Open Letter to the Governments of the Region attending the OAS

Open Letter to the Governments of the Region attending the
OAS General Assembly
Antigua, Guatemala – June 2013
It is compelling to place the protection of human rights in the center of the debate
about drug policies in the Americas
The undersigned organizations welcome the opening to debate on the drug policies that
have been promoted by some Latin American States in the last few months. The General
Assembly which will take place in Antigua consists of an opportunity to discuss the
shortcomings and faults of the policies currently in force, as well as the possible adoption
of alternatives.
In recent years, the need to discuss the scope and relevance of the drug policies adopted in
each of the countries of the Americas has become prominently evident. This is due to the
fact that solid, vast and diverse empirical evidence has emerged in proving that such
policies are ineffective and result in serious negative consequences – particularly when they
are analyzed from a human rights perspective. The prohibitionist policies and the war on
drugs have intensified violent conflicts in the region, as they have created a huge illegal
market controlled by complex criminal organizations. Those conflicts are generally located
in impoverished areas, resulting in the further deterioration of living conditions and the
stigmatization of its inhabitants.
In our capacity as organizations working for the promotion of effective human rights
protection, we want to emphasize that the review of drug policies is required in the region
for both empirical and normative reasons.
From an empirical point of view, evidence-based research increasingly reveals that the
existing drug policies have been impacting negatively on the human rights situation of the
region. On the one hand, the repressive policies tend to directly violate the human rights of
thousands of persons, especially of those who are under trial – in processes often
characterized by the non-compliance with basic guarantees -, and of those who are
incarcerated – as they often face inhuman conditions in jail, such as those associated with
overcrowding. Moreover, those policies tend to generate disproportionate impacts on
certain groups, which are especially vulnerable, hence reproducing discrimination patterns
and violating human rights.
On the other hand, the prohibitionist policies have also contributed to the formation of
armed groups engaged in criminal activities, particularly drug trafficking. The high levels
of violence generated in this context affect the human rights of individuals in the Americas.
Given that violence consists in the primary form of regulation of illegal markets, the
trafficking of illegal substances comes necessarily accompanied by arms traffic, fights for
territories, corruption and the undermining of democratic institutions, especially the police,
the judiciary and government institutions. The review of the ‘war on drugs’ paradigm
must be seen as part of a broader initiative to reduce violence.
From a normative point of view, it is also clear nowadays that international human rights
obligations should prevail over those adopted in relation to the control and prohibition of
psychoactive substances. This is due to the highest hierarchy of the international human
rights commitments, since States’ duty to respect human rights emanates from the United
Nations Charter, which is a treaty that prevails over any other convention. Moreover, the
principle of the duty of States to respect human rights has been considered by many jurists
as Ius Cogens, an imperative norm of international law, which does not admit any
convention in contrary. The international law on drugs should be, therefore, understood,
interpreted and, if necessary, adjusted in accordance with international human rights
obligations. The guiding principle of drug policies should always be centered in the
individual and the overall protection of his rights.
This prohibitionist model has broadened social and economic inequalities, as well as
deepened political cleavages and international asymmetries. Effective and specific practices
of States have demonstrated that the international regime on drugs has not changed in the
course of this century since its initial configuration. In the most part, this rigid regime faces
a critical juncture, as its credibility and legitimacy have both seriously eroded.
Considering all of the expressed above, we call on the Governments of the Americas to
strengthen their commitments on human rights in regards to drug policies and, accordingly,
to discuss and rethink the existing initiatives with a view to place human rights in the center
of the debate.
Signatories:
1. A.C. y Cultura Joven A.C., Mexico
2. Acción Técnica Social (ATS), Colombia
3. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), United States
4. Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva (ABRASCO), Brazil
5. Associação Brasileira de Saúde Mental (ABRASME), Brazil
6. Asociación Civil por el Derecho a la Salud, Argentina
7. Associação pela Reforma Prisional (ARP), Brazil
8. Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), Peru
9. Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) – Canada
10. Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, Canada
11. Centro de Análisis Forense y Ciencias Aplicadas (CAFCA), Guatemala
12. Centro Brasileiro de Estudos de Saúde (CEBES), Brazil
13. Centro Cáritas de formación para la atención de las farmacodependencias y situaciones
críticas asociadas
14. Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez (Centro Prodh), Mexico.
15. Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña “Tlachinollan”, Mexico
16. Centro de Direitos Econômicos e Sociais (CDES), Brazil
17. Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Argentina
18. Centro de Estudos de Segurança e Cidadania da Universidade Cândido Mendes, Brazil
19. Centro de Investigación Drogas y Derechos Humanos (CIDDH), Peru
20. Colectivo por una Política Integral de Drogas (CUPIHD), Mexico
21. Comisión Colombiana de Juristas, Colombia
22. Comité de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos (COFADEH), Honduras
23. Conectas Direitos Humanos, Brazil
24. Consorcio Internacional sobre Políticas de drogas (IDPC)
25. Coordinadora de Derechos Humanos del Paraguay (CODEHUPY), Paraguay
26. Coordinación Nacional de Organizaciones de Mujeres Trabajadoras Rurales e Indígenas
(CONAMURI), Paraguay
27. Corporación Humanas, Colombia
28. Corporación Humanas, Chile
29. Dejusticia – Centro de Estudios de Derecho, Justicia y Sociedad, Colombia
30. Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), United States
31. Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF)
32. Espolea Asociación Civil, Mexico
33. Fundación Myrna Mack, Guatemala
34. Fundar, Mexico
35. Gabinete de Assessoria Jurídica às Organizações Populares (GAJOP), Brazil
36. Harm Reduction Coalition (HRC), United States
37. Intercambios Asociación Civil, Argentina
38. Instituto de Defesa do Direito de Defesa (IDDD), Brazil
39. Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL), Peru
40. Instituto de Estudios Legales y Sociales del Uruguay (IELSUR), Uruguay
41. Justiça Global, Brazil
42. México Unido contra la Delincuencia (MUCD), Mexico
43. Movimiento de Mujeres por la Paz Visitación Padilla, Honduras
44. Movimento Nacional da Luta Antimanicomial (MNLA), Brazil
45. Observatorio de Derechos Humanos de Pueblos Indígenas, Argentina
46. Observatorio de Derechos Humanos de Rio Negro, Argentina
47. Oficina de Washington para Latinoamérica (WOLA), United States
48. Plataforma Dhesca Brasil, Brazil
49. Psicotropicus, Brazil
50. Puente, Investigación y Enlace (PIE), Bolivia
51. Red Andina de Información
52. Red Chilena de Reducción de Daños, Chile.
53. Tierraviva, Paraguay
54. Transnational Institute (TNI)