamiento para el alivio del dolor. Estos obstáculos se pueden interpretar no sólo como un fracaso para proporcionar medicamentos esenciales y aliviar el sufrimiento, sino también como violaciones a los derechos humanos. Síntesis: Según las leyes de derechos humanos, los países tienen como obligación proporcionar medicinas para el alivio del dolor como parte de las obligaciones ligadas al derecho a la salud; el no tomar las medidas necesarias para asegurarle a las personas el acceso a tratamientos adecuados del alivio del dolor, puede tener como consecuencia la violación de la obligación con la que deben cumplir todos los estados de proteger a los individuos de todo trato cruel, inhumano y degradante

Palliative care as a human right

With the enormous disparities in the provision of palliative care globally and the significant benefits that flow from its provision, the palliative care community began articulating a profound but challenging idea—that palliative care should be seen as a human right. There have been many such statements, from both the perspective of pain management and palliative care. This chapter explores how this proposition can be justified, what this proposition means in reality, and how using these concepts can be tools of advocacy and change.</p